50 Years Ago: The Common Market (2013)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

Well, it didn’t come off.

Mr. Heath and his men came back defeated from Brussels and presented the British public with another bogy man who was yesterday’s friend. President De Gaulle is now the evil man of British capitalism.

The Beaverbrook press took a somewhat different view, implying hopefully that the British government had seen the light from the Express building and had themselves broken off the negotiations.

“And Now—Forward,” screamed the Express headlines. Forward, we may ask, to what? Whatever the Express, or the Government, or anyone else, has to offer can only be another of capitalism’s gambles.

When the British government decided, several years ago, against joining the European Common Market, they were gambling. When they decided that that gamble had failed they put their money on another—on the application to join Europe. They made it quite clear that that was a gamble, that they were not sure whether membership of the EEC would benefit them or not.

So it is with all capitalism’s attempts to defeat its own problems.

President de Gaulle is gambling, now that Europe can unite as an independent capitalist power dominated by a Franco-German axis. But there have been plenty of other such gambles and plenty of other such pacts and many of them have failed even by capitalism’s standards. There is no reason to assume that France and Germany, whatever their pact says, will not end up fighting one another again.

Capitalism, in fact, is one big gamble. Since its fortunes hang on the tail of its unpredictable market, it can never be sure of what to do to secure its own interests.

The great tragedy is that the gambles are always paid off in working class lives and security.

(From ‘The News in Review’, Socialist Standard, March 1963)

Editorial: The Power to Say No (2013)

Editorial from the March 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

There has been more ministerial sneering recently from Iain Duncan Smith after his department’s Workfare regime of unpaid work placements for benefit claimants, ‘slave labour’ to some, was declared illegal by a High Court ruling.  The ruling was made on narrowly technical grounds and not, as some had hoped, under the anti-slavery laws.  This came as a disappointment to campaigners, but as a judgement by the capitalist state on a capitalist system of government, it should surprise no one.  But what of slavery within capitalism itself?

Capitalism’s system of exploitation is dependent on the existence of a large pool of free labour which can be taken up or discarded by employers at will as individual businesses and the economy expand and contract.   This meant that before capitalism could flourish in Britain, the old medieval system that tied serfs to a particular place and a particular overlord, had to be broken up.  In the southern states of America, chattel slavery was another system that tied labourers to a master.  It was inevitable then that the dynamic new capitalist economy in the north and the older slave economy in the south would sooner or later come into conflict.  That conflict was eventually resolved on the bloody battlefields of the American civil war, and led to the triumph of Northern capitalism. The resulting freedom that workers acquired in both countries to sell their labour to whoever would buy it would seem, on the face of it, to be the very antithesis of slavery. 

But slavery, in its broadest economic sense, takes many forms.  Best known, perhaps, are the chattel slavery of Greece and Rome and the serfdom of medieval Europe.   But child soldiers, those forced into marriages, bartered wives, coerced prostitutes and indentured servants are all slaves.  Slavery flourished in the twentieth century in the Soviet Gulags and in German and Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. In southern Asia, today, many are forced by economic circumstances to sell themselves to creditors.  Debt bondage is prevalent in this region, particularly in rural India where a family can find itself enslaved for generations in payment of an unpayable debt.   The forced labour regimes and the sale of  ‘orphaned’ children to employers by British workhouses in the nineteenth century were both direct form of slavery. 

In theory, slavery was abolished worldwide by article four of the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights.  Yet one form of slavery remains today which is not only legal, but universal in the capitalist world: wage slavery.   Those free wage workers on which capitalism depends are free only to the extent that they have a choice, a limited choice, over which employer buys their labour.  And like the ancient Athenian or modern Indian slave who has sold himself into bondage under contract because it was the only way he could survive within a private property economy, the wage worker is forced to sell his labour by contract to an employer.  And while the wage worker’s employer only owns his labour and not his body and mind, that body and mind must nevertheless go wherever his labour goes, which is where his employer directs it.

Islington By-Election: Vote for yourself for a change? (2013)

Party News from the March 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

• Why, when the resources exist to provide a decent standard of living for everyone, are we going through “austerity”?
• It’s because the present system is not geared to meeting our needs but to making profits for businesses and the rich people who own and control them. At the moment this capitalist system is in an economic crisis where profits have fallen The only way out for the system is to restore profits at our expense.
• That’s why what our wages can buy has shrunk. It’s why benefits are being slashed. And it’s why Islington council has been cutting local services.
• It’s not just Islington. It’s councils everywhere, whichever party is in control. Councils get most of their money from the government, but market forces have obliged the government to reduce this. National and local politicians are just running the system in the only way it can be – as a profit system where priority has to be given to profit-making over meeting our needs.
•  It’s the system that’s to blame, not those elected to run it. That’s why changing the politicians in charge makes no difference. As the saying goes, “changing governments changes nothing”. It will be like this as long as the profit system lasts. So there is no point in voting for parties that accept this system.
• The alternative is to change to a new system based on satisfying our needs, where the places where wealth is produced will no longer be owned by profit-seeking businesses but will be owned and democratically controlled by us all. That’s what the Socialist Party stands for. We are contesting this  by-election to raise this issue, and to give those of you who agree a chance to be counted.
• You can do this by voting for the Socialist candidate, BILL MARTIN. And then get in touch to help bring an end to the system that can never be made to work in your interest.

Write to: The Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High Street, SW4 7UN.

Tel: 0207 622 3811 Email: spgb@worldsocialism.org

Election Blog: http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk

Islington By-Election, Junction Ward, 21 March 2013

Part 1: The Road to Smethwick Pier (1969)

From the May 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

A few days after resigning from her job as community relations officer for Oxford, Ann Dummett wrote in the Sunday Times:

  A few years ago the struggle was against hypocrisy and apathy. Now it is with open and unashamed racialism.

Anyone who observes the political scene in Britain knows that this bitter indictment is only too true, and that racialism has been growing, in the open and with official encouragement, for longer than a few years.

To take just two examples of this. Not so long ago— during the 50s, in fact—there were no official figures distinguishing 'coloured' immigrants into this country from the ‘white’ ones. Unless they came from outside the Commonwealth, immigrants were entitled to free entry and did not have to register, as aliens had to. Thus the numbers of Indians, Pakistanis, and West Indians could only be estimated. Now all that has changed. Taking away the legal rights of entry has made it possible to treat 'coloured’ immigrants as a separate group so now there are all sorts of figures on them; for example Norman Pannell, the ex- Tory MP, in his contribution to the book Immigration: What is the Answer, was able to draw on statistics about the levels of crime, disease, and overcrowding among the coloured immigrants.

Secondly, racialism has become a political issue extending far beyond the fringe organisations like Union Movement and National Front. Now, both Labour and Conservative Parties are in broad agreement on racialist policy and are engaged in an auction for the racialist vote among the working class. Before the 1964 election, neither party mentioned racialism in its manifesto, except to condemn it in other countries. But this is what they have had to say since then:

 A Conservative Government will continue to control immigration from overseas . . . (Conservatives, 1964.)
 Labour accepts that the number of immigrants entering the United Kingdom must be limited. (Labour 1964.)
  . . . fair treatment for immigrants combined with stricter control of entry (Conservatives 1966.)
  In the held of immigration we shall continue realistic controls . . . (Labour 1966.) 

This march towards racialism has been helped by periodical eruptions of emotion and prejudice calculatedly incited by speeches from politicians who have made their name in the field; men like Cyril Osborne, Duncan Sandys, Enoch Powell. But the more significant development is the open, official approval of racialism. It was not always so. During the war, the British propaganda machine was compelled to expose the Nazis’ racial theories, which meant that there were official films, leaflets, and the like which scientifically disposed of the racist’s myths. And of course the popular press lost no chance of reminding their readers of the victories of Jesse Owens in the 1936 Olympics at Berlin and of Joe Louis battering the German Max Schmeling to defeat in the first round.

This sort of propaganda probably nurtured the British workers’ complacent assumption that, even in the act of discriminating against, and patronising, foreigners, they were really being tolerant. (And what assumed superiority there is in that very word tolerant.) Perhaps the Liverpool taxi driver quoted by Michael Banton in his essay in Colour in Britain is as near typical as anyone could be:

  I'm not against them in any way . . . I’ve met some very nice coloured people, but with respect to intermarriage, I think I’d draw the line there. Whites can marry whites and coloured can marry coloured as far as I’m concerned . . .

It was precisely this sort of ’tolerance’ which, when the Commonwealth immigrants began to come in in increasing numbers during the late 50s and early 60s, turned sour. In December 1958 there were an estimated 210,000 coloured immigrants from the Commonwealth in Britain; by the end of 1963 this figure was up to about 750,000. Many of these concentrated at first in the areas like Moss Side in Manchester and Brixton in London where many coloured people were already living. But soon they began to settle in other places like Southall and Smethwick. Here, the chronic problems and shortcomings typical of capitalism—bad housing, inadequate hospitals, precarious social services —were bound to be aggravated by any large-scale immigration, no matter where the newcomers came from. Tolerance’ was seen to be under irresistible pressure.

It seemed that some sort of colour-bar legislation was inevitable. The campaign for this is usually associated with the Tory MP for Louth, Cyril Osborne, who did keep up a running barrage on the subject and who, after the success of his campaign, was knighted. But the first demand in parliament for restrictions came from a Labour MP— John Hynd, who had been a Minister in the Attlee government—in 1954.

The 1958 riots in Notting Hill and Nottingham seemed to react in the immigrants' favour but this was only a temporary diversion of the main stream. In 1959 the Brixton Tories published a leaflet which advocated discouragement “by every possible means” of West Indian immigration and attempted to link coloured people with crime and overcrowding. In June 1961 a Gallup poll estimated that six per cent of people were in favour of a complete ban on further entry and another 67 per cent of restricting entry.

In this situation a capitalist party, if it is to keep a grip on its votes, must act—or perhaps react is a better word. In November 1961 the Conservative government introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill which, because of fierce opposition from the Labour Party in the House, did not come into force until June 1962. Although Tories like Osborne and Pannell welcomed the Bill there were others who were uneasy; Iain Macleod, for example, said that any such measure would be "extremely distasteful".

Compared to some of the measures since taken by the Labour government, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1962) was a mild and liberal affair. It imposed a system of work vouchers but left the numbers to be issued at the discretion of the government. Wives and children—and fianceés and fiancés—were freely admitted. The Act did not apply to the holders of British passports, nor to the Irish Republic—in other words it covered only coloured immigrants.

The Labour Party, led by Hugh Gaitskell, sailed into action against the Bill. They were not, be it noted, unanimous. Marcus Lipton, the Labour MP for Brixton (where he was said to be popular among the West Indians, but where the Tories had issued that leaflet) introduced an amendment to stiffen the Bill, requiring intending immigrants to produce evidence of satisfactory accommodation to come to. And Labour could muster only a very poor vote on the third reading.

It seems that Gaitskell thought he was on to a good thing. The Labour Party was still recovering from the shock of their defeat in the 1959 election and the Labour leader was anxiously trying to find some fresh voter appeal. It was useless for the Labour Party to talk about unemployment and nationalisation to workers who couldn’t hear them because of .the noise of motor-car engines and washing-machine motors and pop music on the telly. These were the issues which Gaitskell hoped to make into vote winners, when he spoke to Labour’s inquest conference in November 1959:

  A broad human movement on behalf of the bottom dog . . . A belief in social justice . . . The brotherhood of man . . .

The Labour leader thought that racialism would fit very nicely into this scheme and that a fight against the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill would bring a rich harvest of votes. He had always been noted for being out of touch with the latest in working-class delusions.

Gaitskell got a good press for his scornful attack on the Bill. "A plain anti-colour measure" he called it; “Some Fascists would claim this as the first victory they had won." And he ended up with an appeal to the government to drop this ". . . miserable, shameful, shabby Bill." The Labour benches were in ecstacies; when Cyril Osborne spoke they jeered him: "You are Mosley’s deputy—colour bar—keep Britain white" and when Patrick Gordon Walker (of whom more later) moved the Bill's rejection, describing it as ". . . barefaced, open race discrimination" they gave him loud and prolonged cheers. One Labour backbencher —George Pargiter, MP for Southall (of whom, again, more later) attacked what he called ". . . one of the most illiberal acts of modem times."

Despite this quixotic opposition, students of the inconsistencies of capitalist political parties were not surprised to find, when the Act came up for renewal a year later, that the Labour Party had changed its mind. Although they found an excuse, in the old tradition of parliamentary shadow boxing, to vote against the continuance of the Act, they had decided to accept the principle of restriction —indeed, if the government had agreed to consult the Commonwealth on the matter, Labour would have voted for the Act’s continuance.

Pargiter, for one, was clearly becoming uneasy about his chances of holding on to his seat. In the debate on renewing the Act he said that "immigrants should be told they cannot go to places which are already overcrowded—which really means that something like South Africa's Pass Laws should be applied to coloured workers—and when he came to it he abstained from voting against the Act. Pargiter later explained that he ". . . felt a vote against the Act was liable to be misrepresented by my opponents in Southall. . . " a blatant piece of vote-catching which did not deter him from also saying that he had abstained on moral grounds, that he had “. . . exercised my right on grounds of conscience not to take part in the vote." (Middlesex County Times, November 30, 1963).

This was typical of the confusion and cynicism on the slippery, sickening road to the 1964 election—the first in Britain in which race placed an important part. In places like Southall Labour, under pressure from the Tories on immigration, did badly and in some of the seats they lost —Eton and Slough, Perry Barr—this could have been decisive. In another it was not only decisive but it dominated and distorted the election and had the triumphant Tory workers baying like wolves as the returning officer declared that their man, Peter Griffiths, was the new Member of Parliament for Smethwick.

Ivan

(To be concluded)

Link to Part 2

Economists in confusion (1969)

From the May 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

Devaluation of the pound showed how much confusion there is in the minds of government ministers and their economic advisers; subsequent events have added to it. It was carried out in November 1967 by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Roy Jenkins, only four months after his predecessor James Callaghan had denounced such a measure on the ground, among others, that it would lower real wages by raising prices. Naturally Jenkins had to claim that it was a very good thing and that it would give a golden opportunity to cure the balance of payments. He was confident that, as he put it, "of one thing we can be sure: 1968 will be different” (Article in Financial Times, December 30, 1967).

Apart from the fact that devaluation, as anyone could have foreseen, produced a big increase of profits for exporting companies, 1968 has been just like 1967—crises, government attempts to keep wages down, and a balance of payments deficit very little less than in the previous year. On the first anniversary of devaluation the financial columns were full of articles by economists and financial experts trying to explain why their forecasts had gone wrong. Some of them, influenced by American economists, have begun to question the validity of their own theories about money. This has been helped on by the disquiet of the International Monetary Fund and other bankers who lent the British government large sums of money to support the pound. They want to be sure that their loans will be duly repaid, and not in a currency depreciated by still further devaluation. The IMF insisted that 'the money supply' should be kept under control and from time to time they come over to ask Jenkins what about it. They are well aware that the prevailing theories held by the government and its advisers reject the idea that there is any need to control money supply and that, on the contrary, it should be expanded.

It is true that every Chancellor in the past quarter of a century has proclaimed his intention of stopping inflation, but this was merely a sop to electors, not to be taken seriously. George Brown recently admitted that inflation was government policy, but that it was to be kept to 'a minimum' (Sunday Times March 31, 1968).

The consequence has been a full-scale controversy about money itself. In the autumn of 1968 scores of articles appeared attacking or defending accepted theories; confused however by the fact that the writers could not agree among themselves what it was they were discussing. A typical statement appeared in The Times (September 28, 1968) from a correspondent who pointed out that while the International Monetary Fund defines money as currency (notes and coin) plus the money on current account in the cheque issuing banks, the British government’s Central Statistical Office defines it as also including money in deposit accounts of banks, and also money on deposit in other financial organisations—a difference running into something like £400m.

Still another school treats money in the much more limited sense of notes and coin only, which the last official committee on the question, the Radcliffe Committee, in its Report in 1959 airily dismissed as only “the small change of the monetary system".

The controversy was brought a stage further by an article in the Evening Standard (March 11, 1968) by Prof. Victor Morgan who demands a return to the Quantity Theory of Money. Unfortunately he too omits to say which definition of money he is using. His meaning is thrown more in doubt because he writes of the Quantity Theory having won general acceptance in the late 18th century and having continued to be accepted until the 1930s; the fact is that there have been several quite different theories under the same name, differing from each other in how they defined money. One of the earliest held that the price level is raised or lowered according to whether there is a large or small amount of precious metal in the country. (This was dealt with by Marx in Capital, Vol. I. p.139, in the Kerr edition).

Other quantity theories have been based on notes and coin; on those plus bank deposits on current account; or plus all deposits. It is possible that Prof. Morgan means one of the two last-named.

By contrast it is clear that when Lord Cromer, former Governor of the Bank of England, attacks the government for unduly increasing the money supply he means the note issue.

Prof. Morgan gives a description of the Quantity Theory which would fit several variations of it, saying for example that there is a strong connection between the growth of the money supply and the price level, and he cautiously adds that “no-one has yet demonstrated conclusively the precise ways in which monetary influences are transmitted” (meaning transmitted into changes of the price level).

He made no reference to Marx’s study of the subject. Marx did however supply the missing link. He showed that gold functions as the money commodity, the universal equivalent for all other commodities because, like them, it is an embodiment of value, the socially necessary labour required to produce it. When a certain total quantity of gold in the form of coins functioned as money in this way, to meet market needs corresponding to a given volume of production and buying and selling transactions, it represented a total quantity of value. Marx showed that if gold coin is replaced by inconvertible paper money and if the issue of paper money is increased (the note issue in Britain is about six times what it was in 1938 though production has less than doubled) the result is a corresponding rise of the price level, in addition to any other factors pushing prices up.

The crux of the matter is that if the notes in circulation are doubled they still represent only the same total amount of value, so that each note represents only half the value represented by each note before the doubling took place. It takes two notes to buy what formerly one note would buy: prices are doubled.

Unlike other theories, Marx’s explanation does in fact explain the big increase of the general price level and this is the answer to the economists (including Keynes) who dismiss Marx as of no account. The re-appearance of quantity theories of money marks the growing disillusionment about Keynes and his theories.

The body of opinion behind the views of Prof. Morgan is growing in this country and it is possible we may see a shift of official opinion in that direction, particularly if the Tories come into power. Prof. Morgan outlines what he considers to be the advantages of so doing:

  If the Quantity Theory is right, then so long as the money supply is unchecked the combined efforts of Mrs Castle, Mr Jones, and Mr Woodcock will be powerless to control inflation; only an effective control of the money supply could achieve this end, and if this control were made effective both incomes policy and the present interference by the Bank of England would be unnecessary.

Someone thinking on similar lines is Sir George Bolton, chairman of the Bank of London and South America, but he takes a gloomier view. He told his shareholders that "if the capitalist system is to survive, confidence in paper money must be restored”.

If such a shift of government monetary policy takes place it should not be forgotten that we have had it all before; both the long periods in which there was no excess currency issue and other periods (as at present) when it is the rule. Capitalism works just as evilly for the workers whichever way it goes. It is a capitalist problem, not a working-class one.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letters: What is productivity? (1969)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is productivity?

Comrades,

What is the socialist definition of this hoodoo that Barbara Castle is using, namely, The Productivity Act? My opinion is that there is no such thing unless applied where material things are produced and distributed. It can never apply to bus drivers and conductors, train drivers and firemen, postmen and sorters, messengers, paper-keepers, those in government offices, police- men, or the army, navy, and air force. But it would apply to miners, bricklayers, coalcarters, and those who work in places where wealth is produced.

M. R. Thorpe 

Brixton, London SW9

Reply:
All Barbara Castle means by 'productivity’ is efficiency at work. So, as far as she is concerned, this can be imposed on all workers whether or not they are engaged in the actual production of wealth. Sales clerks can be made to fill in more forms, reply to more letters, answer more phone calls in the same period of time. If they do, then their ‘productivity’ will have gone up.

‘Productivity’, in this sense, is just a fancy word for ‘speed-up’. It’s the old trick of “if you work harder, we'll pay you more”. The Labour government are interested in promoting this because they are committed to running capitalism in the only way it can be—in the interests of the capitalist class. If workers can be got to work harder, then the capitalists have a chance of regaining some of the overseas markets they have lost in recent years (the prime cause of their economic difficulties).

Wealth is produced by the application of human energy to materials found in nature. All work involves both ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ activity (in fact of course the two can’t be separated) so that it is wrong to regard just what is called ‘manual’ work as productive. The work of design and planning is just as productive as the work of carrying out the plans. So the mining engineer and the architect, whose work is generally regarded as white-collar, are just as much productive workers as the miner and the bricklayer. So are many technical, administrative, and clerical workers. Others are not of course, especially those concerned with buying and selling and with discipline, including the police and armed forces.

Mr. Thorpe is wrong in implying that transport workers are not productive. The labour spent in bringing an article of wealth to market does add value to the product. It is just as much a part of the production process as the manufacturing stage.

Capitalist exploitation is a class matter. The whole of the working class is exploited by the whole of the capitalist class because production already has a social, co-operative character. It is wrong to say that the workers at Fords are exploited just by Ford’s shareholders, just as it is wrong to say that they alone produce the cars. The labour of the millions of workers involved in the production of a car (including the growing and mining and transporting of the original raw materials from start to finish is what produces a car, not just the labour of those in at the finish. Ford’s shareholders merely get a return in accordance with the economic law of average profit—a profit based on the amount of capital they have invested and not (necessarily) equal to the surplus value extracted in their factories. What in effect happens is that all the surplus value extracted under capitalism in a given period is, as it were, pooled and then divided out in accordance with the amount of capital each capitalist has invested. The capitalist system is thus a kind of joint-stock company for the capitalist class.

Those workers engaged in non-productive work are not just a burden on their employers. Far from it. They may not produce extra wealth for him but they do save him money. For their work—say, in balancing his books or selling his goods—is essential to his business. From the employer’s point of view money spent on it is a necessary expense of production. Non-productive workers are exploited in this way: if for example ten hours’ work is needed to calculate workers’ wages, the clerk doing this job will put in this work but will be paid the equivalent of less than ten hours’ labour. He thus saves his employer money and that is why he is employed.

The employer doesn’t see it this way. He knows from experience that his profit tends to be based on how much he has invested, not on how many workers of what kind he employs. As far as he is concerned the wages he pays to all his workers are a necessary expense which he’d like to cut down. He would like them all to work harder. Which brings us back to Barbara Castle and productivity. She too wants us all to work harder.

Editorial Committee

What, NO P.M.!

Sir,

I consider myself a socialist, even if my concept of Socialism differs from yours, and I would like you to answer some questions for me.

1. What alternatives does the Socialist Party offer for a stable economic system from the present one to a system under socialist rule?

2. If the Socialist Party grew strong enough and was generally elected as government (tomorrow);
   a. Who would be prime minister? (Tell me about him).
   b. What ministries would there be, and who would be in charge of them?
   c. What standards of living could the working class be assured of?
   d. Could there be any millionaires?

S. G. Pollard 

Sheffield 9

Reply:
Mr Pollard’s "Socialism” certainly differs from ours if under it there will still be a prime minister, a working class and millionaires! However, lets proceed point by point.

1. In place of the present economic system based on the class ownership of the means of life and their consequent use to provide profits for the owners, we are suggesting that the means of life he vested in the community as a whole and be under its democratic management so that wealth can be produced solely to satisfy human wants. Freed from the barrier of profit, we shall be able to produce in abundance all the things we need. Gone will be the absurd paradoxes of poverty amidst plenty, of food being burned while children starve, of building workers being unemployed while people live in hovels. Naturally. Socialism can only exist on a world scale.

2. If the Socialist Party grew strong enough and a majority of voters backed us then we would not form a government, with a prime minister and cabinet, to administer a system where workers and millionaires would still exist. We do not seek political power in order to run capitalism, but to abolish it. So that, if there were a Socialist majority, steps would immediately be taken to end private property in the means of production and to put in its place common ownership and democratic control.

a. For this we don't need a prime minister, a post generally filled by the leader' of the party that wins the election. The Socialist Party is made up of conscious socialists organised on a democratic basis and so has no leader or leaders.

b. We have seen that a socialist majority would use its power to change the basis of society from class to common ownership. This of course will amount to a social revolution. But this doesn’t mean we’ll be starling from scratch. Socialists have always maintained that capitalism paves the way for Socialism by, for instance, developing the large-scale co-operative production that makes class ownership an anachronism. This large-scale co-operative productive system, including its administrative apparatus, will be the basis of socialist society. The basic function of the state is to be the public power of coercion and for this purpose it is organised as the police, the armed forces, and the prison service. A public power of coercion is necessary only in class society with its built-in class conflict. In Socialism the state will no longer he needed and will be dismantled. However, today the government has itself assumed other, purely technical and administrative, tasks and this aspect of its work is in fact part of the productive system. We have in mind the old Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport, or the Ministry of Power. No doubt the administrative apparatus that is these and other ministries can be adapted for use as part of the socialist administration of industry. We can’t go into details (that’s something for the socialist majority, including maybe Mr. Pollard, to work out at the time) but we can say that the adaptions will be far-reaching— everything to do with finance will go, and the internal structure will have to be reorganised on a democratic basis. What we say about these technical ministries applies equally to the large administrative establishments not part of the government machine such as those at the service of firms like GEC and ICI. Obviously, there'll be a certain continuity in institutions between capitalism and Socialism and at the start we'll have to make do with what we’ve inherited. There’ll be more urgent problems than a streamlined administration to be tackled; for instance, growing more food and ending the housing scandal.

c. The 'working class’ won’t be assured of any standard of living because there won’t be any working class. With the end of capitalism will go all classes. Those who used to be workers (or capitalists) will still be around but they will now be free and equal members, of society faced with the problem of organising themselves to provide the food, clothing, shelter, and other things they need to live. The profit barrier gone, how much they consume will depend on how much they are prepared to produce and that’ll be something for society to decide democratically, But the basic rule will be “from each according to his ability, to each according to hi„ needs’’. Every member of socialist society will have free access to the fruits of their co-operative labour.

d. No, there won’t be any millionaires because there won’t be any money. This will have become superfluous with the introduction of production solely and directly for use. Common ownership and democratic control will mean that everybody will be socially equal.

Editorial Committee

Party News: Conference Discusses Russian Rulers (1969)

Party News from the May 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

A resolution that "the ruling class in slate capitalist Russia stands in the same relationship to the means of production as does the ruling class in any other capitalist country (viz. it has a monopoly of those means of production and extracts surplus value from the working class) and is therefore a capitalist class" was carried by 30 votes to 3 with 10 abstentions at the Party Conference over Easter. All were of course agreed that state capitalism exists in Russia but the resolution’s opponents argued that it was premature to make so definite a statement at this stage.

Opening for Manchester branch Comrade J. Crump said that the issue was whether the Russian ruling class was a capitalist class. Some members argued that only direct employers or investors in shares and government bonds were capitalists. But this was not so. The capitalist class were those who monopolised the means of production and accumulated capital. Even though the Russian rulers might lead Spartan lives and were not employers they were still a capitalist class because they carried out these functions.

Comrade Hardy urged caution on the resolution because it seemed to say that the top political and managerial people in Russia were the capitalist class and because it overlooked the extent of private enterprise there. Margaret Miller estimated that in 1963 about a quarter of ‘economic activity' was done through private or non-official channels. The Russian government had also been very successful in building up private savings which now amounted to about £15,000m on which they paid tax-free interest. The ambition of the top salaried people in Russia was probably the same as in Britain: to become wealthy capitalists in their own right. Russia, said Comrade Hardy, was going through great changes and be tentatively suggested that it might move towards the mixed state/private capitalism of Britain.

Points from some of the other speeches:

Comrade Zucconi: In Russia there was a class enjoying the fruits of the workers' labour through political control rather than direct ownership. But this made no difference. They were still the Russian capitalist class.

Comrade K. Knight: The top salaried managers were a significant part of the capitalist class in Russia with a vested interest in accumulating capital not only for themselves but also for the state.

Comrade J. D’Arcy: A capitalist class had not yet emerged in Russia. All we could say was that they existed in embryonic form and that at some later time the bureaucracy might break up into wealthy individuals and strip the state industries.

Comrade Buick: There were private capitalists in Russia but they were not the ruling class. We might need a new name to describe the real rulers. They owned the means of production collectively and got their surplus value as bloated salaries, prizes, bonuses and other 'perks’ rather than as dividends or interest.

Comrade Cook: The bureaucrats now used their control to get surplus value illegally but in time they might want to legalise this. It was a fluid situation in which the dividing line between real control and legal ownership was unclear.

Comrade P. Lawrence: There was no reason why Russian capitalism should evolve along British lines. The state had always dominated Russian society so it was to be expected that it would play the major role it did in the development of capitalism there.

Hugo Chavez: ‘21st Century Socialist’ or Populist Strongman? (2013)

From the April 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

The formula ‘socialism of the 21st century’ encapsulates the hopes that many leftists throughout the world placed in President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and his so-called ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ or ‘Bolivarian Process.’ (‘Bolivarian’ refers to Simon Bolivar, commander of the army that defeated the Spaniards in 1821 and won independence for Venezuela and other Spanish colonies in the north-western part of South America.)

The term ‘21st century socialism’ was coined by Mexican sociologist Heinz Dieterich Steffan, who served as an adviser to Chavez for several years but fell out with him in 2011. It conveys the idea that Venezuela is pioneering a new and exciting ‘socialism’ for the new century, based on grassroots participation, in contrast to the stodgy bureaucratic ‘socialism’ (what we call state capitalism) of the 20th century.

Defying the Yanquis

The regime established by Chavez in Venezuela over his 14 years in office also has appeal as a less tarnished substitute for Castro’s Cuba. Chavez was a charismatic leader with much of the flamboyance of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro—and the same penchant for making speeches of inordinate length. His speeches, like theirs, thundered defiance of the Yanqui tyrants to the north. Unlike Castro, however, Chavez won office by electoral means (after an earlier attempt to seize power in a military coup failed). Nor did he have the embarrassing habit of imprisoning his domestic critics.

Given the long history of US domination and aggression in Latin America, the continuing appeal of anti-US rhetoric is understandable. Nevertheless, in the 21st century it is rather out of date. US hegemony over the Americas has already given way to a new and more complex structure of capitalist competition. The US remains actively involved in this new game, but the players also include rising regional powers like Brazil –and Venezuela itself –and Eurasian powers like China and Japan. Pretending to refight old battles is a way of obscuring the new reality.   

The social missions

This is not to deny that Chavez’s appeal derived partly from his achievement of real social reforms. Venezuela is a major oil exporter and the oil industry has been nationalised since 1975. Chavez was able to devote a part of state oil revenue to social programmes. Funds were allocated mainly to a series of ‘social missions’ that were established in 2003 in order to improve healthcare, education, housing and nutrition in the barrios (shanty towns) surrounding Caracas and other cities.      

Observers take different views of the impact of these social programs. The account by German Sanchez, Cuban ambassador to Venezuela, is peppered with superlatives like ‘tremendous’ and ‘magnificent’ (Cuba and Venezuela: An Insight Into Two Revolutions, Ocean Press 2007, Ch. 4). The Venezuelan anarchist Rafael Uzcategui talks more about the limitations of the programs. For example, slum dwellers now have easier access to treatment for relatively minor ailments at neighbourhood clinics staffed by Cuban and Venezuelan physicians. But when they fall seriously ill they still have to rely on public hospitals that remain overcrowded and underfunded. Housing standards are still grossly inadequate (Venezuela: Revolution as Spectacle, See Sharp Press 2010).

Uzcategui also points out that many poor people, especially in Venezuela’s vast interior, have received no benefits from the missions and that spending on social programs has been dwarfed by military expenditure, including costly arms imports.

Clearly there has been a modest but significant improvement in the material conditions of ordinary people under Chavez. According to official statistics, in the course of the 2000s the proportion of the population in ‘extreme poverty’ fell from 23 percent to 9 percent and the unemployment rate from 15 percent to 8 percent. Real wages rose on average by 1 percent per year against a background of rapid inflation. 

Trotsky, Mao, Marx, Jesus, Bolivar

Chavez defined his political credo in different ways at different times. Soon after being sworn in as president he declared that he was a Trotskyist. When he visited China in 2008 he assured his hosts that he was a Maoist. In a speech to the national assembly in 2009, he explained: ‘I am a Marxist to the same degree as the followers of the ideas of Jesus Christ and the liberator of America, Simon Bolivar’—in other words, in an extremely loose sense.

The longest-lasting influence on Chavez was undoubtedly the legacy of his hero and model, Bolivar, remembered as a social reformer as well as a fighter for national independence. He also enthusiastically admired the Castro regime in Cuba, denying that it was a dictatorship. On a visit to Cuba in 1999 he declared: ‘Venezuela is travelling toward the same sea as the Cuban people –a sea of happiness, real social justice and peace.’ It is therefore very difficult to argue on the basis of Chavez’public statements that he really had a vision of socialism radically different from twentieth-century state capitalism. 

Deals with capitalists

Despite all his talk about revolution and socialism, Chavez’ relations with capitalists at home and abroad were by no means wholly confrontational. The most that can be said is that he was in conflict with some capitalists some of the time.

In particular, telecommunications magnate Gustavo Cisneros, whose fortune is estimated at $6 billion, was initially hostile to Chavez. Observers suspect that Cisneros was behind the failed coup of April 2002. Then in June 2004 the two men met. It is not known what was said at this meeting, but they seem to have come to a deal. Commentators on Cisneros’television station Venevision suddenly switched from an anti-Chavez to a pro-Chavez line. Presumably in exchange, Chavez refused to renew the broadcasting license of Cisneros’main competitor, in effect granting his new ally a monopoly.

Chavez never tried to keep out foreign companies. In March 2009 McDonalds had 135 outlets in Venezuela and was selling more fast food there than in any other country of the region.

Chavez posed as a defender of Venezuela’s natural resources against the machinations of greedy foreign corporations. In reality, he concluded agreements with Chevron, BP and the Spanish oil company Repsol. He also pushed through legal and constitutional changes that may open the door to the gradual re-privatisation of Petroleos de Venezuela, the state oil company. It is now possible to establish mixed state-private enterprises with up to 49 percent foreign ownership for the development of new oil and gas deposits.

‘Petroleum socialism’

Chavez was committed to continued reliance on hydrocarbon exports—indeed, so deeply committed that he christened this model of capitalist development ‘petroleum socialism!’ Venezuelan leftists had never been fond of ‘the devil’s excrement’ and were especially concerned with the social and environmental consequences of an oil-based economy, but they stopped expressing these concerns after Chavez came to power. A documentary on the oil industry by Italian film-maker Gabriel Muzio (Our Oil and Other Tales), though sponsored by government agencies, was suppressed when they learned that Muzio had focused on these issues.

Besides oil and gas, there are also plans for a large-scale expansion of coal mining in Zulia State. Before these plans can be implemented, however, the Venezuelan government will have to overcome stiff resistance from environmental groups and local indigenous communities trying to defend their homes against the steamroller of endless capital accumulation.

In a world divided into competing states, of course, the government of any country—however ‘socialist’ it may claim to be—is naturally going to be highly reluctant to renounce the potential financial gain from selling its country’s natural resources. Only collective action at the global level can establish the fundamentally new society that we call socialism.    

Comandante-presidente

The priority that the armed forces enjoy in the allocation of state funds has already been mentioned. This is not the only militaristic aspect of the ‘Bolivarian’ regime.

Chavez appointed hundreds of military men to state posts, including some notorious for their abuses. For instance, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Luis Reyes Reyes, as governor of Lara State from 2000 to 2008, oversaw the formation of police death squads that carried out five massacres of civilians. In 2008 Reyes Reyes was recalled to Caracas and promoted to ministerial level.

According to records kept by the Committee of Victims Against Impunity, ‘the police have committed more murders during the so-called Bolivarian Process than during the presidencies of Betancourt and Leoni, whose regimes are remembered as the most repressive of the Fourth Republic’ (Uzcategui, p. 198).

Chavez began his career as an army officer and at heart that is what he remained. He made constant use of military expressions in civilian contexts—for instance, calling election campaign groups ‘Units of Electoral Battle’. He liked the title of ‘commander president’ (comandante-presidente) and frankly sought to monopolise power. Appealing in 2001 on the radio to his supporters to form ‘Bolivarian circles’ in various walks of life, he saw fit to remind them: ‘Remember that I’m going to start giving instructions as the leader’ (Uzcategui, p. 173).   

Thus, there are good reasons to question not only Chavez’credentials as a socialist (of any century) but even his attachment to democratic principles. He bore a strong resemblance to the traditional Latin American image of the charismatic populist strongman or caudillo. In Venezuela this image is rooted in the foundational myth of Simon Bolivar. It is also embodied in a long line of popular heroes who adorn the history of Latin America, from the Mexican revolutionary leader Emiliano Zapata to Argentina’s Juan Peron.

Popular power?

And yet many people have been impressed by the appearance of extensive popular participation under Chavez—surely the diametrical opposite of a personal dictatorship. How can these things be reconciled?

The public scene in Venezuela does indeed abound in active social movements—trade unions, cooperatives, neighbourhood groups, campaigns for human rights, environmental organizations and many others. An upsurge in grassroots activity did coincide with the rise of Chavez and the consolidation of his power, but that leaves open the question of the relationship between the two processes.

In rhetorical and symbolic terms, Chavez always appeared sympathetic to popular participation. This helped him build and maintain his support base and get elected president.

An example of participatory symbolism was the insertion of the phrase ‘of popular power’ into the names of government ministries. Thus, the Ministry of Education became the ‘Ministry of Popular Power for Education’ (Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Educacion). This, of course, did nothing to make ministries less bureaucratic or more participatory.

Co-optation, surveillance, repression

The real policy of the Chavez regime regarding social movements was a mixture of co-optation, surveillance and repression. Efforts were made to incorporate grassroots activists into official structures such as the community councils. Those who allowed themselves to be incorporated lost their autonomy and came under the control of the state bureaucracy. Those who resisted co-optation, smeared as supporters of the ‘fascist’ right-wing opposition, were harassed and intimidated by vigilante groups trained, armed and funded by the state. These groups also collected ‘social intelligence about workers, homeless people, street vendors and other social sectors with a proclivity to generate conflict’ (Uzcategui, p. 202). Finally, increasing use was made of the police and army to suppress protests and demonstrations.

The ‘Bolivarian’ leaders who succeed Chavez, lacking his popular charisma, may well resort to even greater use of repression. We hope that the demise of the hero will awaken leftists outside Venezuela from their trance and enable them to take a more critical and realistic view of the situation in that country.

There is no need to deny that in all likelihood Hugo Chavez was motivated by the best of intentions, or that worthwhile social reforms were achieved under his presidency. Nevertheless, like all other mortals, Chavez was susceptible to the corruption of power. That is one of the reasons why even the most benevolent tyranny cannot lead to a free classless society. The emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself.

Stefan

Pathfinders: Telepathy – the Demolished Ego (2013)

The Pathfinders Column from the April 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

In Alfred K Bester’s celebrated 1951 sci-fi novel The Demolished Man the antihero plans a murder and, knowing he will be a suspect and fearing interrogation by the telepathic police, commissions a jingle writer to create a musical ‘earworm’ so compulsive that the police interrogators will not be able to ‘see’ past it into his deeper thoughts. Now, it seems, the first tentative step towards such telepathic intrusion has been taken.

The final frontier is not space, it is the wall between neurology and psychology, the physical brain from the outside and the subjective mind from the inside. MRI scans have shown that different parts of the brain ‘light up’ when we have different thoughts and feelings, giving researchers clues that there is indeed a correlation between brain geography and function and thus allowing the recent revolution in brain mapping to take place. A new study in North Carolina has gone further, using implants in rats, by reading the signals from one rat brain and communicating them to a second brain, allowing the recipient in effect to ‘read’ the sender’s thoughts. The recipient can then complete a task as directed by the sender’s brain, whether the sender is in the next cage or a continent away (‘Telepathic animals solve task as one’, New Scientist, 9 March).

The study reports a success rate of around 60 to 70 percent, placing it well above random chance but considerably short on reliability, and the reason is that the ‘reading’ is only an aggregate of the local brain region’s signals, aimed at the same region in the recipient’s brain. Given the crudeness of the procedure it is surprising that it works at all, so the success rate is actually remarkable. If it ever becomes possible to map the signal of each individual neuron and aim it at an equivalent target neuron, accuracy could theoretically jump to near 100 percent. An analogy that may occur to some readers is the first wide-frequency Marconi blast across the Atlantic that heralded the beginnings of radio.

Were we now living in a peaceful, creative society of socialist common ownership, such news would doubtless excite interest and debate among the informed and engaged population. As it is, forced to endure the heartless world of money slavery and ruthless competition at every level among a misinformed, alienated and paranoid population, debate can only take a darker form.

Already there is talk of military applications, including using mind-controlled animals and even insects as surveillance and ‘assassination drones’. Advertisers of the future will be wetting themselves at the potential for subliminal persuasion and stratospheric profits. Civil Rights groups will be passing sleepless nights bathed in beads of sweat at the idea of Orwell’s Thought Police coming to life.

Surely not in a liberal democracy? people will cry. But who says the future of capitalism involves democracy? Liberal democracies are only liberal because police states are too inefficient and expensive and popular consent is by far an easier thing to manage. With surveillance that can peer right into our private thoughts, what capitalist state would need to bother asking our consent? Imagine a future ruled by China or North Korea, but without their present hearts and flowers liberalism. Or worse, a global theocratic regime along the lines of Iran or Saudi Arabia, or if the Christian fundamentalists get their way, the Second Coming of the Catholic Church, with free inquiry replaced by a fearful Inquisition. Surely, once the final frontier is breached, our minds will not be our own, our ego will be demolished and our slavery will be complete.

Of course it’s quite possible that this sort of conspiracy theorist’s porn fantasy won’t happen for the simple reason that we will have killed ourselves off long before the technology gets to that point. If global warming doesn’t do it, nuclear war might, or a viral pandemic or an antibiotic-busting pestilence, or even just cyberhacked chaos and civil collapse. The end of the world will be a dying whimper across a desolate landscape crawling with cockroaches and escaped laboratory rats living on corpses and old chewed copies of the Daily Mail.

Lots of workers are so depressed that they do think like this. If you ran an MRI scan of their brains it would show a black cloud around the words ‘I give up’. Or it would be a sign saying ‘Not at home – on holiday in la-la land’, because the result of a depressing outlook is a retreat into denial. Wouldn’t it be better to contemplate a future that’s just as plausible as any of the above, but one which is infinitely more positive? Instead of conspiring in our own oppression we should be aspiring to our collective liberation, by discussing how the amazing developments of science could be used for good in a society based on the common good. Optimists embrace the future while pessimists run away from it, and socialists are optimists by definition. The technology of telepathy doesn’t have to be threateningly invasive, or about mind control. It could be the path to a truly neural internet, the power of the brain unleashed in a cognitive and communicative revolution that would make our present state of knowledge look like Stone Age flint scrapings. If you can’t feel inspired by that you’re just not trying hard enough. Now, on the doorstep of such breakthroughs, is the time for us to talk about taking the world away from its reckless clique of billionaire rapists and putting it under new collective management, where such breakthroughs can truly prosper and give benefit. Because if we don’t make our dreams come true, our nightmares surely will.

Paddy Shannon

Voice From the Back: The Great Divide (2013)

The  Voice From The Back column from the April 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Great Divide

The class division in capitalism is well summed up by the millions trying to survive on less than $2 a day and the following news item. ‘Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim has topped Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s richest billionaires for a fourth year. The magazine estimates that Mr Slim, whose business interests range from telecommunications to construction, is worth $73bn (£49bn)’ (BBC News, 5 March). If you attempt to live on less than $2 a day your kids will probably die. That is a powerful reason why we need a new society.

A Billionaire Gets Angry

You would think it would be in the interests of billionaires to keep quiet about their riches, but not a bit of it. ‘One of the world’s richest men, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has severed ties with the Forbes rich list, claiming it understated his wealth. The Saudi investor, ranked 26th in the billionaires’ list released on Monday, accused Forbes of a “flawed” valuation method that undervalued his assets and “seemed designed to disadvantage Middle Eastern investors and institutions”‘ (Guardian, 5 March). They estimated that Alwaleed is worth $20bn (£13bn), putting him behind Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Alwaleed estimates his own wealth at $29.6bn. C’mon why get so upset, Alwaleed, what’s a mere $9.6bn to the likes of you? There’s lots of other workers to exploit and billions still to be made.

Hunger In The USA

Whenever one hears of children going hungry it is assumed this is a reference to some backward country in Asia or Africa, but recent events show that it applies to even advanced countries like the USA. ‘Child poverty in the US has reached record levels, with almost 17 million children now affected. A growing number are also going hungry on a daily basis. Food is never far from the thoughts of 10-year-old Kaylie Haywood and her older brother Tyler, 12. At a food bank in Stockton, Iowa, they are arguing with their mother over the 15 items they are allowed to take with them … The family are among the 47 million Americans now thought to depend on food banks. One in five children receives food aid’ (BBC News, 6 March). It speaks volumes about the nature of capitalism when even the most advanced country in the world has hungry kids.

Harsh Reality

Politicians love to paint a picture of a Britain of steadily improving standards of living and a gradually more equitable society, but recent statistics show that this is a complete fraud. ‘Millions of families will be no better off in 2015 than they were in 2000 due to a devastating attack on household finances, according to Britain’s leading think tank. The average worker will have suffered the worst squeeze on incomes in memory by the time of the next General Election, warns the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ (Daily Mail, 14 March).

The Roots Of War

The first world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. 1939 showed the nonsense of that notion, but some claimed the second world war was a war to end fascism and to protect democracy. That now looks like an equally stupid idea. ‘As Austria prepares to mark the anniversary of its annexation by Nazi Germany, an opinion poll has shown that more than half of the population think it highly likely that the Nazis would be elected if they were readmitted as a party. A further 42 per cent agreed with the view that life “wasn’t all bad under the Nazis”, and 39 per cent said they thought a recurrence of anti-Semitic persecution was likely in Austria’ (Independent, 10 March). Wars are not fought for splendid humane principles they are fought for markets, sources of raw materials and political and military reasons. Foolishly workers today are still conned by the nonsense of nationalism and capitalism.

Another Phoney Socialist

The BBC described him as a revolutionary and media coverage has referred to him as a socialist. ‘Venezuela has announced seven days of mourning for Hugo Chavez, who has died aged 58 after 14 years as president. Thousands of Mr Chavez’s supporters took to the streets of Caracas to express their grief … A self-proclaimed revolutionary, he was a controversial figure in Venezuela and on the world stage. A staunch critic of the US, he inspired a left-wing revival across Latin America’ (BBC News, 6 March). In fact Chavez was no socialist. Like other phoney revolutionaries, he introduced whole-scale programmes of nationalisation that have nothing to do with socialism. Socialism means production solely for use. It is a classless, propertyless society. Venezuela remains mired in capitalism despite the media nonsense.

Proper Gander: Christianity’s Inanities (2013)

The Proper Gander Column from the April 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

Greetings, beloved! As we struggle through the End Times, let God TV be your spiritual guide. Broadcasting worldwide from Jerusalem, and available on Freeview and online, God TV brings you the most hyper-enthusiastic speakers and evangelists, filmed at happy-clappy conferences in Britain, Australia and America. Each show is set to an uplifting soundtrack of saccharine God rock and hypnotic muzak.

First, we can go over to the Audacious Conference, where we’ve been listening to those touched by the Lord. Sarah has been telling us how she was saving up for a family holiday when God told her to empty her bank account and give all her money to the church. Every year since then, she’s been blessed with a free holiday. There’s no need to worry about throwing away your savings, as God always provides.

And here’s God TV’s well-provided-for founder Rory Alec, starting his sermon by quoting from the book of Proverbs that money is the answer to everything. He wants there to be a ‘greater portion of anointing’, paid for by a greater portion of your incomes. Yes, beloved. He must be right because his disciples are praying and swaying along in the background.

The next inspirational speaker is Jane, at the Influencers Conference. She wants us to accept that we’re all unwell by inviting us to stare at those around us: ‘Look at the other person on the other side of you. If you look closely, they’re shrivelled up’. God can give us the strength to take ownership of our shrivelled-upness and forgive.

Now, we can join Dr Jonathan Sarfati giving a lecture entitled ‘Are Miracles Scientific?’ He shows us how he earned his doctorate by telling us that miracles must exist because otherwise the notion of a ‘hoax miracle’ wouldn’t make sense. Hear him hilariously call the Enlightenment ‘the Endarkenment’. And listen open-mouthed as he teaches us that during the Great Flood ‘the ground was cursed’, and that God took six days to create the universe because he wanted to give us a handy length for our working week.

Bless you, beloved. Just remember to tune in again, and send in your money.

Mike Foster

Mali: the Background (2013)

From the March 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent originally from the wider region comments.

What is now Mali has a long history. The Malinke Empire ruled the area from the 12th century to the 15th century. Then, the powerful Songhai empire ruled over the Timbuktu-Gao region. In 1591 Morocco conquered Timbuktu and ruled the city for two centuries. In the 19th century the land became a French colony after the Berlin Conference and the Scramble for Africa. In 1946, the land became part of French Union.

Mali, situated in West Africa, lies in the Sahara region. It has a land area of 1,240,000 sq km, which is four-fifths the size of Alaska in the USA. Mali is land-locked and shares a border with Algeria, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal. The north has a porous soil and dry weather, while the only fertile soil is in the south where rivers Niger and Senegal provide water for irrigation. Its natural resources are cotton, maize, millet and groundnuts. These crops are mainly produced from the south because of the irrigation system around them.

It is estimated that Mali as of 2012 is 15,000,000 people (growth rate is 2.6 percent; birth rate is 4.6 percent). Infant mortality rate is 11.36 percent. Life expectancy is 52.1. Density per sq km 10. Mali has about 51 tribes such as Madinka, Bambara, Kunta, Soninke, Arabe, Pere, Sarahule, Bobo, Bozo, Kado, Sawraye Tamachec, Kroloboro, Tuareg, Arabs, etc. As to religion, 90 percent are Muslims, 7 percent Christians and 3 percent animists.

  

The capital is Bamako with 1,325,300 in the metropolitan area and the currency is the CFA franc that is used among francophone countries in West Africa.

___________________________________________________________________

Mali became independent on 20 June 1960 under the name of Sudanese Republic. This Republic was joined by Senegal in the Mali Federation. However after two months Senegal seceded. As a result the Sudanese Republic changed its name to the current Republic of Mali.

The first President of Mali, Modibo Keita was born to a Madinka Moslem family in Bamako. He took over power as an elected President on independence in 1960. Keita  introduced a single party state and Pan-Africanism, like other presidents that promoted Pan-Africanism in their various countries: Azikiwe in Nigeria, Nkrumah in Ghana, Sekou Touré in Guinea-Conakry, Nyerere in Tanzania, and Kenyatta in Kenya.

On 19 November 1968 General Moussa Traroré removed President Keita in a bloodless coup d’état.  He spent some weeks in detention in Kidal in the northern of Mali and died in May 1977. Keita’s death attracted demonstrations that were violent. These were organised by his party and the Madinka ethnic group that felt humiliated and maltreated by General Traroré and his cohorts.

Malihas been on a barrel of gun powder for years since independence. The northern part of the country which is comprised of cities like Timbuktu, Kidal, Gao, Sevare, Tesalit, Djabali, Konne, and Mopti has been protesting to the Bamako government about the lack of development in their region. They feel marginalised by the government. Each time they rise up against the government, they are decimated.

In the 1980s the Tuareg rebels were the only force confronting the Bamako government, demanding their independence in the north. But, because the rebels lacked sophisticated weapons to go into full offensive against the Mali regime, the Mali government did not bother to counter them. Northern Mali has been the zone of terrorists for years. There was no border control in the north. Ansar-Dine was formed by a Tuareg rebel called Iyad Ag Ghaly in July last year in order to bring in more jihadist fighters into their region for support to invade northern Mali.

In 2006 the Tuareg rebels looted weapons from the army depot in the town of Kidal for their struggle, but that did not send a signal to Bamako that trouble was on the way. The regime in Bamako has been on soft pedal with the Tuareg because of a lack of weapons to confront them. And the rebels, noticing that the regime was handicapped and incapacitated to confront them, started seeking support from other jihadists from other countries like Boko Haram of Nigeria, Al-shaabab of Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. These terrorists have the common goal to achieve Sharia law in Islamic religion. They are better organised than the government because of their belief in sharia.

In January 2010  an offensive was started by the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA). The movement assumed momentum after the fall of Gaddafi in Libya in 2011. These terrorists stole many sophisticated weapons from the Gaddafi regime and crossed the desert to start a rebellion in the northern Mali. So these weapons, sold to Libya government by the French government, ended up into the hands of bandits and terrorists.

And to worsen the situation, on 22 March 2012, a group of angry army officers led by Captain Amadou Sanogo did a coup d’état and appeared on television to announce that they had seized control of the country. They said their reason for taking over the country was because President Dioncounda Traoré was not handling the conflict in the north very well. The coup d’état did not succeed as the military only controls the south of Mali, leaving the north, known as Republic of Azawad, to MNLA, Ansar-Dine and Al Qaeda terrorists to control. Dioncounda Traoré, who had been forced by the junta to go into hiding, was re-instated. The Tuareg rebels that used to be in control of the north were chased out by MNLA, Ansar-Dine and Al Qaeda Maghreb as they had no weapons to hold on to the region.

French and African military intervention  

In January, the Islamist fighters decided to take more cities from the south in order to build a well-balanced Azawad republic. They captured the central town of Konna and planned to push further south to Bamako. The government of Bamako had no other choice than to ask France for help and Paris responded as a colonial father by sending 550 troops and tanks, at the same time carrying out air strikes on rebel positions in the north. 

A rebellion that could have been crushed within one week of its existence stayed ten good months before French intervention and other allied forces such as Nigeria with 1200 soldiers. Other African states such as Benin republic, Niger, Togo, Chad, and Burkina-Faso also sent troops. Other western countries like USA, Britain, Germany and Belgium are supplying the logistics.

In April 2012, when the jihadists took the north of Mali, they committed human right abuses by amputations, flogging, stoning to death those who oppose their interpretation of Islam. All these severe pains inflicted on innocent people could have been avoided if UN had done their work well. But it is a waste of time for any nation in crisis calling the UN for intervention.

Malians are nice and hardworking people with beautiful music and culture. They welcome and respect people. Malians have nothing, but the little they have is shared among people that are around them, even to a piece of bread. It is callous and total negligence by the entire world that resulted in Malians facing the brutality of the Islamic jihadists.  I am convinced that if Mali had oil in their soil, a lot of capitalist powers could have gone to Mali a long time ago without waiting for UN security council approval.

On 25 January, France promised to give $452 million to the Mali government. How is this money going to help an ordinary citizen of Mali from south to north? A lot of millions have been donated to African leaders by the West. And this money ended up in pockets of individual leaders while the masses are left to rot. If the money given to Mali government passed through the village Alkalis, or village heads, of every community this would help ordinary Malians and mean that they would reject every offer coming from jihadists, be it food or cash.

The jihadists donated some food items to some people in order to win support and it worked for them. They used that trick and won the hearts of some parents who voluntarily gave their children to jihadists as child soldiers. But those that refused to give their children, their children too were forced to join the rebels.

Whatever the French government’s motives for intervening, there can be no doubt that most Malians welcomed it. The spokesperson for Malians living in Orleans, France, Habib Doucouré,  said that they were happy with French and African military intervention as it saved Mali from Al Qaeda destruction.

Cebiloan Hyacint, 

France

Letter: Mali clarification (2013)

Letter to the Editors from the April 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

  We have received two emails about the article on Mali in last month’s issue. One said  that it gave the impression of approving the French intervention and asked if this was the Socialist Party’s position or just that of the writer. The other criticised the article for ‘giving theocratic reasons for a materialistic event, a war, indeed denying there are any material causes’ adding that ‘the statement that there is no oil in Mail is simply untrue’.

Reply:

The Socialist Party does not support armed intervention by any capitalist state. The article was essentially informative and descriptive and the author simply recorded that most  Malians seem to approve of the intervention. This was a factual statement, not an expression of support.

Regarding the reasons for the intervention, the key thing is that the internal conflict in Mali isn’t a simply mechanistic one over economic resources. While there is oil it would probably cost more to get it out of the ground that it can be sold for, like a lot of oil, and hence why none of the major capitalist powers have shown a developed interest in it despite colonisation in the 19th century. That was the point the author was trying to make. A bigger factor was probably elements in the North hostile to the general interests of the Western capitalist powers controlling the area and who wanted to impose sharia law. In short, although we don’t think the conflict is mainly about narrow economic issues there are, of course, material factors in the background explaining why factions in the country have developed the way they have, as was explained in the article – Editors

Fowler reorganises poverty (1985)

From the August 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Welfare State was created on the basis of the recommendations contained in the Beveridge report, the declared intention was to abolish "Want", to provide a "cradle to grave" system of income maintenance so that no-one would fall below what was deemed to be the poverty line as a result of sickness, unemployment, old age or raising a family. Since that time the system of welfare benefits has been altered and added to, new benefits have been tacked on and others cut off in accordance with changing economic conditions and the prevailing political climate. At present the Social Security system is a ramshackle maze of numerous benefits often carrying different conditions for entitlement: insurance based benefits, means-tested benefits, discretionary payments, payments as of right, universal benefits, selective benefits. It is administered by thousands of civil servants working in different government departments. themselves under pressure from the increasing numbers of claimants, cuts in their staff numbers and the complexity of applying a system which few fully understand. Many civil servants dealing with claimants in social security offices are themselves in receipt of benefits such as Family Income Supplement (FIS) because their pay is so low. At the same time there are millions of people in Britain who continue to live in a state of poverty and insecurity despite social security benefits and have to suffer the additional indignity of investigation of their lives by social security officials. Beveridge's declared intention has dearly not been fulfilled.

The present minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, Norman Fowler, has promised us in his Social Security Green Paper (Reform of Social Security: Programme for Change, HMSO) “the most substantial re-examination of the social security system since Beveridge". The government's particular concerns in conducting this review were as follows:

Rising Costs: the Social Security budget presently stands at 40 billion pounds. Since the Conservatives took office there has been a 30 per cent increase in real terms due to both higher levels of unemployment and more people becoming entitled to means-tested benefits because of low income.

Poor Targetting: the government believes that benefits are going to people who are not genuinely in need while those paid to poor people with families are too low.

Work Incentives: people claiming state benefits are thought to be deterred from seeking employment since some are as well off. or even better off, claiming benefits than they would be were they in work.

Complexity: the system is not fully understood by either claimants or staff.

Underlying these declared concerns is the belief that rising social security costs will threaten the carrot of tax cuts that the Tories have dangled before the electorate for so long and hence adversely affect their chances of re-election. They also reflect the so-called Victorian values that the government seeks to uphold; namely, the notion that individuals should provide for themselves rather than have the state do so and that families should be responsible for their dependants. This totally ignores the lessons learnt in the Victorian era. which eventually gave rise to Beveridge, namely that people cannot provide for themselves or their families in capitalist society when they are likely to become the victims of unemployment through no fault of their own, or of long term sickness, itself frequently related to poverty, bad housing and unhealthy working conditions.

The new measures proposed in the Green Paper do not represent the radical restructuring of the benefits system that was promised. The exact impact of the changes in terms of who will gain or lose in financial terms is difficult to assess since no figures for benefit levels were provided. But it can safely be assumed from this that there is no good news for the poor — if the changes were going to benefit substantial numbers of people then the figures would have been given prominence. Instead the government does not propose to give exact figures until existing benefits have received their annual uprating in line with inflation. The intention can only be to obscure the facts.

Despite this lack of hard evidence in the Green Paper two observations can be made. Firstly the proposed changes are to be introduced at "nil-cost''. This means that no extra money will be made available for the social security system as a whole, so if any benefits are to be increased they will have to be paid for by cuts in other benefits. Thus "targetting" of benefits, primarily towards poor families, will mean taking money from one group of poor workers in order to give it to another group of poor workers who are deemed to be more "deserving". The only result of this will be that many already poor workers will get even poorer. Secondly, no attempt has been made to examine the system of "fiscal welfare" whereby the very rich are subsidised by the state by means of huge tax concessions. We can be quite sure that their benefits will not be reduced in order to "target" resources on those most in need. In fact, as suggested earlier, at least part of the reason for this whole exercise is to provide the cash for increased state benefits to the better off by means of tax cuts.

It is only too easy when looking at social security to let our sense of outrage at the cynical and callous ways of governments cloud the fundamental question of why we have a system of Social Security at all.

Capital needs workers, but it doesn't need us to be employed as wage slaves all our lives. First we must be trained and socialised as children within the family and education system and then, when we slow down, capital wants us to be replaced by younger, faster workers. At other times during our working lives we may be sacked when our skills or labour power become temporarily or permanently surplus to capital's requirement. The most efficient way for the capitalist class to maintain us during those times when we are not directly producing surplus value is through a state scheme of income maintenance. The type of system provided will be determined by economic factors, the prevailing political climate and electoral considerations. What the social security system is not intended to do is to meet workers' needs in any meaningful sense. Benefits are fixed at the lowest level that political considerations will permit forcing claimants into a state of real poverty. To be forced to make a choice between paying an electricity bill and buying your child a new pair of shoes is not meeting needs. To force the elderly to choose between turning on the heating and eating a good meal is not meeting needs. To force the young unemployed to return to family homes by stopping housing benefits is not meeting people’s needs. Life on social security benefits is insecure, deprived in both material and social terms and subject to humiliating bureaucratic interference.

The Fowler review will not change these features of the system at all. It is a particularly blatant example of manipulation of social policy to meet short term economic and political ends, with callous disregard for the hardships caused to the poorest workers. Workers don't need a review of social security. What we do need is a review of the system of society which creates the need for such benefits in the first place. That system of society capitalism cannot meet the needs of the working class, whether they are in work or out of work, sick or healthy, old or young; it cannot meet our needs because that is not its intention. Its purpose is profit, and production, distribution and all the supporting services that maintain it are directed towards that end. In that total process workers are just more cogs in the wheel that must be maintained in reasonable working order at minimum cost, forced to work or not as and when capital dictates. But unlike machines, workers have the capacity to reproduce themselves, thus providing a never-ending supply of new workers to feed capital. Workers also have the unique ability of creating more wealth than it costs to produce their labour power. And it is part of this surplus value, created by workers ourselves, that is used to provide us with state benefits when capital does not pay us a wage or salary.

Any number of reviews of social security, or simplifications or changes in benefit entitlement cannot eradicate this crucial feature of capitalist society. Workers will continue to live in poverty and watch their children grow up deprived of the things that make life worthwhile until we, the working class, organise together not to change the benefit system but the whole basis of society so that the sole aim of production will be to meet people's needs. But above all socialism will enable everyone to participate democratically in running society, in making decisions that affect us and our communities. No longer will we be impoverished and rendered impotent by the activities of bureaucrats and politicians.

Janie Percy-Smith