Child poverty increases again under New Labour

Latest post from the SPGB blog, Socialism Or Your Money Back

Back in 1965, when the Child Poverty Action Group was formed, there were 500,000 children living in poverty. The Labour Party said at the time that the organisation would fold within a year because they would eradicate child poverty within the next 12 months.

Replying to a letter from the CPAG on 20th January 2006, Tony Blair confidently wrote: "I can promise you that we share your ambition to make child poverty history in our country. It is why we have publicly said we want to halve child poverty by 2010 and eradicate it completely by 2020." What is nauseating about this is that Blair is telling the CPAG, who in 1965 complained that there were officially half a million children in poverty, that by 2010 he will halve child poverty - ie. slash the number of impoverished children from 3.4 million to 1.7 million (in Jan 2006 child poverty stood at 3.4 million).

Today The Guardian reports that child poverty now stands at 3.8 million!! 42 years after Labour promised to end child poverty, the problem officially is almost seven times as worse!!

Of course, come May 3rd, Blair and co will continue to depend on working class historical amnesia to carry them through, confident their lies and betrayals and rampant hypocrisy will be concealed by surfeit of promises for the future and pathetic excuses for past failings. Incidentally, if you do suffer from political amnesia, try clicking on this remedy: LABOUR SLEAZE

John Bissett

What liberation? (1998)

Book Review from the November 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mother Courage: Letters from Mothers in Poverty at the End of the Century. edited by Christine Gowdridge, A. Susan Williams and Margaret Wynn. Penguin 1997.

The Maternity Alliance was founded in 1980 to campaign for improvements in the lives of parents and babies in Britain. In its policy document, "Maternity into the twenty first century", the Alliance states, "We believe not only in the right of women to choose where and how to give birth, but, most importantly, in the need to address the economic and social factors which . . . determine women's experience of pregnancy and the health of the baby."

Mother Courage, published in association with the Maternity Alliance, is a collection of letters written by mothers whose struggle against poverty in their daily lives undermines the work of bearing and raising their children. It mirrors a similar publication by the Women's Co-operation Guild 1915, Maternity: Letters from Working Women, and is overtly political in its intent. In the introduction by Ann Oakley, the changes and continuities in the lives of mothers in poverty over the intervening period are chronicled. The question is posed, but remains unanswered, "Why is it still necessary, over 80 years later, to collect together and publicise women's accounts in this way. Surely the situation of mothers is vastly different now?"

Clearly there have been real improvements, particularly in the area of maternal and child health following the establishment of the National Health Service in 1948. But there is also something much more fundamental going on than mere deficiencies in the welfare state when it still has to be stated as an aim for the next century that "no baby should be born poor" (Maternity Alliance policy document).

Nonetheless this is an important book that gives voice to those mothers whose welfare is systematically neglected and about whom our society is silent, except in condemnation. Their poverty is one of bare subsistence on means-tested benefits, or of being trapped into low paid, insecure part-time work. They are frequently without the financial, practical or emotional support from the father of their children, and many face domestic violence.

Submerged beneath the political rhetoric of the family as the moral heart of society (and motherhood as its lynchpin), they sustain their hopes and fears with more courage than most. The book bears the following dedication from Brecht's 1940 play, Mother Courage: "Poor folk got to have courage . . . Mere fact they bring kids into world shows they got courage." Remember these mothers when next you hear the claim that women have been liberated.

Helen Roberts

This (Capitalist) Sporting Life (1998)

From the August 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

There was sport before capitalism and there will no doubt be sport after capitalism. Here we discuss three questions. What does the profit system do to this thing called sport? What are the pros and cons of the way we "do" sport today? And what will sport be like when we replace capitalism with socialism?

It is a truism - if not a cliche - that sport today is big business, at least in the economically developed parts of the world. Like all capitalist businesses, sport is one in which profit seeking is the spur.

Take football for example. Huge sums of money change hands around the spectacle of 22 men chasing and kicking a piece of leather. There are admission charges to grounds, the buying and selling of players (sometimes for millions of pounds), the "merchand-ising" of items of clothing and other paraphernalia to the faithful fans, the money gambled on the results of matches (out of which the pools promoters, the bookmakers and the government take a hefty slice). The shares of the big football clubs are marketed on the stock exchange.

The process is similar, with some differences of detail, in other sports around the world. In 1996 two megacapitalists, Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch, joined forces to launch a "super league" of Australian rugby football. As with World Series cricket, the target was pay-TV The previously free-to-air broadcasts were turned into paid-for commodities.

Reforming sport
Not all sport is useful to capitalism. And sometimes sport has to be reformed to make it amenable to the profit-seeking process. Originally, football was a very unorganised, rough and wild "folk game" between village teams of different sizes and with no fixed pitch boundaries. Only in the nineteenth century was it adapted for mass consumption.

Organised and commercialised sport helps to train a "docile" labour force. It encourages an acceptance of the kind of work discipline demanded by capitalist production. Ellis Cashmore. in his Making Sense of Sport, has a splendid cartoon in which a factory time-keeper is shown back-to-back with a referee, stop-watch in hand.

Hard work is urged in both competitive sport and employment. Sport both expresses and reinforces "qualities" that have counterparts in society at large. Aggressive individualism, ruthless competitive-ness. elitism, nationalism: all these are today regarded as admirable.

Writers on the social function of sport offer hypotheses about why it is so popular. Why do some people follow sport with much the same zeal and commitment as active churchgoers follow religion? Sport, it is suggested, has become a substitute for religion because it supplies the follower with a meaningful cause, an emblematic focus, a sense of allegiance and belonging.

Consuming sport
Perhaps the most notable feature of modern sport is that, while it is bought and sold rather like any other commodity or service, it is most like entertainment or showbusiness. In terms of preparing workers to be consumers not only of things but also of status-quo ways of thinking, the marriage of sport and television has a lot to answer for.

So what of sport in socialist society? One thing we can say for certain is that it will be engaged in for its own sake and not for money. We can all have our own ideas about what sports we would like to take part in or watch. The provision of facilities and events will be decided democratically. Competition will probably continue to play a part in some sports. But we can be fairly certain that there will be a red card for anyone who praises the mantra "Winning isn't the main thing? it's the only thing."

Stan Parker

Socialism in the 21st Century

The following piece, written by the late Pieter Lawrence, is the final chapter of his work, 'Practical Socialism - Its Principles and Methods'.

In the words of Pieter himself the work sought to: " . . . liberate the idea of socialism from the immense accumulation of ideological baggage that has become its burden. By stripping this away we should reveal the core simplicity and practicality of socialism. I believe the argument is overwhelmingly made that by applying these principles and methods the world community could solve its deep and seemingly intractable problems."

Link to Chapter 11.

Chapter 12

Socialism in the 21st Century

It has been said that the Capitalist system digs its own grave; it does not! The only way it will be consigned to history is when a majority of people take political action to end it. But what the capitalist system does do, and has no choice about it, is develop a material basis for what could be a new socialist society. These developments are in the global fields of production, distribution, administration and communications. They bring with them the possibility of a different world system with a good life for all people in conditions of peace, cooperation and well being. Paradoxically, these possibilities are driven by the economic forces of the world market system.

Here, we have the great contradiction of modern life. Developments which can be seen as opening up an exciting future for humanity, are in fact propelled by monetary gain and the exploitative policies of great power structures. The economic forces that advance these possibilities are the very forces that stop them being realised. As a consequence, we have a widening gap between the lives we could have and the lives we have got. Instead of one world, one people, we have exploitation, war and poverty. It is truly said, never has there been so much misery whilst the means of creating a better world are so near to hand.

The only reasonable stance a socialist can take is one of criticism and dissociation from the activities of multi national corporations and the economic/military policies of rival capitalist nations. But because the actions of these power structures dominate public discussion, the position of socialist criticism is one of alienation from every day politics; this can lead to alienation from society in general. It brings with it the problem of how to maintain a distance from what is happening in the mainstream of economic and political life, whilst at the same time engaging with developments which hold great potential for a better world.

The answer to this question for the 21st Century is that the socialist analysis of social problems and their causes should be continuously upheld and developed. This clarifies what is happening in the world of economics and politics from the point of view of working people. It searches out the causes of problems and is a pointer to solutions. Without this socialist criticism, clear understanding would be lost, leaving only the ideological fog of state obfuscation which conceals the real interests and motives of dominant power groups.

However, in the developed circumstances of our modern age, criticism is not enough. Given that, globally, we now have to hand the material means of running a world socialist society, Its arguments should be expanded. These should now move forward from the negativity of criticism to the positive work of proposing ways in which a socialist society could be organised.

The method of this positive work is itself a product of development. The great advances we can work with are in the fields of global production, distribution, communications, decision making and administration. As has been outlined, our method is one of identifying the existing parts of this world organisation that could serve the needs of the whole community in a socialist society. Having identified these parts, the work then becomes a question of how they could function together on a social basis of common ownership, democratic control and production solely for need. As a result, the politics of socialism moves from mere criticism to engagement with social, economic and political development. At the same time it sheds its traditional baggage of utopian, sectarian and anarchist tendencies; it becomes the constructive work of practical socialism.

With any significant growth of the World Socialist Movement, proposals will tend to be formalised as an agreed programme of action to be activated with the capture of political control. This positive set of proposals would be in sharp contrast with the poverty of the backward looking ideas that at present can see nothing beyond the management of the capitalist system.

The Background of Practical Socialism
The realisation of progressive ideas can never exceed the practical possibilities given by a particular stage of development. It is in the light of this that practical socialism can be understood as a product of the dynamic change that has been the nature of capitalism over the past two hundred years. Even from its beginning, forward looking thinkers were talking about socialism and publishing pamphlets and books setting out their ideas. However, we do have to say that they were well ahead of their times, which means that their ideas stood no chance of being realised in practice. This applies not just to the utopians of the early 19th Century but also to Marx and Engels. Under the heading "The Myth of Nationalisation" we considered the contribution to socialist ideas in The Communist Manifesto, in 1848. This most influential pamphlet, understandably, but also unfortunately, set out a revolutionary programme based mainly on a policy of nationalisation. We may say "understandably" because in 1848 the capitalist system was in an early stage and at that time, had not yet developed the material basis for a new society.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, however, socialist criticism made a great leap forward and this went together with the many changes that marked the second half of the 19th Century. This was at a time when many workers had won the vote, the trade union movement had gained in strength and organisation and when the idea of socialism was being widely discussed amongst the many political parties and groups that were looking forward to the establishment of a new society. It is worth repeating the issues involved in the burning question of reform or revolution because its consequences are with us today.

Those who took a 'gradualist' view believed that a new society could only be introduced gradually through programmes of reform. For this, the all important strategy was to capture political control through the ballot box and to form a working class government. It was assumed that such a government would be not just in political control but also economic control. Then, through legislation on such problems as housing, health care and education and pensions, living standards for working people would be raised. Such a government, working in close collaboration with the trade unions, would be able to raise the level of wages for all working people. At the same time, through the nationalisation of industry, and through corporation tax, inheritance tax and death duties, the owning class of capitalists would be removed from all sectors of production and taxed out of existence.

This political programme, which we can describe as the reformist road to socialism, captured the minds of most activists in the Labour Movement. With the founding of the Labour Party in 1906 and the rapid spread of its influence throughout the country, it was this programme that filled manifestos and leaflets, wherever the party was organised. It was believed that the single, all important condition for the success of this programme was the formation of a working class government.

However, the gradualist or reformist way forward was not the only programme being debated. Others took a different view which argued that the condition for the establishment of socialism was not simply the capture of political power. To be successful, political control had to be supported by a majority of socialists, that is, by a majority of people who fully understood the meaning of socialism together with what would be involved in the change from capitalism to socialism. In this view it was held that unless this majority of socialists was achieved, capitalism would continue. The campaigning that arose from this was directed at raising socialist consciousness through meetings, leaflets, pamphlets and a socialist journal. It was also argued that the best way to defend worker's interests within capitalism was to build up a strong, principled socialist movement. Two years before the Labour Party was founded, these were the ideas of those who formed The Socialist Party of Gt Britain in 1904. As former members of the Social Democratic Federation they had become deeply dissatisfied with its increasingly reformist policies. Given their socialist analysis of problems and their commitment to organise unswervingly for a new society based on common ownership, democratic control and production solely for needs, circumstances gave them no option but to form the new Party.

To their great credit, in 1904, the founder members of the Socialist Party of Gt Britain did something that neither Marx nor Engels had ever done, or perhaps had never had an opportunity to do. They based their criticism of the reformist way forward not primarily on political theory but on economic theory. This was a crucial difference between what came to be the reformist policy and the revolutionary policy. The reformists began with a political objective which was the capture of political power. The members of the SPGB began with an economic analysis of the capitalist system which set out the limitations of political action within capitalism and therefore the need for a revolutionary change. They understood that no government, however well intentioned, or given to revolutionary aspiration, could direct the course of capitalist economic development simply by the application of political hopes. They argued that the mechanics of the market system are driven by economic laws which are inherent in the system and which are not susceptible to ideological direction or government control. It was accepted that politics could make a marginal difference but ultimately, economic factors would be decisive in setting a framework of constraints on what governments and therefore society can do. In this view, production is both regulated and limited by what can be distributed as commodities for sale at a profit in the markets. The idea that class ownership and the profit system could be subjected to gradual abolished through reform change was an illusion.

It was this application of economic theory to politics that not only defined the limitations of political action within the capitalist system, it clarified the question of reform or revolution. It meant that socialism could not be introduced gradually by reform but only as a result of conscious political action by a majority of socialists. At the time this was deemed by the reformist school to be "impossible."

In retrospect, the stand taken in 1904 by the members of the Socialist Party of Gt Britain was fully justified and we may say this not just with hindsight. Their development of socialist criticism led to a body of theory that came to have predictive value. This has been a most important contribution which is yet to be recognised. If we look back over the 20th Century since 1904 we find that they predicted not just the failure of reform programmes to change society but the long sequence of raised hopes, failure and disillusion that was its continuing political history. They predicted the failure of the Bolshevik revolution stating that society in Russia would develop into a system of state capitalism. This is exactly what happened. They predicted the failure of Labour and Social Democratic Parties throughout Europe to use nationalisation as a means of re-constructing society. Later on, by applying the same method, they predicted the failure of Keynsian policies which were designed to set the capitalist system on a course of steady expansion without the destructive affects of the boom/slump cycle. This record of accurate prediction and principled campaigning can be read in many pamphlets, books and particularly in the columns of the monthly journal, "The Socialist Standard" which has been produced without fail since September 1904.

It is now sad to observe the abandonment of socialist aspiration and principle amongst labour and social democratic parties across the world. Having set out in 1906 on a brave new road of great social change, at the time of writing a Labour Government is in the process of introducing gambling casinos and is now wholly committed to managing the capitalist system. This was always inherent in their mistaken belief that the nature of capitalist society could be abolished through programmes of reform. The only gradualism that took place has been their gradual absorption within the politics of capitalism.

To be generous to those who followed this course we could say they became the victims of a seductive but politically deadly process. Because it is impossible for the capitalist system to serve the interests of the whole community it constantly throws up issues that demand action by those who are socially concerned and by many people who think of themselves as socialists. The great danger in being diverted from campaigning for socialism into campaigns to "Ban the Bomb", "End the poll tax", "Stop the War in Iraq", "Cancel Poor Nation's Debt," etc., etc., is that this becomes not just a diversion but an end in itself. Inevitably, it becomes a campaign for an "improved" kind of Capitalism. It is in this process of campaigning for a different or a reformed form of capitalism that the work for socialism tends to become lost. Those who in the past felt that action should be limited to making capitalism a better system, have contributed, albeit unwittingly, to the present state of things. A sane society cannot be postponed without accepting the consequences of the postponement.

It is inherent in the capitalist system that it generates discontent and protest but it has also been unfortunate that the long history of protest has been empty of political action that could end the system. Inevitably, the causes of problems are left intact and lead on to a further need for protest. This reduces protest to political theatre in which each demonstration helps to set a stage for further demonstration. Though the scripts may vary and the actors may change the message is the same, "we demand that governments do this, that or the other!" The spectacle of thousands, demanding that governments act on their behalf is a most reassuring signal to those in power that their positions of control are secure. Repeated demonstrations do little more than confirm the continuity of the system. It is in this sense that mostly, protest is a permanent feature of the status quo. The point should be to change society not to appeal to the doubtful better nature of its power structures.

Having attended demonstrations over many years I was also present when the European Social Forum demonstrated in Trafalgar Square in October 2004. On that day thousands of supporters, having marched through London, demonstrated in angry protest, mainly against the war in Iraq. But anyone with a sound socialist view and a memory of many such demonstrations would have been depressed by the superficial sloganeering and the displays of futile anger which came from the platform and which stood not the slightest chance of making a difference. Speaker after speaker from various groups, some in opposition to each other, demanded a world of "Peace, Security and Justice for All."

But if we listen to politicians either in government or in so called "opposition", we find that they also represent their aims under such slogans as "Peace, Security and Justice for All." It is a slogan much beloved of the Prime Minister of Britain and the President of the United States. So here we have protestors sharing the same meaningless language as those in power and to whom they seem so vigorously opposed. Instead of clearly defined objectives argued in clear and consistent language we have the politics of linguistic fog in which communication and reasoned debate is difficult if not impossible.

In 1904, the work that clarified the question of revolution or reform was not widely accepted. Instead, in increasing numbers, working people gave their support to reformist policies and in particular, those of the Labour Party. Consequently, socialist analysis and criticism became not only a criticism of the capitalist system, it also became a criticism of the activities of most working people. However true may have been its analysis of problems, the political action required for their solution and the building of a better world, it nevertheless failed to become an influence in the every day thinking of the majority of people. There it has remained, in a state of isolation from the main stream of day to day politics and surviving as a mostly ignored light of hope in a world of ongoing disaster.

Engagement With Change
To move socialist ideas to the centre of popular politics they must be developed as a positive and practical alternative to the present system, argued in association with forward looking change. As has been emphasised, we live in a world of rapid change which includes the world of ideas. This means that the differences between socialist ideas and popular politics are neither static nor fixed in time. Sadly, not all developments in ideas are progressive. It would appear that the consensual body of ideas which make up popular culture moves sometimes forward but sometimes backwards in cycles. The present lurch towards extreme religious nationalism, neo conservatism and the politics of hate is regressive and can only bring more misery. But this is not the whole story. However divided the world may seem to be, all people share common needs which can only be served, ultimately by cooperation. These needs arise from our human make up, are expressed in the best ways to live, and are inescapable. They rise above national divisions or differences of race, culture and language. Throughout the world, all people share a common need to live in peace and material security and to be at friendly ease with their communities and with other peoples in other countries.

Under the clamour of conflict and the divisive politics that prevent people of all countries from coming together as a united humanity there is the unspoken voice of a common need which is always present. Whilst the oft shouted slogan of "peace, security and justice" may lack systematic thought and down the years has been empty of any practical means of bringing change, it does express a yearning for a different and better world. So when socialists argue for a world of cooperation organised solely for needs, in which all citizens will stand in equal relation with each other, this does express the universal interests of all people; it is therefore true for all time.

These conditions of life are only possible in a socialist society. This means that whilst socialist ideas may seem, on the present face of things, to be estranged from popular politics, they are in harmony with the real hopes of all people. It is when socialist ideas become the conscious political expression of these hopes that socialism will become an irresistible force for change.We live in a time when change brings more disillusion than hope. This is in great contrast to the outlook of many in Victorian times. For example, then, Karl Marx seemed very hopeful of the revolutionary possibilities of change. He said in the Communist Manifesto:

"Modern industry has established the world market… This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land…. The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all newly formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

It is possible that Marx was somewhat carried away by his own magnificent prose, but what comes through from this passage is the sense of excitement that both he and Frederick Engels felt about the great changes that were taking place in their day. Others too, seeing the great advances in knowledge in every branch of science and technology, which brought increased powers of production and the promise of an end to poverty, were optimistic that social problems would be solved. They did not foresee that technology would be applied to weapons of mass destruction with the result that the 20th Century inflicted more killings than in any previous century. They did not foresee that between 1975 and the year 2000, the number of starving people would double from 450 million to 820 million.

However, the fact still remains that although society, for reasons we have outlined, has been unable to use the great advances in science and technology for the solution of social problems, since the 19th Century, as we have also emphasised, development has not only continued, it has gathered pace and now represents an immense accumulation of our powers of production and social organisation. It is this fact than now provides opportunities to be more positively engaged with modern development. When we say that capitalism has established the basis of socialist society it means we have a structure of world production; we have the communications; we have abundant labour with every necessary skill and talent; we have decision making bodies; we have means of administration at local, regional and world levels; all of which could be swiftly adapted, re-organised and developed so as to concentrate all these resources on providing directly for needs. It is the work of practical socialism to propose how these basic means of life could be combined in the practical organisation of democratic decision making, administration and production in socialism.

In the past, lack of social development meant that socialist arguments had a difficulty in proceeding beyond economic analysis and political criticism. This was well expressed by Frederick Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific where, in criticising the utopian thinkers he said, "The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain." Now of course, almost 150 years further on, the solution of social problems is no longer hidden in undeveloped conditions. On the contrary, the material means of solving problems are all around us. In the developed conditions of modern global capitalism, whilst critical analysis constitutes the theoretical basis of socialist argument, it is now a starting point from which we should set out how socialism could be organised using the methods that have been outlined.

Practical Socialism as a Political Campaign
In this volume, the chapters headed "Democratic Organisation", "Organisation of Production", "Information, Planning and Decision Making", and "Advantages of Production Solely for Use", have suggested ways in which the work on Practical socialism can be developed. The proposals outlined in these chapters should in no way be taken as narrowly prescriptive or in any way the last words on either the method or content of Practical socialism. These demonstrate the methods of the work and are put forward simply as proposals in the ordinary meaning of the word; to offer for consideration or acceptance. The aim is to suggest that the campaign for socialism should now take a more positive direction which could bring it closer to the centre stage of popular politics.

Despite the fact that many thousands of people in such organisations as OXFAM are battling against worsening problems with their efforts bringing little success, the indignation they feel and their willingness to act is a most important signpost towards a better world. Socialists do not hold a monopoly on social concern but share the hopes and intentions of thousands in many organisations. The work on Practical socialism would draw their attention more directly to the need to alter the present economic and political framework which is so destructive of their efforts. This again would project what concerned people in many voluntary organisations are trying to do into a different social context in which their work would be more successful. This would urge that action to solve such problems as world hunger must include action to bring about a society where individuals and communities will be able to act more effectively. The action to solve problems and the work of creating the conditions in which they can be solved, cannot be separated; these go together.

Given a socialist movement that was growing on the basis of its campaigns for Practical socialism, there would be no question of demonstrations "demanding", from a position of weakness, that governments take action to deal with this or that problem. There would of course be demonstrations but only to demonstrate, from a position of gathering strength, a democratic movement with developing plans for a new society; plans that could be activated with the capture of political control. This would demonstrate the beginnings of socialist organisation within the heart of capitalism.

The Scale of the Task
The challenge of building a new world society may appear to be a daunting task. Indeed, it would involve great change and a re-organisation of the way we live. However, when we speak of a "new world society", the word "new" should be qualified because there would be nothing in socialist society that would be outside age old human experience. In this sense very little would be new.

Socialism will depend on voluntary cooperation and there would be nothing new about this. Cooperation is a vital part of any society, even capitalism. Looking back to the long period of the Palaeolithic it was through social cooperation that humanity emerged as modern man. Countless generations of early people could only survive in groups based on cooperation and in doing so we became a social, thinking, tool making species with increased powers of providing the means of life. In looking forward to a society organised through cooperation we do not imagine anything new, on the contrary, we recall age old relationships which have always been in harmony with our basic human make up. It is for this reason that every person is capable of cooperating with others to the benefit of all. Cooperation is not simply a moral choice, it is a relationship that enhances our lives and is in every person's material interest. In setting out the practical ways in which society could be organised through cooperation we are proposing that cooperation be brought back to the activity that matters most, that is, in the entire organisation of our lives.

The need for cooperation is also a response to the growing contradictions that arise from the hot house pace of technical development which the market system can never freely use for the benefit of people; the economic forces that drive technology forward prevent us from using it to solve problems. At our present stage of advanced technology we have a potential for abundance which is in contrast with the economics of scarcity on which the market system depends. As this gap between possible production and actual production widens, the capitalist system becomes more anachronistic, a straight jacket on our powers of action and historically redundant. The campaign for practical socialism will find growing support from these deepening failures of the capitalist system.

Finally, we come to the name of socialism itself. From its use by well intentioned social reformers to cynical dictators such as Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, it has been a tragic story that the word has suffered misuse, confusion and distortion. But there is no intention here to in any way denigrate the activities of millions of concerned people for whom socialism meant an end to privilege and exploitation, and in place of these evils, the building of a new world. There can be no doubt that generations of working people who were moved by their own problems and by their indignation at the plight of others, dedicated their political lives to a vision of a better society; for reasons stated they did not achieve their aims.

Now is a time for looking at the past, learning from its mistakes and for carrying the hopes of past activists forward in a more effective, sound way. The fact that the capitalist system is stronger and more extensive than ever is disappointing by it should also give fresh impetus to the work for socialism. We now have the advantage of global development in all spheres of life, enabling us to propose practical ways it could be organised.

This has the prospect of creating a body of political ideas, based on socialist principles and the methods of practical socialism, presented more in the every day language of description rather than the higher abstractions of socialist theory. Instead of the aims of common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use being asserted as great abstract concepts, practical socialism translates them into what they could mean in the every day lives of people. This not only makes the meaning of socialism more readily understood it projects life styles with which people can identify. It gives individuals a view of their greater possibilities, seeing themselves not just in the dreary, problem ridden role of wage or salary workers in a world in which they have little say, but as people in cooperation in a society organised solely for the well being of all citizens.

This would also make it clear that the values of a socialist society would centre on freedom. Common ownership will mean the freedom to place production and resources at the disposal of the whole community; democratic control will mean freedom for every person to relate to others on equal terms when making social decisions; production solely for use will mean the freedom to use production directly for needs. Above all, its social relations will empower every person with the freedom to control their own lives, to decide on what skills to have and what part to play in the community's programmes of action. This will be the freedom of self determined individuality.

The appeal of freedom extends to more than those whose loyalties are to radical politics. It appeals to all those, of whatever political complexion, who value freedom of choice, responsibility and the interests of the whole community. In this sense, although socialism has to be clearly defined and systematically argued as a distinct political choice, it rises above the traditional political differences that have existed between radical, conservative and liberal views. The various creeds that divide people into separate parties can be seen as motivated by aims which have many things in common.

To argue and organise for a world in which each person would be responsible for their own lives and by working in cooperation, for the lives of other citizens; a world where this is made possible by the use of all resources, solely and directly for the interests of communities, is not an objective that should runs counter to the basic hopes of anyone. Whilst a work on politics cannot avoid the use of political labels it is all too often the case that labels act as a barrier to communication. I would therefore ask any reader of this work to look beyond its unavoidable labels and to simply consider its proposals, and its supportive arguments, strictly on their practical merits in terms of the world it seeks to establish.

Just as these proposals for a changed world are argued as a response to needs that are universal, so are they in accord with the basic hopes and aims of all reasonable people, who may at present, appear to be divided by separate political identities. In this view, the ideas that could unite humanity in a changed society are the ideas that could unite a majority of people in working for it.

A better world need not wait on future events. Even as individuals, one way of participating in a better world is to work for it. The more people that work for it the better the world shall be.

Pieter Lawrence

Markets, Monopoly and War (1985)

Book Review from the July 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new edition of Rudolf Hilferding's Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development has been published in a new translation and with a useful introduction and notes by Tom Bottomore (Routledge and Kegan Paul). It provides an opportunity to consider whether the theories advanced by Hilferding and others have been confirmed in the years since the work was first published in 1910.

Towards the end of the 19th century there was a growing tendency towards the formation of trusts and combines associated with what came to be known as imperialism. Among the other books on the subject there were J.A. Hobson's Imperialism (1902) and his earlier Evolution of Modern Capitalism, Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism and L.B. Boudin's Socialism and War (1916). Later on J.M. Keynes had something to say about it in his General Theory (1936). Hobson held that monopolistic industries restrict output in the home market, in order to raise prices and profits, and therefore have to seek foreign outlets for investment and markets. For this purpose they get governments to colonise foreign territories (Evolution of Modern Capitalism, page 26). Lenin made use of Hobson for his own Imperialism, and gave high praise to much of his works. Keynes saw in Hobson many features of his own theories set out in the General Theory.

Hobson, unlike Lenin but like Keynes, offered a remedy:

If the whole gain of improved economies passed, either to the workers in wages or to large bodies of investors in dividends, the expansion of demand in the home market would be so great as to give full employment to the productive forces of concentrated capitalism, and there would be no self-accumulating masses of profit . . . demanding external employment.

Keynes (in Chapter 24) saw "the competitive struggle for markets" as a predominant factor in "the economic causes of war". But, said Keynes, if governments followed Keynesian policies to increase demand at home and thus maintain full employment, the competitive struggle for markets as a main cause of war, would disappear.

Lenin and Hilferding gave detailed accounts of the supposedly unstoppable growth of monopoly in industry and banking but carried it much further, crediting the banks with dominating industry and the cartels with fixing prices and dividing up world markets among themselves. Lenin wrote: "Cartels become one of the foundations of the whole economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into imperialism." Hilferding wrote: "An ever-increasing proportion of the capital used in industry is finance capital, capital at the disposition of the banks which is used by the industrialists" (page 225). Lenin quoted and endorsed this. Hilferding (page 368) said that it was only necessary to take over six large Berlin banks to take possession of "the most important spheres of large-scale industry". It is worth noticing that in the depression of the 1930s most of the big German banks collapsed, or almost did so, along with the industrial companies in which the banks' money was tied up. Among other forecasts made by Lenin was that because of the dominance of finance capital "there was a decrease in the importance of the Stock Exchange".

Some social-democrats, including Kautsky, thought that the end result would be "a single world monopoly . . . a universal trust", followed by socialism. Hilferding thought that this single world monopoly was "thinkable economically, although socially and politically such a state appears unrealisable, for the antagonism of interests . . . would necessarily bring about its collapse". But Hilferding (page 343) thought that world cartels would result in "longer ... periods of prosperity" and shorter depressions. The long depression of the 1930s and the long depression since 1979 belie this.

It was Boudin in his Socialism and War who put in its most crude form the theory on imperialism and war. He argued (like Hobson and others) that the turning point was the replacement of such industries as textiles by iron and steel. He wrote (page 64):

Modern imperialism ... is the expression of the economic fact that iron and steel have taken the place of textiles as the leading industry of capitalism, and imperialism means war. Textiles, therefore mean peace, iron and steel - war.

The argument was that exports of textiles and similar consumer goods are paid for at once but iron and steel exported to build railways, factories, ports and so on are long-term investments needing the protection provided by the home government turning importing countries into colonies. Boudin's theory to explain competition for markets (page 55) was:

The basis of all capitalist industrial development is the fact that the working class produces not only more than it consumes, but more than society as a whole consumes.

Therefore, said Boudin, developed countries cannot find markets inside the capitalist world but only on the fringes of capitalism, first in primitive agriculture at home and, when that too is developed, only in the countries not yet developed. These countries themselves develop and have to seek non-existent markets for their "surplus" products.

It is only necessary to look at what actually takes place to see that Boudin's theory is demonstrably false. The working class do not produce more than society itself consumes. Or rather, they alternately produce more than society currently consumes and then less than society currently consumes. At the onset of a depression stocks pile up of the goods some industries have overproduced for their markets but later on, as recovery begins, stocks run down again, as they did early in 1985. In 1983 British exports totalled 60,534m pounds sterling. According to Boudin this was all "surplus" to demand in the home market. Who then bought the 65,993m pounds sterling of imports that were sold in this country? In the same year, 77 per cent of British exports went to countries officially classified as "developed countries" which Boudin said was impossible. Hilferding, Lenin and Hobson all failed to allow for the sectional divisions of interest in the capitalist class. Hilferding treated the monopolist industries as representing a united capitalist class.

Certainly the export industries have an interest in getting the government to promote exports. But most capitalists have no such interest. British exports represent under a third of total production; for America and Russia about 10 per cent of total production. At their conference last year the Confederation of British Industries defeated an executive resolution calling on the government to lower the exchange rate of the pound in order to promote exports. The industries making profit by selling imports in the home market, and the industries buying cheap imports rather than pay more for home products, want the exchange rate to be higher, not lower.

At a time when the Thatcher government was declaring that they wanted the pound exchange rate not to fall but to rise, and asking Reagan to help bring it about, the Financial Times published an article (14 January 1985) with the title "Industry Delighted At Fall Of Pound". It was true only of export industries not having to import raw materials, but in the article there were examples of industries having to import materials which wanted the pound exchange rate to rise and not to fall. The British Steel Corporation told the Financial Times that "every one cent decline in the value of sterling costs us 4 million pounds sterling".

The failure to recognise sectional capitalist interests applies particularly to monopoly, which raises selling prices and consequently profits for the monopolies and is viewed very differently by the rest of the capitalists, who object to being held to ransom. In the 19th century British government policy towards monopoly was to protect the interests of the rest of the capitalist class by nationalisation, as with telegraphs and telephones. Frederick Engels put the same view in his Socialism, Utopian and Scientific: "...no nation will put up with production conducted by trusts, with so barefaced an exploitation of the country by a small band of dividend-mongers". The same idea was behind the Tory railway nationalisation Act of 1844. It gave the government power to take over the railways and was used as a threat of what would happen if the railway companies continued to use their monopoly to the detriment of the rest of the capitalist class.

But in America the method used was to control monopoly by the Anti-Trust Laws, which have resulted in heavy fines and sometimes imprisonment. American Telephone and Telegraph, controllers of the near-monopoly Bell telephone system and described as the largest and richest corporation in the world, has recently fallen foul of the law and has been broken up into separate organisations, all open to competition. In Britain, the Tory government has gone over to the American system. Along with partial de-nationalisation the Telecommunication services have lost their monopoly and been thrown open to competition. The same applies to bus services. British governments long ago halted further amalgamation of the big commercial banks who now face competition from the development of ordinary banking services by the building societies, the Trustee Savings Bank and others. How far this process will go remains to be seen, but the belief of Hilferding and Lenin that competition was dead, has been disproved.

It is equally clear that Boudin and Keynes were wrong in their belief that the competitive struggle for markets results from an inbuilt deficiency of demand in the home market. The profit motive behind the search for overseas markets by the export capitalists is no different from the profit motive behind the home producers for the home market, and the import capitalists.

What then are the causes of international conflicts of interest and war? Some, but not many, wars are fought over markets. For example the opium wars, when British traders were able to get the government to go to war to compel China to allow the import of opium. In the modern world, markets take second place to strategic issues. The conflict between America and European countries on the one side and Russia on the other illustrates the point. It is not Russia but Japan, America's ally which has flooded American and European markets with their cheaper products. The point was put in proper perspective by Professor Edwin Cannan in 1915:

"Commercial interests seem to me to appear in international quarrels simply as a cover for strategic interests. Where there are not supposed to be divergent strategic interests, no amount of divergent or supposedly divergent commercial interests produces either war or preparations for war" (An Economist's Protest, page 26).

This exactly fits the relationship between America and Japan because the latter is held to be strategically so important to America's control of the Pacific against Russia. The most frequent cause of conflict and war is the effort of national sections of capitalism to obtain control of needed overseas sources of food and other materials and to protect transport routes. Petrol products have bulked large in this century. It has not been competition by oil producing countries to sell their oil that has threatened war but the importing countries' need to have dependable supplies. Two years ago, America threatened military action if the Middle East oil producing countries organised an embargo on exports to America and Europe.

Discussing the question Engels, in a letter dated 27 October 1890, pointed out that it was the search for gold which led the Portuguese to Africa, and it was not exports to India but imports from India which led to the conquest of India by the Portuguese, Dutch and English between 1500 and 1800: "Nobody dreamed of exporting anything there". Exports came later.

Lenin made a valid point in his Imperialism about some annexationist wars. He wrote that sometimes the powers try to annexe regions "not so much for their own direct advantage as to weaken an adversary and undermine its hegemony". Lenin and Hilferding both saw the growth of monopoly and its resulting wars as a prelude to socialism, and insisted that socialism was the only answer. But Hilferding found himself acting as Finance Minister in a German coalition government, trying vainly to solve the problems of German capitalism. And Lenin's "socialism" has resulted in Russia becoming a capitalist super-power.

Lenin saw "the export of capital" as the hallmark of capitalism's highest stage. It is interesting to note the role now played by Russia. The Statesman's Year Book, 1962 had this to say:

After the second world war the USSR has become one of the biggest creditor countries in the world. Between 1955 and January 1961 economic aid in the form of 2 per cent and 2? per cent loans, has been advanced for over 520 industrial and agricultural enterprises in socialist countries.

This foreign loan policy has continued since 1961.

Edgar Hardcastle

More of Edgar Hardcastle's article from the Socialist Standard can be accessed at his page at the Marxist Internet Archive.

A Century in Print (2004)

From the September 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

In September 1904, three months after the founding of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the first edition of the Socialist Standard appeared. It made a modest start with an ambitious declaration of future intent. The first ever editorial commented that:

"We are all members of the working class, and cannot hope that our articles will always be finely phrased, but we shall at least endeavour to lay before you on every occasion a sane and sound pronouncement on all matters affecting the welfare of the working class. What we lack in refinement of style we shall make good by the depth of our sincerity and by the truth of our principles . . . We shall, for the present, content ourselves with a monthly issue, but we are confident that the various demands upon us, by the quantity of matter at our disposal, and by the growth of our party, will necessitate in the near future, a weekly issue of our paper."

Looking back, the writer certainly need not have been quite so bashful about the Standard's content as over the period since it has developed a well deserved reputation for a style of political journalism not dissimilar in many respects to popular science writing as it developed throughout the twentieth century which has been characterised by clarity of expression and use of vernacular language wherever possible. Whatever disagreements some of our readers may have had with us, misunderstandings based on the style in which we have put across our case have been comparatively few and far between, for while many groups on the political left have chosen to mark themselves out from their competitors more through the invention of their own particular liturgy than through the distinctiveness of their political positions, we have always done our best to say it as it is, in language readily understandable to our readership. Given the propagandistic and educational roles of the Standard, this has been important.

One hundred years on, and 1,200 issues later, we are still a monthly journal (the sought-after transition to weekly publication has so far eluded us) but can legitimately claim to have published without interruption ever since, being Britain's longest-running socialist political press. Given the financial travails at various points in our history not to mention two world wars in which many of our members were sent to prison or went 'on the run' this is no small achievement, sometimes brought about through huge personal sacrifice impelled by massive commitment to the cause.

Just as remarkably, considering the forthright and direct use of language by writers for the Standard over the years, we have been sued only once (though admittedly threatened with it on a few more occasions than that). This action was, ironically enough, brought by a trade union the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants who objected to an attack on their General Secretary, Richard Bell MP, on the front page of the August 1906 edition. When the case came to court nearly a year later, Bell was awarded a token £2 worth of damages by the Judge after our comrades Fitzgerald and Anderson had stoutly defended the case against the union's King's Counsel.

During the two world wars, the Standard's political stance led it into conflict with the authorities and on both occasions the consequences could have been far more serious than any likely libel action. Throughout the First World War the Standard largely defied the Defence of the Realm Regulations introduced in November 1914 concerning comment prejudicial to the conduct of the war, and on the advice of 'E' Branch of MI5, the Standard was prohibited by the Home Office from being sent to any destination outside the United Kingdom. In 1917 the Party's offices were raided too, with several members questioned about their political activity. The matter had come to a head after an article for the Standard by Adolph Kohn had been sent from America and intercepted by the authorities there. During the Second World War, the Defence Regulations introduced in May 1940 were even more strictly upheld and the Standard's opposition to the conflict was expressed codedly, with no overtly anti-war articles appearing after 1940.

On only three occasions have outside agencies otherwise directly and deliberately interfered with articles due to be printed in the Standard. In February 1916 a printer refused to print an article on Lloyd George and the Clyde workers that our comrade Jacomb had set into type, leading to a brief explanation and an otherwise blank column. Then in March 1952 an article about the institution of the monarchy and King George VI entitled 'The King Is Dead' didn't appear because the compositors disagreed with its contents. The third occasion was in March 1988 when the printers (without the consent of the Editorial Committee) issued their own disclaimer at the end of an article on sectarian violence in Northern Ireland which had attacked the political gangsters of the IRA in the wake of the Enniskillen atrocity.

A Matter Of Style

Articles in the Standard have always tended to reflect the Socialist Party's origins in Britain's movement of self-educated workingmen in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century; written by volunteers, they have exhibited a style which has relied heavily on formal definitions and logic, together with the use of statistics and quotations designed to support an approach that can typically be described as critical and polemical.

While items have always been characterised by a clarity and directness of approach, they have nevertheless evolved over the last century to reflect wider changes in the use of language and in writing style. Early articles sometimes seemed written with the intent of bludgeoning the sceptical reader into submission, and correspondents for the Standard has enthusiastically opened up its correspondence pages to friend and foe alike from the outset had to tread warily lest they incurred the wrath of a hawk-eyed Editorial Committee on the look-out for 'unsound' or 'unscientific' arguments.

The pages of the Standard were replete with attacks on 'capitalist cant', 'quack remedies', 'currency cranks', 'labour fakirs' and 'apologists for reformism' though these rhetorical and polemical pieces were typically intermingled with theoretical articles (some reprinted from Engels, Kautsky, Guesde and others) involving eloquent explanations of complex issues. Whether it was Fitzgerald on the intricacies of Marxian economics, Housley on the materialist conception of history, or Freddie Watts waxing forth like the best popular science writer in pieces like 'Is Society An Organism?', contributors to the Standard were able to translate complex arguments into accounts and propositions that were readily understandable to the readers.

This is a tradition that has been continued in the years since, both in general, theoretical articles and in pieces which have sought to apply Marxian theory to specific conditions and developments within capitalism. In the first category, various theoretical articles particularly in the 1920s and 30s by Robert Reynolds ('Robertus') and Gilbert McClatchie ('Gilmac') on history and the evolution of society, by Raspbridge (B.S.) on the nature of the banking system and Goldstein on the labour theory of value are amongst the finest of their kind; eloquent interpretations and expositions of complex analysis and argumentation made comprehensible to the man or woman in the street. This was a tradition which was sustained after the Second World War, but with the field of engagement widened to include ecology, psychology and discussion of theories relevant to the refutation of 'human nature' arguments against socialism.

Applied Economics

Where writers for the Standard perhaps had most to contribute was in the practical application of Marxist theory to political and economic issues facing the working class. This had been a hallmark of the journal since the early days when, through applications of Marxian economics, writers had expounded on the reasons why taxation is not ultimately a burden on the working class but on capital, on the irrelevance of tariff reform or the concealed dangers in proposals for free maintenance for schoolchildren. Similarly, the Standard's analysis of the development of state capitalism in Russia and the rise of Nazism in Germany were excellent examples of the application of Marx's materialist conception of history to new issues and developments within capitalism as they confronted the working class.

Particularly with the advent of the Great Depression in the 1930s and the various political and economic proposals of the reformers of the time to tackle it, the Standard came into its own. Hardy ('H') analysed the economic crisis from the Marxian standpoint and derided the arguments of the capitalist reformers who desperately sought to save the system they supported: from the 'social credit' acolytes of Major Douglas through to the Gold Standard abolitionists, the advocates of higher prices and the tax reformers.

Similarly, after the war the Standard spent much time debunking the arguments and proposals of the supporters of John Maynard Keynes, who developed the main economic theory which underpinned the reformist political intent of the period. In a masterly series of articles over the years, Hardy and others demonstrated the flaws of Keynesian economic theory and how it would never be able to put any lasting end to unemployment and poverty within capitalism, instead merely resulting in persistently rising prices because of the excess issue of inconvertible paper currency it typically involved. These articles were not formulated solely at a theoretical level Hardy, in particular, was an empiricist as much as a theoretician, and the attack on the dominant economic theories and practices of the post-war world was supported by detailed empirical evidence to supplement contentions borne out of Marxian theory. This was equally the case with the spread in influence of the so-called 'monetarist' economic doctrine from the mid 1970s when it replaced Keynesianism as the dominant theory; the Standard was not taken in by the elaborate claims made on its behalf and through detailed argumentation dismissed it primarily as a return to the discredited old 'bank deposit theory of prices' masquerading under a new name.

Social Comment
The advent of the 'consumer society' in the 1950s saw some changing attitudes within capitalist society and the development of a new type of article in the Standard in response to it. This was the informed Marxist social commentary, focusing on lifestyle changes affecting the working class. The comprehensive education system, modern advertising, consumer credit, immigration, the growth of television and popular music were all phenomena analysed from the Marxist materialist standpoint and stylishly too, by Coster, Critchfield and others. Looking back on them now, it is hard to not be impressed by their elegance as pieces of social comment, and by their prescience and foresight at a time of rapid social change and uncertainty.

As single issue-campaigners came to the fore from the 1960s onwards (CND, squatters, feminists, Welsh and Scottish nationalists) so the Standard turned its attention to them and their limited visions and definitions of political success. At times it regained some of its old feistiness, but with obvious concessions to the style and language of the burgeoning youth culture of the times. Many have seen the mid-60s to early 70s as one of the Standard's many 'golden periods', with well-crafted articles on galloping inflation and the return of economic crisis from specialists in Marxian economics like Hardy, sitting alongside biting social comment and polemics against the 'new left' from Steele, Crump and other sixties firebrands who had been attracted to the libertarian socialist politics of the SPGB.

The Modern Standard

From the late sixties onwards, the Standard has noticeably sought to increase its coverage of events outside Great Britain, in response to the ever more interconnected nature of capitalism and its development as a 'global village' with issues such as globalisation, environmentalism and capitalism's now constant state of warfare looming large for writers, particularly. The sardonic wit of contributors like Weidberg ('workers of the world wake up!') and Coleman has also been a prominent feature and has ensured that serious socialist comment has often been supplemented by generally well-chosen humorous observations and asides.

Today's articles tend almost exclusively to have a contemporary news focus, with even theoretical pieces being linked to current events and issues within capitalist society. As in previous years, there is a balance between those that are commissioned by the editors and those that are sent in by individual writers as and when they can contribute pieces. It is pleasing to note than in recent times a number of new writers have appeared to complement those who have been contributing over long periods, often decades.

Indeed, on this note, it would be remiss of us not to comment here on the remarkable contribution that a great many Socialist Party members have made to the Standard over the years, whether as designers, writers or editors. The journal's production has been helped hugely in this respect by a certain continuity of service by way of example, when McClatchie and Hardy retired from the Editorial Committee at the end of 1959, they had each put in just over, and just under, forty years continual service respectively. And today, two of our writers have been regularly contributing to the Standard for over fifty years, our comrades Alwyn Edgar (A.W.E.) and Ralph Critchfield ('Ivan'), the latter also with prolonged spells on the editorial committee. The three members of the present editorial committee have been writing for the Standard for around ninety years in total too!

Anniversary

To mark the one hundredth anniversary of our journal, the Socialist Party has recently published a special book. Entitled 'Socialism Or Your Money Back: Articles From the Socialist Standard 1904-2004', it is an anthology of 70 articles (with period commentaries) from the Standard, analysing events within capitalism over the last one hundred years as they unfolded. It is in part a tribute to the men and women who have done so much to ensure that the Socialist Party has been able to make a regular and uninterrupted political intervention through our press during this time, and also an important repository of insightful commentary and socialist analysis, on issues and events from the sinking of the Titanic to the Iraq war.

The Standard has evolved over time and will no doubt continue to do so. It never stays still and to this end we always welcome new writers that can help us sustain and grow Britain's longest running socialist political paper. We have an important job to do, in keeping the socialist analysis of capitalism and the alternative vision of a genuinely better world before the working class, and we are always keen to encourage those who wish to help us in our fight for a better world by writing for our journal.

Finally though, a gentle warning to readers. From the January 1920 issue, but just as relevant now as then:

"Be careful how you handle the Socialist Standard. It is powerful stuff and is fatal to working-class political ignorance."

Dave Perrin

Malawi Musings

From the Socialist Banner blog

Malawi is much in the news. Not for any particular reason other than music icon Madonna is visiting and being rumoured to be planning another adoption of another Malawian youngster. Malawi's economy is said to be 1% of Scotland's - about half the size of Falkirk's. The country's population is 12.6 million people, one million of whom are orphans. More than half the population lives below the poverty line. Malawi is ranked as the 10th poorest country in the world by the United Nations. Life expectancy in Malawi is now as low as 36.5 years, five years lower than it was 50 years ago.

The Herald reports how business is sponsoring aspiring capitalists to learn their trade in Scotland. A small number of students have been brought to Scotland as part of a vanguard of gifted entrepreneurs who it is hoped will provide expertise, enthusiasm and business acumen to transform the economic fortunes of Malawi. They are spending 18 hours a week learning customer care skills, cooking and working as waiters at Brel and Ad Lib, both part of the Baby Grand Group in Glasgow. They will also be enrolled on four-year tourism undergraduate degrees at Glasgow Caledonian University. All very noble.

Yet activist George Monbiot writes of how international capitialism have failed to provide the necessary foreign aid and have imposed spending restrictions upon on the bill for public-sector pay in Malawi that ensure that even basic schooling cannot be improved. In Malawi the IMF sets the ceiling for public-sector wages directly. The pupil to teacher ratio in Malawi is 72:1. The failure rate to complete primary education in Malawi is 70%.

In Malawi, the goods required for the most basic level of subsistence cost $107 a month. A trained teacher receives $55. ActionAid argues that Malawi has now achieved sufficient stability to start raising teachers' pay. But in no case did the IMF consult either the public or the state's own ministry of education before laying down the law. The amount of money a teacher in rural Malawi is paid is decided by the men in London and Washington.

Good deeds like Madonna airlifting some pitiful child out of deprivation, or philanthropic gestures from Scottish businessmen of assisting Malawi's budding capitalist class may hit the headlines. But it is who controls the economy and pulls the financial strings that decides the future of all Malawians and for the moment thats the IMF.

Madonna danced with Malawian children when she toured the $120,000 facility that is home to 4,000 orphans and which she helped to fund and during a visit to an orphanage urged them to "help themselves" instead of relying on her.

Wise words because the only solution to the poverty will be when the poor do join together and do begin to "help themselves" - by seeking the common ownershiop and control of the means of production and distribution - the establishment of Socialism.

Alan Johnstone

More evolved than thou

Latest post from the SPGB blog, Socialism Or Your Money Back

"Chimps are ahead of humans in the great evolutionary race" ran a silly headline in The Times last Tuesday. Silly, because there is no such thing as any great evolutionary race.

Scientists have discovered, from studying the genes of humans and chimpanzees, that since the time six or seven million years ago, when the common ancestor of both existed, there are more changed genes in chimps than in humans.

Apparently, this came as a surprise and we should now no longer say that humans are "more evolved" than chimps. This could only be in a rather restricted sense of the term "more evolved" to mean "more genetically changed" since it is obvious that in every other sense humans are the more evolved. Otherwise, why was the research not carried out by chimps?

The key thing about "human nature" compared with 'chimpanzee nature" is the biologically-evolved nature and capabilities of the human brain. The genetic structure as a whole of chimps may have changed more than that of humans compared with the common ancestor of both, but the changes that have occurred in chimps have brought them to an evolutionary dead end. They may have evolved more to fit in better with their particular environment but this leaves them vulnerable to changes in that environment since they have no control over it.

The genetic changes in the line that led to humans, on the other hand, led to a species that can not only adapt its behaviour to live in a great variety of environments but which is capable of actively changing its environment. Since modern humans evolved 150,000 or so years ago, human evolution has been social rather than biological. Humans have acquired in culture, in particular in the tools and instruments we have developed to acquire and shape what we need from the rest of nature, a non-biological way of adapting, which has enabled us to adapt more quickly to our environment than biological evolution through natural selection ever would or could.

The knowledge we have acquired to understand and change our environment - nearly everything we see around us is the product of human intervention - shows that we are far superior to chimpanzees in the way we are equipped to survive in nature. We can in fact do far better if we realise that capitalism, with the problems it causes for the lives of most humans and indeed for many other species, is merely one of our non-biological adaptations to survive in nature. But one that has proved to be no longer the best fitfed for this purpose.

Fortunately, the other non-biological adaptations we have developed in the tools for obtaining what we need from nature (the means and instruments of production) and in the knowledge of how to use and develop them, and more recently of their effects on the rest of nature, allow us to rectify this. We can further evolve socially by making these tools the common heritage of the whole species and using our knowledge of how to use them to produce enough food, shelter, clean water, health care, education and other amenities for every single person on the planet while at the same time maintaining a sustainable relationship with the rest of nature.

The next stage in social evolution, in other words, is socialism.

Adam Buick

Socialism - questions and answers

Cut and pasted from the blog, A Revolutionary Act

What is The Socialist Party?
It is a political party separate from all others. It stands for the sole aim of establishing a global system of society in which there will be common ownership and democratic control of the world's natural and industrial resources. We advocate a world social system in which each person has free access to the benefits of civilisation and an equal say in how their society is run; a world in which production is freed from the artificial constraints of profit and used for the benefit of all.

What is Socialism?
To elaborate slightly on the above - Socialism is yet to exist. When it is established it must be on a global basis, as a real alternative to the present system. In a socialist society there will be common ownership of the earth by its inhabitants and no minority will dictate to us that production must give priority to profit. There will be no owners. The people of the world will share the world. Production will be for use, not sale. The only questions we will need to ask about production are what do people need and can these needs be met. Science and technology will at last be used to their fullest potential and in the service of humanity. The basic socialist principle will be that people give according to their abilities and take according to their needs. There will be no buying or selling, as money will have been abolished and will not be necessary in a world of free access. Socialism will mean a world without borders or frontiers, social classes or leaders, states or governments, force or coercion.

How does this differ from Capitalism?
Capitalism is the social system that now exists in all the countries of the world. Under this system, the means of production and distribution are monopolised by a small, wealthy elite. All wealth is produced by us, the working class who sell our physical and mental abilities for a wage or salary. The object of wealth production is to create goods and services which can be sold profitably. Not only do capitalists live off the profits they obtain by exploiting us, they reinvest their profits with a view to accumulating more wealth. Because of the logic of their system, if goods cannot be sold at a profit, they are either destroyed or not produced at all. Because of capitalist competition, wars break our fairly regularly, being fought over trade routes, areas of influence, foreign markets and mineral resources - all sources of profit for capitalists.

So how will Socialism solve the problems of society?
Capitalism, with its endless drive to make profits, throws up an endless stream of problems. Many workers feel insecure about their future and work related stress is on the increase. Crime, homelessness, poverty - these are all ongoing problems. A society based on production for use will end these problems because the priority of socialist society will be the fullest possible satisfaction of needs. Abolishing the money system will mean food will not have to be destroyed it can't be sold. Wars will no longer be fought if there are no more borders or frontiers and the source of their cause has been removed. At present it is not 'economically viable' to solve many of the problems that plague us - it eats into profits. Socialism will mean nothing but the best for every human being.

Surely it is easier just to reform the present system?
No. As long as capitalism exists, profits will always take priority over our real needs. Some workers welcome reforms; some reforms have improved working class conditions, but no reform can abolish that basic contradiction between profits and need. No matter how well meaning the politicians, nor how colourful their promises, they are bound to fail because they do not control the system - it controls them. The governments of the world may well introduce 1000 reforms, but we would still continue to live in a world ravaged by starvation, war, homelessness, unemployment, poverty and every other social ill. We would still live in a two class society, with our real needs subordinated to the wishes of a minority. Why campaign for crumbs when the whole bakery is there to be taken?

Is Nationalisation an alternative to capitalism?
No. Although the old Labour Party used to think so, and many leftists still do, there is nothing progressive in nationalisation. It simply means the workers are exploited by the state in the interests of capitalists. There were once many nationalised industries in Britain. This did not stop the government closing them down and making hundreds of thousands of workers redundant when they ceased being profitable - and these nationalised industries supposedly 'belonged' to us.

What about kibbutzim?
Is this not akin to Socialism? Socialism can only exist, as capitalism does, on a global scale. It cannot be established in one country, let alone one farm. The kibbutzim do show that humans can live without money and work without wages, but their small scale means that what they can offer is very restricted so young people tend to leave them. In practice they have paved the way for the development of capitalism in Israel and some have themselves become capitalist institutions employing outside wage labour and producing for the market with a view to profit.

Have there ever been Socialist countries?
What about the former Soviet Union? No. Those countries which claimed they were socialist were in reality state capitalist. Power was monopolised by a privileged elite who became the new ruling and controlling class. Countries like Russia and China and Yugoslavia still had money and buying and selling. They still had wage slavery, exploitation and commodity production. They still traded with capitalist states and according to the dictates of international capital and were ever ready to go to war to defend their economic interests.

For more information on the Socialist Party and the Socialist Standard, click on the picture below:

Howard Zinn's 'Je Ne Suis Pas Marxiste'

To the best of my of knowledge, the first time that Howard Zinn's wonderful essay 'Je Ne Suis Pas Marxiste' has appeared online.

(Originally posted on the blog on the 14th September 2006.)

Wish It Were The Seventies?

Latest post from the SPGB blog, Socialism Or Your Money Back

We've just been sent a review copy of Capitalism Unleashed by Andrew Glyn (OUP). We are not sure why as it came out in March 2006. Still, as they say, you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Those (like us) with long memories will recall that Glyn was the co-author of a Penguin Special that came out in 1972 called British Capitalism, Workers and the Profits Squeeze. In it he and his fellow author (Bob Sutcliffe) argued that capitalism, at least in Britain, had been brought to a life-or-death crisis because working class militancy, on the one hand, and international competition, on the other, had squeezed profits, the life-blood of the system without which it couldn't survive. One more push from the workers, they suggested, and capitalism could be overthrown.

The only danger they saw was that the workers would be betrayed by the reformist leaders of the TUC who would hold them back (it's this word "betrayal" which is the clue that they were some kind of Trotskyist; Glyn later became involved in Militant). We ourselves were sceptical about the whole analysis, suggesting that they were greatly exaggerating trade union "power" and that the crisis was not a life-or-death one but just a phase of the ordinary business cycle which capitalism goes through and from which it would recover sooner or later (see our review in February 1973 Socialist Standard). Actually, it turned out to be a bigger turning-point than we thought, as capitalism has never since returned to the "never-had-it-so-good" days of the 50s and 60s.

In any event, capitalism did survive. So what does Glyn think now? Modern-day, "unleashed" capitalism, he says, has its problems (financial turbulence, corporate corruption, etc) but cannot be said to be in a state of crisis in the sense of the Oxford University dictionary definition of "the point in the progress of a disease when an important development or change takes place which is decisive of recovery or death" that he believed it to have been in in the 70s. In fact, his view is that there is now no alternative to capitalism on the horizon, so all we've got is a choice of different kinds of capitalism.

"The longer-term objective of socialism was always to facilitate the development of people's lives in a more fulfilling direction", he writes and asks: "Is it possible to make serious moves in this direction even within what is still a predominantly capitalist economy?".

His answer is, perhaps surprisingly, "yes", in the form of the scheme proposed by the Belgian social thinker, Philippe Van Parijs, for paying everyone a Basic Income as of right and irrespective of whether or not they work, referring to an article by him in a book with the revealing title of Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Designs for a More Egalitarian Capitalism. Or, as Van Parijs himself has put it:

"In classical Marxism, socialism is just an instrument for achieving the society in which people can work freely according to their abilities but still get enough according to their needs. If socialism doesn't work, because of threats to freedom and problems of dynamic efficiency, then why not harness capitalism to achieve the same objectives?" (The Bulletin, Brussels, 19 July 2001).

It's a pipedream of course and a bit currency cranky (though to give Van Parijs his due, he did come up with a brilliant title for one of his books in What's Wrong with a Free Lunch?). A Basic Income paid as of right would have to be funded (even squeezed) out of profits and would either undermine the wages system (why work for a capitalist employer if the State is paying you whether you work or not?) or make no difference (since wages would fall by the amount of the State wage subsidy that a Basic Income would represent). Or it would be fixed at so low a level as to be just another name for "Income Support".

As for us, we're still socialists as we were in the 1970s. Capitalism can't be reformed, humanised or made more egalitarian. It must be ended not mended, and replaced by a system of common ownership and democratic control of productive resources, so that production can be geared to satisfying people's needs on the principle of "from each their ability, to each their needs".

Adam Buick