Slings and Arrows: The Wages of Philanthropy (1953)

The Slings and Arrows column from the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Wages of Philanthropy

A poet of the eighteenth century commented that “Virtue is its own reward.” That thought is often quoted and applied, especially when workers want a rise in pay. It is nice to know, however; that occasionally virtue brings other and more tangible rewards than the mere satisfaction of knowing one has been virtuous.

When, in 1892, Lord Rowton built the first of his enormous lodging-houses, he did so because he believed (Daily Express, 30/4/53) “every man should have a room to himself—with a door—for 6d. a night.” Five such lodging houses were established and although every man was entitled to pay his sixpence and get his room—with a door—only the poor turned up. The rich, either ignorant of these facilities, or not wishing to stop the poor using them, continued to reside at the Ritz or Claridges. But time has a habit of evening things out and in due course the rich were duly rewarded for their consideration, as we shall see.

It is a far cry from the nineties of the last century to the present time but Rowton Houses still go on and although the price has increased to 2s. 3d. per night nevertheless there is a constant demand for accommodation. So much so that the dividends on the capital of Rowton Houses Ltd. has recently been increased. Its properties are reputed to be worth £2,000,000, and the shares, if the firm were sold, would have a break-up value of £10 each. The City Editor of the Daily Express tells us that although the share and property dealers are envious and would like to do a deal in Rowton House shares their chances are slender, for the shares are held by people “who put service to the not-so-wealthy before profit.” It is perhaps a coincidence that the shares of Rowton Houses are regarded as gilt-edged and that that institution of putting “service before profit,” the Britannic Assurance Co. hold 11,000 shares. When “service to the not-so-wealthy” is accompanied by an increased dividend then virtue gets more than its “own reward,” and when Ecclesiastes wrote “Cast thy bread upon the waters and it shall return after many days ” he little dreamed that it would return buttered.

The Rest is Silence

Dr. Dalton, bright star in the Labour firmament, has published the first instalment of his three volume autobiography. Apart from a few admissions and statements, the book has no merit either as a work of literature or a study of political events. In the normal course of events this book would not be mentioned in these columns as it would be a waste of space to do so. But some of the disclosures are worthy of comment because they throw a significant light on the present Labour leaders who pretend to be more prescient, and more faithful to the cause than the idols of yesteryear.

Dr. Dalton tells us in 1953, that he knew in 1924 or 1925 that Ramsay MacDonald was vain, conceited, snobbish and untrustworthy. But between those years and 1931 Dalton was his supporter and indeed served under him in the second Labour Government. Never, until after the debacle of 1931, did Dalton and the rest of the gang who pretend to have known all along, say one word which would lead either the electorate or rank and file Labourites to believe that all was not well with the Party leadership. On the contrary their mouths dripped honeyed words of admiration.

Dalton quotes Tom Johnston as saying “If the party meeting only got to know of a few things like this, they’d all be climbing up the walls, not just the I.L.P. but the soberest trade unionists in the Party.” But if Dalton knew and Johnston knew how was it that the Party meeting did not know? The truth was concealed.

We are left then with two conclusions. If MacDonald betrayed the Labour Party and was suspect all the time then those who suspected him were culpable. If on the other hand, they did not know, but pretend to do so in order to appear wise, then what reliance can be placed on them? Here they were, working day by day with men whom they now call traitors and they remained blithely innocent of the fact. Are these the leaders who ask for support because of their qualifications?

We are also indebted to Dalton for telling us something of the quality of the Labour leadership. He tells us that when the Labour Government was being formed in 1929, would-be Ministers besieged MacDonald and some of them wept and fainted in their anxiety. What a disgusting spectacle.

That is the sort of thing that goes on when Leaders take refuge in secrecy and when they rely for support as they must do (or they wouldn’t be leaders), on the political ignorance of their followers.

Who knows but that in another twenty-five years we may be reading some future Dalton on some present day traitor or betrayer of the Labour Party. For judging on past experience we don’t know.what goes on in the hierarchical section of the Labour Party; the Party meeting does not know and the rank and file do not know. We can only guess. And we are on reasonably safe ground if we venture to predict that the present day Labour Leaders are as anxious as those of the past to remain leaders, and to take power in order to run capitalism.

Whose Mother isn’t using Persil?

Among the American prisoners released by the Koreans are a small group, who according to the Authorities have been infected with Communist propaganda. And, since the United States is a land of freedom, and the right to think as one pleases is upheld by the American Constitution, this small group has been sent to a hospital for treatment. The treatment will consist of reading books and seeing newsreels approved by the authorities, so that they may be cured of their infection. The State Department announces: “The privations, and dangers suffered by prisoners of the Communists, may have made them susceptible to the Communist brain-washing techniques.”

Here is some peculiar reasoning. Are we to understand that the way to make people agree with and become permeated by one’s ideas is to make them suffer privations and dangers? If it is true, as we have been told by sundry journalists, that American prisoners of war were badly treated by the Chinese and Koreans then how could a “small group” become infected with their oppressors ideas? No one has heard of any Jew who suffered in concentration camps at the hands of Hitler, having to be "brainwashed” because he had become convinced that the Germans were a "Master race.” How then could prisoners subjected to "privations and dangers ” by their captors become convinced of the benefits to be derived from their ideas?

If it is because of the ill-treatment, are these returned prisoners to be even worse-treated so that they may become imbued with the benefits and joys of the "American way of life ”?

As if these unfortunate prisoners have not had enough, psychiatrists have been turned loose on them in order to "brainwash” them back to a belief in free enterprise, democracy, and Americanism. It has not yet occurred to these psychiatrists and “brainwash” experts that men who have been held prisoners for many years and whose subsequent release is dependent upon their change of attitude, will "brainwash” themselves so fast as to outdo any claim made by the makers of Persil soap.

If it were not so tragic this whole episode would make a good subject for an Aldwych farce!

S.A.

Blogger's Note:

The February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard carries an interesting article by 'Ivan' on Rowton Houses.

Churchill's damp squib (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May the 11th Sir Winston Churchill made his speech proposing that the leading Western Powers should have informal private meetings “at the highest level” with Russian representatives in order to explore the possibility of relaxing the international tension. He was not very confident that worthwhile results would be obtained but argued that the signs of change in Russia since Stalin’s death made it desirable to try.

“It might well be that no hard-and-fast agreements would be reached, but there might be a general feeling among those gathered together that they might do something better than tear the human race, including themselves, into bits.”

“I only say this might happen. 1 do not see why anyone should be frightened of having a try at it.

“At the worst, participation in the meeting would establish more intimate contacts. At the best we might have a generation of peace”

(Daily Herald, 12/5/53.) 

It was received with rapturous approval in the daily Press and among the Labour Party Opposition in the House of Commons. The Daily Herald, reporting its reception in the Commons wrote that "the Prime Minister was several times more loudly applauded by the Labour Party than by the Tories.” And on the following day Mr. Attlee, in his reply, stated that Churchill’s “general tone and approach” had been warmly welcomed on the Labour side. (Daily Herald 13/5/53.)

“His survey of world affairs, like Sir Winston Churchill's the day before, was constantly cheered by both sides."

Beyond the modest expectation that something might come from these personal contacts among the topline politicians there was very little in any of the speeches. But the world situation has become so acute and is generally viewed with so much despair that even a small grain of hope sufficed to rouse enthusiasm among the millions of potential cannon-fodder of the next world war.

How small the grounds for optimism was admitted or implied in the speeches themselves for it has all been tried already and in vain. Churchill recalled that, in addition to the personal contacts with Stalin that preceded the cold war, he had in 1945 sent a “peace appeal” telegram to Stalin urging the avoidance of abuse and counter abuse. He also now tentatively proposed a new treaty to guarantee Germany against attack by Russia and Russia against attack by Germany —a new “Locarno” treaty. But the Locarno Treaty of 1925, which guaranteed France and Germany in that way, was a dead letter. As the Daily Herald pointed out,

“When Hitler violated it by re-occupying and fortifying the Rhineland, no action was taken." (Daily Herald, 12/5/53.)

The keynote of the Churchill speech was the need for “realism”; gone are the high hopes of universal peace through United Nations, now, in effect, we should get back to the old diplomacy of trying to do a deal piecemeal on each issue as it arises. Or as Mr. Attlee put it:—

“ The Prime Minister, I think, made a very realistic speech and it is necessary to be realistic in foreign affairs. So many critics do not realise that all international relations are a subject for everyone and you cannot do just what you want to do."

But the significance of this confession of lack of faith was not explicitly put by Mr. Attlee though it was implied when he stated in the same speech:—

“It is desirable wherever possible, and in foreign affairs particularly, that government policy should have the support of all."

It is an admission by Mr. Attlee that the Labour Party accepts the view that there should be a “British” foreign policy confronting the National policies of all the other Powers. And as we live in a world of capitalist national groups all alike engaged in the cutthroat struggle for survival and expansion, this means acceptance of all the trade rivalries, contests for markets and colonies, the armaments and armed bases and the wars big and little that ensue as the contestants manoeuvre for advantage. Against this background all the aggressions of all the capitalist national groups are equally “realistic”; they only cease to be so when, through insufficient military force to sustain the aggression, they come to failure.

This “realism” is for the working class not a doctrine of hope or even of making the best of things but a policy of being passively submerged in the drift to war.

illusion of the Labour Party as of the Tories and Communists is to suppose that there are ways of running capitalism which will avoid war altogether or at least will confine the wars to some other parts of the world, leaving Britain immune. There is no such policy. If by realistic is meant recognition of the facts of the situation and avoidance of self-deception the only policy for the working class of all countries is to get rid of capitalism. While capitalism continues, in Britain, America, Russia and all the other countries great and small, it will continue to be true as Mr. Attlee said, that in foreign relations he cannot do just what he wants to do. Only Socialists want in foreign affairs the Socialist human relationships that they want at homeland only as the workers of all countries become Socialists will they have identical aims which will obviate all international conflict.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Passing Show: Hay while the Sun Shines (1953)

The Passing Show Column from the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hay while the Sun Shines

Recent events in Indo-China have provided an interesting object-lesson in the game of power politics as it is played in the middle of the 20th century. The protagonists have been the French Government on the one hand and the native rulers of Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia on the other.

The Viet-Minh forces first crossed the boundary separating Viet Nam, to which they had previously confined their operations, and Laos, on or about April 13th. One of the disturbing features, from the French point of view, was that a number of Laotians joined in the fighting on the side of the rebels. The king of Cambodia, which is the third of the Indo-Chinese States, lost no time in pointing the moral. On his way home from Paris on April 19th, he gave an interview in New York, and complained about the powers of the French over the Cambodian judiciary, armed forces and economy generally. Unless the French took immediate steps towards granting “more independence to Cambodia” there was a real danger that the Cambodians would go over to Viet-Minh, he said. The French ruling class was more hurt than aggrieved at this open threat, if we may believe M. Letoumeau, the Minister for the Associated States. On April 22nd he said that “I am bound to state, with all the responsibility which rests on me, that the independence of Cambodia has been granted fully and without reservation.” What, then, were French forces doing in Cambodia ? Why, they were there merely to “watch over the independence of the Cambodian people,” said M. Letoumeau.

The Imperialists Misunderstood

On the same day decrees were issued in Paris under which the French Commissioners in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia were to be called High Commissioners in future; this move was said by the French to confirm the independence granted to these States within the French Union. On April 27th the French Commander-in-Chief in Indo-China, General Salan, issued a statement that “ the Indo-Chinese war was not always well understood.” General Salan was convinced that, “when doubts in the minds of the people of Viet Nam and of Cambodia about the nature of the independence that France had granted to these nations were cleared up, the threat of terrorism and the effect of propaganda would lose their power ” But two days later the Cambodian Prime Minister, unimpressed by the fact that he would now be able to take his orders from a High Commissioner instead of from a mere Commissioner, said that if France did not grant the Cambodian demands, the people would answer the call of the rebels and Cambodia would be lost to the French. Meanwhile, the native ruling class in Viet Nam had been making similar representations to the French, and on May 8th M. Letoumeau gave an “assurance, in the name of the French Government, that no initiative will be taken and no agreement made by France in any question concerning Viet Nam, or generally affecting the future of Indo-China, without first consulting and obtaining the formal agreement of the Viet Namese Government.”

Danger Past

But when this promise was given, events had already taken a turn which made it unnecessary. On May 7th it was reported that the Viet-Minh forces had begun to withdraw. And on May 10th the French Government, without asking anyone’s advice, announced the devaluation of the Indo-Chinese piastre from 17 French francs to 10. This drew strong protests from the Government of Laos and from the Prime Minister of Viet Nam, who said that devaluation would dislocate the economy of the country. So far, no French official spokesman has come forward to explain how this unilateral decision is consonant with the independence that is supposed to have been granted to the Indo-Chinese States; the official line is simply that the French treaties with the Associated States allow the French Government to act by itself in matters of this kind. Now that the external danger has disappeared, at least temporarily, there is no longer any need to represent the native ruling circles in Indo-China as free from French control. But if the Viet-Minh forces advance again when the rainy season has ended, we may see the whole shabby play revived for a further performance.

New Jerseys

Mr. Donnelly, the Labour M.P. for Pembroke, is concerned at the rumours in the Labour Party that "public ownership” would in future take the form of the acquisition of majority shareholdings. He said recently that “the Labour Party rank and file will say, ‘This is not Socialism, it is State Capitalism, it is the same team in new jerseys '. " Mr. Donnelly is right to be disturbed. Clearly the buying up of the majority of shares in any business by the State is not Socialism, nor has it anything to do with Socialism. But what essential difference is there between this form of State Capitalism and the form known as nationalisation ? In the former, as in the latter, the shareholders would be compensated with interest-bearing State-bonds, the workers would be allowed no voice in the running of the industry and would continue to be exploited, and the first concern would still be production for profit, not for use. If Mr. Donnelly wishes to convince us that, in spite of everything, he is a Socialist, he will have to follow up this statement with another one denouncing nationalisation in the same terms.

To Keep Operations on an Economic Basis

The real nature of nationalisation seems to be understood more clearly in India, where the Government recently introduced a Bill to nationalise the airlines. As reported in the British press, the Minister for Communications, in his introductory speech, made no pretence that this would be an advance for “Socialism,” nor did he allege that the workers in the industry would derive any benefit from the move. He advocated the change solely on the ground that the impending need to replace Dakotas in the services run by Indian air companies by more modern and expensive aircraft would need resources beyond the command of individual companies. To employ these new aircraft, and thus keep operations on an economic basis, “would be possible only if the present large number of operating units were substantially reduced," he said. Thus State industry was presented in its true light as an amalgamation of independent companies made necessary by the demands of 20th-century capitalism, and carried out for precisely the same reasons that lead private capitalists to form corporations, monopolies and cartels on their own initiative.

Freedom for the Few

The granting of independence to India, Pakistan and Ceylon in the years immediately following the war was hailed by the Labour Party as a great step forward. Socialists were unable to see that the substitution of one ruling class for another would be of any advantage to the workers. It was obvious that capitalism would continue, as it must, until the great majority of workers understand and want Socialism. And Socialists believed that political and social injustices, which have their origin in and are inseparable from the private property systems of society (although they are modified from country to country by the conditions prevailing locally) would also continue. This view has, in fact, been confirmed.

Tamils and Untouchables

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has approved as being intra vires, legislation passed in Ceylon which has the effect of depriving of the vote a large part of the Indian Tamil community resident there. The particular member of the Tamil community whose case was before them had, in fact, been on the electoral register from 1935 until 1950, when the Act in question was passed. Indian official circles have expressed themselves strongly on the question of this legislation and its discrimination against one part of the community ; but in India itself, on April 19th, several members of the House of the People made bitter protests against the continuing practice of untouchability, which is said to affect between seventy and eighty million Indians. One member said: “Mr. Nehru speaks frequently of the condition of Indians in South Africa. But you find South Africa in every village and every nook and comer of India.”

These examples go to show that while a system of society based on private property flourishes, it is useless to try to remove the social injustice which stems from it by reforms like the grant of Dominion status.

Bent on our Destruction

Advertisements are often distasteful. But few advertisements can be so objectionable as advertisements for armaments. The usual technique is followed. First, the consumer must be persuaded that he wants something, and wants it badly; then he must be convinced that the particular company advertising can supply the want he has begun to feel better than its rivals. A large group of aircraft companies has recently been advertising its warplanes in a series of half-page adverts., called “In Defence of Freedom.” It begins by building up the idea that arms are essential, by references to "that wilful group of men bent on our destruction,” and by insisting that “we must build up our strength to the point where no one will dare to attack us.” After five paragraphs of this, the reader is treated to a list of the excellent fighters, bombers, anti-submarine planes and the other instruments of destruction which this particular group is able to supply to cash customers.

Alwyn Edgar

Mutual aid in adversity (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is frequently argued that, notwithstanding the validity of the Socialist case against Capitalism, Socialism is foredoomed to failure because of "human nature.” This last-ditch argument of capitalist apologists is based on the assumption that human nature is fundamentally anti-social and self-destructive. The absurdity of this notion is easily demonstrated, if only by observing that, were this true, the human species would have destroyed itself in the first generation.

The idea that it is only by the good offices of our “natural” leaders in maintaining a vast integrated structure of legal, police and military organisation that we are restrained from wholesale robbing, raping and murdering of our neighbours is one actively encouraged by the propaganda agencies of Capitalism. The Press, the cinema, radio and religions are all concerned in representing the coercive machinery of Capitalism as a set of benevolent institutions, exercising a firm but impartial discipline in the interest of society at large.

The Socialist argues that it is human nature to desire co-operation and social intercourse. It is the influence of and the reaction to the economic environment, based on oppression, insecurity and ruthless competition that forces men to behave in an apparently un-co-operative and anti-social manner—a manner entirely opposed to the fundamental promptings of human nature.

Occasionally, particularly at times of singular stress, when fellow creatures are subjected to exceptional privations and sufferings, human nature breaks through the brittle veneer of civilised behaviour and all thoughts of personal gain and advantage are submerged in a vast social effort to aid those in distress. The Capitalist spokesmen note these manifestations with considerable interest but are apparently, unable to interpret them in terms of their popular “human nature” theory. The Editor of the “Observer” (5.4.53) asks

“Why should it take an emergency to bring out the best in people? This was often asked during air raids in the war, and again at the time of the recent East Coast floods. The spontaneous response to the floods was felt to be remarkably different from the grumbling inertia often detected in post-war Britain, especially in the industrial field.”

It is evident that the Editor is disturbed at the apparent inconsistency of a people who will give of their best to help their fellows in an emergency, but who cannot be persuaded to show the same spirit in applying themselves to the relief of the emergency which threatens industrial profits. He continues

“When the floods broke, people showed exactly the virtues and the spirit needed in a modern industrial society. Machines and material had to be moved quickly to the coast, and so had a labour force of many thousands. There had to be a service of engineers and technicians, and a system of administrative control . .. the total organisation worked well, mainly because so many people worked willingly and in relative harmony.” 

Now, why should this be so? Why, for instance, should a gang of men work “with fortitude and persistence, under conditions of unrelieved hardship” near a spot where a short time ago "thousands of men struck work partly because they had been denied a tea-break”? The Editor supplies his own answers :— 

"The motive force was enthusiasm, sweeping away the inhibitions and protective restrictions which persist in many of our industries.”

“Nobody on the East Coast was afraid of working too hard or of working himself out of a job . . . nobody was worried by the thought that he was working to make profits for someone else”

“Part of the answer, perhaps, was given ... by a man working strenuously on the defences of Canvey Island—' I know that this job is. worth while '. " 

The Editor of the “Observer” is, of course, concerned with the problem of harnessing this enthusiasm and feeling of “worth-whileness” to the needs of industry, and he sees the answer in terms of industrial relations. With that problem we are not concerned, but what is of interest to us is the evidence of the fact, clearly given in this article, that when events temporarily push the daily struggle into the background, human nature compels men and women, in spite of a life-time under the “blow-you-Jack” rules of Capitalism, to co-operate and to enjoy co-operating for their mutual well-being.

". . .  once the tragic side of the disaster had receded, people scarcely bothered to disguise the fact that they were enjoying themselves. They seemed to welcome the chance to work without sparing themselves, in co-operation with others, and for the good of an obviously stricken community.”

And when Capitalism, with its tragic toll of war and poverty-stricken victims and its legacy of insecurity and misery has finally receded, people will still welcome the chance to work without sparing themselves, in cooperation with others, for the good of the Socialist community.

H.J.G.

Blogger's Note:

See this blogger's note from a previous post for background on why I think 'H.J.G.' was Howard Grew of Birmingham Branch.

A manager gets his cards (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Dear Sir,  it is with deep regret! ”

 

A man has written to the newspapers to make a complaint. His complaint is that his employers have given him the sack. A popular week-end paper gave it prominence, with the comment that “its the hidden tragedy that makes it worth the reading.”

As this is something happening to people every day, the reader may wonder what all the fuss is about The answer is that the complainant was not an ordinary man. By this, we do not mean that he had double joints, or second sight He was a works manager.

"If you are earning, as I was £1,500 or so a year, the men in the workshops envy you. They call themselves the under dogs. They think you've got it easy, ordering them about . . . But if the Company gets into difficulties, the first thing that comes under scrutiny is the higher salary list. . . They (the under dogs) have chances of several hundreds to my one of getting another post because there's only one works manager and 200 or more hands.” (News of the World, 5/4/53).

Our well-educated and expensively-trained manager who, of course, is not a mere “hand,” but a highly qualified “brain,” with technical qualifications, two degrees, and thirty years" administrative experience, has made some important discoveries.

“ Nobody wants a man of 53 whose job has collapsed under him,” he says.

And yet his own letter tells us that he knew what the end would be, “I had, in fact, spent the last twelve months in pruning the factory staff to the extent that if the firm ever got busy again it would be very short of skilled operatives.”

But even a common hand, without degrees, would know that “pruning” staff (giving other people the sack) is hardly likely to prove a permanent occupation, even in a large factory.

What would you do ? he asks, and answers, first you apply to your professional institute. No good, too old. Second, you go to the Special Appointments Bureau of the Ministry of Labour. No good, “things are quiet just now."" Meanwhile, your six months' cheque is being exhausted, you will have to live on your savings. Savings! You had to live up to the job, dress Well, run a car, entertain. What savings ?

Next, worry all your business friends. “ I should think 25 per cent. of British industry is bearing my name in mind,” he says sardonically. “Gone by now are the hopes of a job at the kind of salary I used to enjoy. Half the amount—I’d jump at it—go anywhere —do anything. Anyone want a secretary-stooge ? Or a butler-valet cum gardener-handyman, or a chauffeur?”

“The story of a man who climbed the ladder of success only to have it fall under him at the age of 53,” says the Editor’s blurb. A commonplace story, you think.

“I wonder what the remedy is for cases like mine ? Is it just rotten luck or is there something else wrong somewhere ? 1 cannot decide,” says our unhappy ex-staff pruner.

These are the most valuable lines of his long statement.

The first thing is the pathetic folly of imagining that anyone is immune from the hazards and blows of the profit system. There is no escape. There are no special cases. Whether a man is manager at £1,500, or messenger at £200, anybody employed by somebody, or something else, like Public Corporation, Company or Board, or just a “ guv’nor,” can be dis-employed (sacked) by those employers at will. Leering round the shoulder of every employed person, Dustman or Duke of Windsor, War-Lord, or Warehouseman is the malevolent demon called the Threat of the Sack, making the eternal dream of the employee “ security ” (Welfare State and all), a weary nightmare.

Employment is dependence and subservience of members of the property-less class upon the owners of wealth. Whether these workers are well-paid managers or low-paid domestic helots is irrelevant “Improvements” in the conditions of wage-takers, as our manager has now discovered, frequently turn out, in the finish, to be the reverse. The fact that a job carries £1,500 a year allows the employer to pick the youthful and energetic suitably-qualified man and burn him up quickly.

Small consolation for the employee, having gone for the big lot, to find it does not last. This is the simple explanation of the fabulous (?) salaries of actresses, athletic champions and boxers, whose fortunes and life may hang on one blow.

It also explains the basis of so-called “permanent” and “regular” employment, such as that of State employees, Civil Servants, Railwaymen, Teachers and Postmen as opposed to casual labour subject to rapid fluctuation in alternating trade movements (Dockers, Building, Snow-clearers, Canvassers).

So it is that the Postal Authorities, by offering “Establishment” in “permanent” employment, can take their pick of a larger bunch, without high wages. Thus the great “progress” of the workers under Capitalism is to find themselves raised higher up, only to be smashed harder down.

Having got his motor-driver’s or gardener’s job (and he will be by no means the first degree’d man to sweep the streets), our manager must now, at 53, start a stiff course in a new tricky subject, Marxian economics. There he will find the answer to his questions, and stop wondering.

He will read in Volume I of “Capital” these pregnant lines

“Just as little as better clothing, food and treatment, and a larger allowance do away with the exploitation of the slave so little do they set aside that of the wageworker. A rise in the price of labour as a consequence of accumulation of capital, only means, in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage-worker has already forged for himself, allow of a relaxation of tension of it.” (“Capital" Page 127. Dawson Edition).

Socialists work to break this chain of gold, replacing even well-paid employment by voluntary cooperative free labour.

Horatio.

Snobbery (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Do you want a smart and attractive “mother” for the evening ? If so, there is a London model agency which will supply you with “escorts for all occasions”; and this includes “mothers” as chaperons—at two guineas a night! Or would you like to adopt an elephant at the Zoo for a pound a week ? You can’t take the elephant home with you, but you can have your name inscribed on the cage. Perhaps you would like your favourite cigarettes monogramed for 24s. a hundred; or maybe, you’d like to take lessons at a swank dancing salon, in court manners—how to curtsy and open and shut doors in the correct way. Cost? Anything from a guinea upwards. Remember, you might meet a real live duke one day, and if you haven’t learnt to curtsy the right way you will be in the cart. You can also hire a butler for an evening’s booze-up (sorry, cocktail party); and if you are going to have dinner you can hire a cook, a kitchen full of waiters and flunkeys—and all the silver and gold plate. . . .

These are just a few of the things that our “betters ” and aspiring betters get up to, according to The Weekly Overseas Mail (April 23rd-27th, 1953). But it is not only the rich and not-so-rich who are smitten by this disease of snobbery. How many workers are there living in sweet suburbia who spend their lives trying to “keep up with the Joneses”? How many clerks and white-collar workers, earning about eight or nine pounds a week, are there who pretend that they belong to the “middle-class”? How many workers are there with T.V. aerials above “their” houses—and no television sets inside ? How many young fellows kid their girl friends that they have got “good” jobs, and then have to admit, after they are married, that their jobs are not so good, after all ? How many young couples are there who say that they don’t like kids, but are not prepared to admit that they cannot afford to have children ?

The world of to-day is a world of make-believe. Where the cash nexus and “getting on” is the “thing,” both workers and capitalists are forced to put on a show; where the vast majority of mankind live in perpetual poverty, insecurity, worry—yes, and loneliness—people are forced to pretend that things are not so bad as they are. If you are wealthy, but your relations or friends are wealthier, then you have to hire a butler, a cook and flunkeys—and the gold plate, for the evening party; if you are a worker you have to pretend you’ve got a television set or you own a house—even if its mortgaged to a building society.

Whilst this system—which we in the Socialist Party call capitalism—continues, people, both rich and poor, will continue this snobbery, pretence and make-believe. Unfortunately, most people do not yet see that only by getting rid of the existing social system and replacing it by a sane one, based on cooperation, equality and common ownership, will they not only get rid of the evils of poverty and insecurity, but also that of snobbery and pretence.

Peter E. Newell

Holding the baby (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist class own the means and instruments for producing society’s needs. The working class must sell their ability to work to the capitalist class for wages which are often not sufficient to keep them according to the conventional standard of living. Many working-class women—unmarried mothers, widowed and deserted mothers, mothers whose husbands are disabled or whose husbands haven’t a large enough wage to support the family, are forced to take a job to augment their income and send their children to day nurseries.

Remarking on such cases, the “Economist” (April 4th, 1953), wrote :—

"The cost per head of keeping a child in a day nursery varies from thirty-five shillings a week to five pounds, according to staffing ratios and amenities. The average wage of adult working women is just under four pounds ten shillings a week. As a matter of plain arithmetic, this means that full cost of the productive services of a working woman who sends her children to a day nursery may easily be both her actual wage, paid by the employer, and an equal amount paid through the local authority that looks after her children. Where several children must be cared for, the full cost may be several times the value of the product—a wildly uneconomical transaction. Where nursery costs are highest it would pay, hands down, to give the mother of two or more children, her full market wage, plus a substantial bonus, simply to mind her babies at home. That normally gratuitous job turns out, when actually priced on the market, to be more valuable than most other occupations open to those doing it."

"This hard headed arithmetical conclusion does not translate easily into practical policy. Not even the wildest speculations of welfare Utopians have included a universal payment to mothers of the market value of their work as child-minders. There might be a case for making such payments, as an alternative to the provision of day nurseries, only to those women who would suffer special hardships if they could not go out to work—to widowed or deserted or unmarried mothers, or to wives of disabled husbands. But an economic payment to such people would make them better off than many normal wives dependent on a breadwinner’s earnings.

"The problem must in fact continue to be fudged rather than solved."

No doubt this appears a very ridiculous situation to the “Economist,” the capitalist class and those who think like them—in terms of exchange value and profit and loss. But the capitalist class are not likely to endorse the obvious solution. Free the working class from the need to sell their labour power to live—a job that can only be done by the workers themselves—by making the means and instrument of production the common property of all.

J.T.

"The trouble with workers . . . " (1953)

Cartoon from the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News Briefs (1953)

Party News from the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another May Day has passed and it is pleasing to note that very successful outdoor rallies were held by the Party in Hyde Park and on Clapham Common. Glasgow (City and Kelvingrove Branches) ran a rally in the Cosmo Cinema and this, too, proved a great success.

* * *

Just a reminder to members. During the summer months considerable time and effort is spent on outdoor propaganda meetings. These provide, in the majority of cases, excellent opportunities for selling the “Socialist Standard” and pamphlets of the Party. Whilst it is interesting to listen to the speaker, and at times stimulate questions from the audience, it is certainly gratifying if members make greater efforts to sell our literature—the best form of propaganda—the written word. An overall attempt to increase the sales of the “Socialist Standard” and pamphlets will not only assist the Party financially, but help on the work of establishing Socialism. Why not have a go ?

* * *

The Central Organiser would like members interested in the Summer School, being held on Saturday and Sunday, June 20th and 21st, at “Treetops,” Farley Green, to get in touch with him without delay in order to reserve accommodation.

* * *

For members who prefer a day at the sea the first of the Ealing Branch summer social and outdoor propaganda trips is on Sunday, June 21st This one is to Southsea. Will any members wanting seats reserved contact E. Warnecke at Head Office or c/o of the Ealing Branch Secretary, as quickly as possible.

* * *

Paddington Branch reports that their Social on May 9th was successful socially and financially. A very happy evening was enjoyed by all and the Branch were able to make a donation to Head Office from the

proceeds.

Phyllis Howard

SPGB Meetings (1953)

Party News from the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The man on the flying trapeze (1975)

From issue number 2 (1975) of The Western Socialist

A chronic(le) expounder of "simpleminded" politics tells it like it is not!

Charles McCabe is a newspaper Journalist who writes a dally column for the San Francisco Chronicle. He is widely regarded around these parts as a liquor drinking philosopher; a commentator upon man’s many foibles, his failures and his successes, but an Omar Khayyam he is not. A wiseacre yes, and when in his cups a savant of no mean regard.

Now Mr. McCabe Is one of those high-wire journalists, who is able — so it would seem — to oscillate effortlessly from problem to problem, subject to subject, without so much as even a casual glance at the danger below. Or even regard for the accuracy of his undoubted mental gymnastics. He is, to boot, a latter day Cassandra. A self-proclaimed Humanist, a Liberal-Anarchist, going along with J. S. Mill who “argues not only for political freedom but social freedom, not only against the tyranny of the majority but also against the social tyranny of prevailing conventions and opinions.” So he says.

So last Monday’s (1/27/75) sermon to the “laity” (McCabe’s term) was no less tendentious than most if not all of Mr. McCabe’s intellectual carousing.

Friendship vs. Politics

It seems that Mr. Alistair Cooke, who is well known on both sides of the Atlantic (whereas Mr. McCabe only this side) in a recent talk to the BBC made this observation : “To be close only to people who share your own political views and prejudices is not only a terrible restriction on the world of friendship, but is a denial of life itself, since life itself is a good deal larger and richer and more complicated than politics.”

Now no one but a myopic wombat would deny that life without friendship would indeed be a very sad mess of pottage. But for Alistair Cooke to claim that life as we now experience it is larger than politics and more complicated to boot, is a proposition of another vintage.

However, as I have said before, Mr. McCabe is no slouch, and if the wind is in the right direction, he will dribble niftily along any old intellectual tightrope, not only not caring whether it sags in the middle — and this one certainly does — but proclaiming his unqualified support with Alistair Cooke’s statement with the following unctuous observation: “A well-put statement as nearly all of Mr. Cooke's are, and one very near to my heart, as nearly all of Mr. Cooke’s sentiments are.”

Mr. McCabe then goes on to compound Mr. Cooke's naivete with the sure-fire prerogative of the ignorant by proclaiming “My politics are, in fact, rather simpleminded. I’m against all well-intentioned kindnesses to others, apart from the essential kindness of letting them do their own thing within the framework of laws against hurting, killing and stealing.’’ (Wanna bet!)

In support for this muddled-thinking, Mr. McCabe (who is also a name-dropper) drags in poor old Mrs. Patrick Campbell’s trite remark about homosexuals “It doesn’t matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.’’ The irrelevance of this quote by Mr. McCabe, in relation to the substance of his article, would make Mrs. Campbell and the horses whinny in their graves.

The milk and water approach to human affairs as evinced by Mr. McCabe is touching, and no doubt would get a lot of votes from most sections of a befuddled populace! it is therefore pertinent to ask of Mr. McCabe whether his sentimental approach to violence, killing and stealing would motivate an advocacy against the laws in favour of the appropriation by the capitalist class of the surplus wealth produced by the working class, because it is this particular situation that at base causes the hurting, killing and stealing which Mr. McCabe tells us he finds so objectionable. And also if Mr. McCabe felt so disposed to crusade against capitalism would the columns of the San Francisco Chronicle still be available to him?

Politics Bigger Than He Thinks

Mr. McCabe expresses the view in his column that “politics is but a part of the full life and not so damned big part at that.” Is that so? Let him read the San Francisco Chronicle, for which he writes, and see how much space is allocated to that which is supposed to constitute the full life! Unless he is referring, of course, to the Society Columns.

The blood and guts of the situation is that our whole existence today is dominated by economics, and politics is the stock in trade, the tools we use to deal with the problems spawned from a particular economic predicament—that of poverty amidst plenty.

Capitalism is the society that has long since overcome all of the main problems of production to the extent that all human life could adequately be sustained: its failure, however, lies in its inability to distribute these goods and services which it so obviously hasn’t the power to do. Distribution in capitalist society demands the repository of the market place and the possession of money. The latter presupposes the former.

With the exception of the capitalist class most of us are quarantined to live out our lives on a wage packet. Capitalism’s problem is to dispose of the surplus wealth produced by the working class, for which they do not get paid. If society were able to have free access to this surplus wealth, not only would we then be able to live the full life, but It would mean the end of politics as well.

Politics, political activity, is that function that lays claims to the various opposing interests between (1) rival sections of the capitalist class, primarily over the vexing question of taxation — who shall pay what to whom and how much, and (2) between rival national capitalists the world over. Over the question of markets; cheap or cheaper sources of raw materials; trade routes and spheres for investment; warfare, internecine warfare, is the scenario which politics has to deal with and in the process whole countries are decimated, and many, many more live in constant deprivation. If after this “ball game” there is anything left over to live the “full life” perhaps Mr. Alistair Cooke would care to comment on it, and Mr. Charles McCabe would care to drool about it.

Harry Hamme

The assassination of art (1975)

From issue number 1 (1975) of The Western Socialist

In a democratic society, art is politics in the widest sense, a celebration of common values which sweep away the old and clears the way for the new needs of man.

Victor Jara, Chilean play producer, singer guitarist, was a supporter of the Allende regime. In the military coup that followed he was assassinated on 15th September 1973. They broke his guitar fingers before breaking his spine. Bullets were then shot into his body.

He is one more addition to the many creative people in history who have become too dangerous to live. For the arts are not amusements, ornamental skills, diversions, comforts for tired businessmen or social polish for the pretentious. At least, not to the men who wield political power. The arts communicate and communication is the most potent force for progress and change.

History is full of the power of the arts, not the overt expression of dissatisfaction nor the blatant clarion call to rise and fight but the uniquely potent expression of ideas which show that man is ready for change. Art is a barometer and a celebration, a mirror to the emotional and intellectual development of man. The artist says, “This is man, how he feels, how we feel,” and once said, it can never be repealed. The ideas catch fire in the minds of men, not because they are new and logical but because they express clearly what people feel but cannot quite themselves make known.

George Bernard Shaw provocatively said that art is propaganda. It is this but far more. In a democratic society, art is politics in the widest sense, a celebration of common values which sweeps away the old and clears the way for the new needs of man.

This does not mean that artists are consciously political in the modern use of the term. In fact, the moment an art becomes consciously political, it usually ceases to be art. The pamphleteer is not an artist because he knows rationally exactly what he wants to say before saying it. He may express new values but they are communicated on a mechanically logical level. There is no bridge of feeling between the old and the new for the mass of the people, still struggling to understand their own feelings, to make the crossing. Art does not lead the needs of man; it expresses them and man, whose evolution is on a social and economic level rather than a physical one, can develop further because he then knows clearly where he is. He recognizes as his the values expressed by the artist.

But some artists do not communicate in their own time. They may lead the way for other artists to follow but they themselves may be a little too far ahead of their time. These artists are sometimes called “important” as distinct from “great”, the universally recognized artists who signify a whole epoch or “celebrate” a common feeling.

Both kinds of artists can be dangerous to the established powers but the “important” artists are more easily destroyed than the “great” ones. They are less supported, less recognized and their deaths provoke less reaction.

The Un-American Activities Committee could not destroy Charles Chaplin or Arthur Miller nor could the Soviets destroy Yevtushenko but artists with less recognition, ahead of their time and people, are frequently destroyed in the power struggles of the world.

President Allende did not have the control of the Chilean parliament or of the army and his own political programme did not have the understanding of the peasants. He was supported as a leader and all this suggests that he was not really the spokesman for the people. The intellectuals and artists who supported him were therefore not truly representative of the people; they were a little before their time. Victor Jara died because his death meant a delay in his ideas developing among the people. Had he been expressing true national feelings, his martyrdom would have been too dangerous because of the possible reaction. More importantly, his martyrdom would have been irrelevant because his values would already be held by the majority of people anyway.

Throughout the world, the fate of the Allende administration has been hailed by the left and the right wings as an illustration that a majority of people cannot change society by democratic and constitutional methods. In actual fact it merely illustrates the futility of a vanguard group trying to lead an ignorant mass of followers into a change which the majority do not understand. When you can destroy a leader and destroy a cause, destroying a leader is obviously the best solution.

A second moral can be drawn. We must learn to respect and protect our artists whatever their political opinions. A society which neglects them is destroying its capacity to change.

Mark Fury, 

S. P. of New Zealand

Voice From The Back: Spaced out (2001)

The Voice From The Back Column from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Spaced out

The US multi-millionaire Dennis Tito returned to earth on 6 May after his trip on a Russian space flight. He paid about $20 million dollars for the privilege; well American capitalists have got to do something with the surplus value that they have extracted from the working class. The awful thing is that while he was away in space for a week the capital that he has invested in the exploitation of the working class made him even richer than he was when he left the planet earth. As he is estimated to have a fortune of $200 million at present that is bloody rich. If every capitalist in the world was given a one way ticket into space, it would make no difference to the wealth produced on this planet, it would of course cut the consumption of wealth quite considerably.

Is democracy ghastly?

The Trade Union movement, in one of its worst moves ever, assisted in the development of the Labour Party. The outcome of that decision is that former railway workers, coal miners and factory hands are calling themselves Lords, dining at the Savoy and discussing the merits of Bollinger ’57 champagne. And are the legions of present and former Labour MPs grateful for the soft living they procured with the help of the TUs? Not a bit of it.

“Teachers unions should end the “ghastly ritual” of their Easter Conferences because they turn off would-be recruits, the chairman of the Commons education committee said last night. Labour MP Barry Sheerman said he was dismayed by the behaviour of some delegates at the National Union of Teachers’ conference in Cardiff, who jeered and held up placards when education secretary, David Blunkett, addressed them.” Guardian 17 April.

Art for cash’s sake

The art world was excited by the re-emergence of a “lost” painting of Claude Monet entitled Haystacks, Last Rays of the Sun. It is a painting that has not been seen in public since 1895. It goes under the hammer at Southeby’s next month and is expected to fetch £5 million. So where has this masterpiece been for over a hundred years? In private hands, where its various owners have kept it safe from the prying eyes of the great unwashed. This is not an unusual fate for artistic works. The very rich, and quite often the very stupid, hoard them under lock and key, often not even looking at them for years on end. These are the people Wilde described as “knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing”. Inside a socialist society all works of art will be available for the public to enjoy, not for millionaires to store in vaults.

Strange bedfellows

The news from Scotland that the Socialist Workers Party will cease to exist and that its 272 members will transfer to the Scottish Socialist Party illustrates the complete lack of principles of both parties. The SSP stand for an independent Scotland, the SWP in the past have always ridiculed this as narrow nationalism. We predict that a battle for supremacy between these two Leninist factions will probably break out in the future. They have certain views in common though. They are opposed to the concept of a class-less, trade-less, money-less society and of course see themselves as the self-appointed leaders of a working class too stupid to get socialism for themselves for “five hundred years”. A plague on both their houses.

Slaughter of the innocents

Capitalism is an awful social system, the old, the infirm and the handicapped are particularly unfortunate recipients of its competitive uncaring nature, but a recent report by the United Nations Children’s Fund shows how terrible is the fate of many children inside capitalism:

“Two million children have been killed by conflict over the last 10 years; 12 million children have been made homeless; six million children have been injured or disabled. Of the world’s 40 million displaced, 20 million are children. Up to 10,000 children each year are killed by landmines” Observer, 6 May.

Situations vacant

From the majestic mountains and glens of Scotland we are delighted to inform our readers of the wonderful career opportunities that are available in Tony Blair’s modern, cool Britannia. “Grouse Beaters wanted. Male and female accommodation. Meals provided. Apply in writing to the Head-keeper, Corrybrough Estate, Tomatin, Inverness-shire IV13 7XY” Herald, 8 May. “Accommodation” AND “meals provided” – Wow! “Near Utopian conditions for the lower orders, your Lordship.” For how long are we going to let these arrogant swine get away with these insults?

Enlightened self-interest

When 39 drug firms dropped their case against South Africa importing cheaper anti-Aids drugs, it was hailed as a victory for humanity over profit. It wasn’t that simple though, because the firms had only bowed to public opinion when it seemed that the import of cheaper drugs into Africa seemed inevitable. The South African government have refused to provide retroviral drugs through the public health system despite this apparent victory. The London-based mining giant Anglo-American is now negotiating with an Indian pharmaceutical company to purchase cheap Aids drugs for its HIV-positive workers in South Africa. An altruistic gesture by big business? Not quite. “Businesses say the pandemic will have a devastating effect on the economy, and research has shown that providing workers with drugs is cheaper than paying for absenteeism, loss of productivity, hospital treatment, funerals, and replacing and retraining staff” Herald, 7 May.

Editorial: Join the protest (2001)

Editorial from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the electoral circus in full swing the parties have been competing with one another in a seemingly endless round of pledges, promises, scare stories and counter claims. And the longer this circus goes on, the less interest most voters show in it. The news media openly spends more time telling us about “the election” itself – its stratagems and ruses – than about the policies on offer from any of the parties. It is hardly surprising given the paucity of the products on show.

The election is carried out as if the two main protagonists are marketing agencies selling two superficially different (but nevertheless fundamentally identical) management teams. The tools of their trade are the typical marketing techniques employed by corporate business everywhere – “spin”, “positioning” in relation to key target sectors, junk mail and cold calling of those in a targeted market niche, all refracted through the magnifying glass of the “focus group”.

Is it any wonder the electorate react with a cold shrug of apathy? The only time the campaign thus far has come to life was when a manager from one of the competing teams hit an egg-wielding farmer’s boy on the campaign trail in North Wales. Nothing of any significance happened and no great issues were debated as a result but it provided a spectacle for a society that thrives on periodic spectacular events to relieve the boredom and passivity.

Who wants to endlessly discuss whether there’s a £20 billion hole in one of the team’s tax and spending plans or whether the other team will abolish the ceiling on the upper rate of National Insurance contributions when we can watch Thumper give the Yokel a left-arm jab on the nightly news? All the arguments are just froth, of course, anyway – how many can (hand on heart) say that they are definitely always better off under one type of management team rather than the other? Very few and they’re usually the ones with money enough not to care too much either way.

For the rest of us – the majority who struggle along from week to week while the people with real money in society get even more money and the politicians play their games to distract our attention from it – it’s one long yawn. A nagging irrelevance that won’t go away. An advertising war in which we are the collateral damage.

But something interesting is happening if you look hard enough. The serfs in this giant political soap suds war are revolting. Fewer than ever wish to take sides between the teams on offer and the near-identical brands they are promoting. In recent elections for the European parliament, local government and parliamentary by-elections increasing numbers of voters are signalling that they’ve had enough. They’re staying at home, sitting on their hands.

This is an encouraging sign, but is one which is of itself a reflection of the passive mentality today’s market-driven consumer society promotes and which the political process encourages. Far better would be a positive refusal to line up behind the teams on offer, a refusal to join in their pointless games. In other words, a protest.

As socialists, we write in this journal as people who wish to help change the world in a positive direction, not get our bums on seats of ministerial cars of play lap-dog to the rich (and getting richer). So in this election we call on the “silent majority”, unhappy – and even disgusted – by the performance of the clowns in this political circus, to protest by spoiling their ballot papers. In so doing they will be taking part in the democratic forum yet at the same time withdrawing their consent from those who would rule over them in the name of wealth for the few and tedium for the rest of us.

Where no candidate standing for the one genuine alternative to the present system – a world socialist society of free access to available wealth – is on offer in this election, socialists and those in general agreement with our cause will be writing “WORLD SOCIALISM” across our ballot papers.

So our voice will be heard. We will not allow it to be stifled under a welter of mindless political psychobabble. And the more people who agree with us and do the same, the louder the voice and the more effective the protest against the whole ridiculous charade currently being played out before us in the name of our interests.

World view: What causes world poverty? (2001)

From the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

The World Development Organisation claims that the policies of governments and multinational businesses cause poverty. Are they right?

“The world has the wealth and means to end poverty. Yet nearly half of the world’s population live on less than £1.40 a day And over 11 million children will die from poverty-related illness this year alone, read the leaflet that fell out of a recent issue of the New Internationalist. This particular leaflet, entitled “Isn’t it time we tackled the causes of poverty?” was issued by an organisation called the World Development Movement but it could have come from any of the numerous other campaigning charities in this field.

What they say is true – the world does have the wealth and means to end poverty – and, yes, it is more than time that we tackled the causes (or rather the cause) of poverty.

So what causes world poverty? Clearly, this is the key question since if you don’t get the answer right, you’re not going to get the solution right either.

According to the WDM, what causes world poverty are the policies currently pursued by governments and multinational companies:

“Policies of governments and companies are keeping people poor. Policies that ensure global trade benefits the rich, not the poor – the three richest men in the world are wealthier than the 48 poorest countries combined. Policies that give increasing power to multinational companies – for every £1 of aid going into poor countries, multinationals take 66p of profits out. The powerful are exploiting the poor to make bigger and bigger profits.”

The WDM’s solution to the problem of world poverty follows logically from this analysis that it is “the policies of governments and companies” that is the cause:

“We lobby decision makers to change the policies that keep people poor.”

They claim that this can work, if enough pressure is brought to bear:

“In rich countries like Britain, decisions are made which can make or break the lives of the poor. We can influence those decisions. That’s why our actions matter so much. Together we can be powerful and win change for the world’s poor.”

Is this true? Is world poverty caused by the mistaken policies of governments and multinationals? Can lobbying and campaigning get these policies changed?

As socialists, we have to say that the answer to both questions is “no”. Governments don’t pursue policies that put profits before poor people because they have chosen to do this rather than chosen not to. Nor have they given in to pressure from the rich and powerful to pursue policies that favour them. They don’t have any choice in the matter, because they are not in control of things.

Governments operate within the framework of an economic system, and the current economic system – capitalism, to give it a name – is based on wealth being produced for sale on a market with a view to profit and on the competitive pressures of the market dictating that these profits be accumulated in the form of more and more capital invested to make yet further profits.

The aim of production under capitalism is not to satisfy people’s needs but to accumulate profits. This is not a policy choice but an economic necessity imposed by the operation of impersonal and uncontrollable economic laws which governments have to abide by, unless they want to risk making things worse by provoking an economic crisis and stagnation in the area they rule over.

In short, governments put profits before poor people because they are obliged to by the impersonal workings of world market forces, not out of choice. The same goes, even more forcefully, for capitalist corporations. Their whole purpose is to make a profit on the capital invested in their businesses so that their shareholders can benefit. That’s the nature of the beast, and we can’t imagine that the World Development Movement is really so naïve as to believe that private companies, whether national or multinational, could pursue any other policy than to maximise their profits.

Classic reformist mistake

The WDM and the other campaigning charities are making, on the world level, the same classic reformist mistake that used to be made at national level: blaming policies pursued by governments rather than the economic system, and so seeing the solution as changing the government or even just its policies rather than changing the economic system. Not just in Britain but in many other countries too, governments have been changed but the policies involving putting profits before people continued just as they did under the old government that openly upheld the status quo.

So, to be frank, campaigning charities like the WDM have got no chance at all of getting governments, and even less multinational companies, to change their practice of putting profits before people. And it is not because they believe merely in lobbying that dooms them to failure; not even the most violent street demonstrations can bring about a change in this practice. As long as the international capitalist system continues to exist, its economic laws will operate to put profits before people, and governments will have no choice but to dance to this tune.

But what are the alternative policies that the WDM and the others would like governments and companies to pursue? The WDM don’t go into details in their leaflet but you can find out if you return their cut-off coupon. But this is not really necessary as another leaflet that fell out of the New Internationalist provides the answer. Issued by Christian Aid, and entitled “Trade for Life” it claims that “every day trade rules keep millions in poverty and a few in riches”:

“Trade affects almost everybody on earth. Over the centuries it has become an increasingly powerful international force. But it is being manipulated by rich countries and companies to suit their interests. Poor people are missing out on the opportunities trade could bring. They are forced to continue living in poverty, sacrificing their lives and livelihoods for others to get rich.”

But if the current “rules” governing trade are the cause, then the solution, logically, is to change the rules, and this is precisely the declared aim of the “Trade for Life” campaign:

“With new rules, trade could become one of the greatest solutions to global poverty. Trade has the power to create jobs, improve healthcare and benefit people’s lives and livelihoods. The Trade for Life campaign calls for a major overhaul of the rules that run the international trading system.”

Trade – the buying and selling of goods and services – should not be confused with the physical transportation of goods and services from one part of the world to another to be used there. The two are not the same, though trade usually involves the latter. In fact, it is precisely because there is trade – and not mere transportation – that goods and services are not distributed today to people according to their needs.

Trade is buying and selling, and this means markets and that goods and services are only produced to be sold on some market with a view to making a profit. It means that production is carried on not to satisfy people’s needs, but to satisfy only paying needs, i.e. needs backed up by what pro-capitalist economists call “effective demand”. In short, it means the application of the economic principle of “can’t pay, can’t have”.

It is because the millions of people living in absolute poverty, who organisations like the WDM and Christian Aid are rightly concerned about, do not have any money, or not enough money, that their needs are not met: they don’t constitute a market, or only an insufficiently profitable market. Because their demand for decent food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and sanitation is “ineffective”, trade and the international trading system ignore them. No change in the rules of international trade is going to change this since it is the “international trading system” itself (aka the world market, aka capitalism) that is the cause.

What is required is not a reform of this system such as demanded by the World Development Movement, Christian Aid and the others, but its abolition and its replacement by one in which the Earth’s resources become the common heritage of all humanity. Only on this basis can these resources be mobilised to eradicate world poverty and ensure a decent life for every man, woman and child on the planet. Yes, the world does have the wealth and means to end world poverty. And, yes, it is high time we tackled the problem.

Adam Buick