Cooking the Books: No One’s in Control (2012)

The Cooking the Books column from the September 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since World War Two governments have adopted various policies to try to control bank lending. This, to try to make the economy work smoothly without booms and slumps or “stop-go” as it used to be called. They are still trying.

At first they tried fixing a limit on the total amount of bank loans. Then they required banks to hold a given percentage of their assets as cash and hoped to influence  bank lending by increasing or decreasing this (this was known as “fractional reserve banking”, though this term has since taken on a wider meaning). This in turn was eventually abandoned in favour of trying to influence bank lending by manipulating interest rates.

Over time the language changed too. Instead of talking of controlling bank lending, economists began to talk about controlling the “money supply”. This led to a redefinition of money, which had previously meant currency (notes and coins issued by the state), so as to include bank and other loans. There are now at least five official definitions of money (M0, M1, M2, M3 and M4). Even so, economists have still found it necessary to maintain a distinction between “base money” and “bank money”, the former being what is directly controlled by the central bank (notes and coins plus banks’ cash reserves with the central bank, which is what M0 measures).

The failure of all these policies has led to a controversy among economists which is still going on. Some have come to the conclusion that the level of bank lending is linked to the state of the economy and so cannot be controlled by the central bank. This is undoubtedly true.

Banks lend more to businesses (and individuals) when the economy is expanding and less when it is not. This is being confirmed today when, despite government exhortations and incentives, the banks are not keen to lend more; they have calculated that with a depressed economy the risk of them not getting their money back is higher. Nor are established businesses keen to borrow as they know that the market for their products is stagnating.

So, on this point, these economists are right. However, some of them don’t see the banks as merely reacting to the state of the economy but as contributing to it by their lending policies; they attribute to banks an autonomous power to influence the economy. This leads them to offer a purely monetary explanation of the present (and past) economic downturn, in, precisely, the irresponsible use by the banks of their ability to “create money” outside the control of the central bank.

It also leads them to offer a purely monetary solution. Here some of them have crossed the fringe to join the currency cranks in advocating a return to gold-based money (as if there weren’t economic downturns when this applied) or to require banks to lend only what they’ve got (as if this wasn’t the case anyway).

Since the economic cycle is built in to capitalism, and slumps occur when during a boom one sector overproduces in relation to its market, their reforms won’t stop this any more than anything the central bank can do. The capitalist economy can be controlled neither by monetary policy nor by banking reform.

Sounds From the Park: An Oral History of Speakers’ Corner (2014)

From the April 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sound and some fury

Sounds From the Park – An Oral History of Speakers’ Corner. Bishopsgate Institute exhibition (till 30 April), London, with associated free booklet, website and local radio broadcast.

Partly financed through the Heritage Lottery Fund, this is an attempt to explore and record the open-air speaking and debating forum that arose at Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park, from the late nineteenth century onwards.  The project makes the point that open-air speaking is something of a dying art, and Speakers’ Corner is arguably the last example of it, certainly in the UK.

The right to meet and speak freely in Hyde Park was enshrined in the Parks Regulation Act of 1872 and it has been a popular venue for political protest and debate ever since. As the booklet explains, ‘between 1885 and 1939 there were around 100 open-air meetings every week in London alone. After the Second World War they gradually disappeared, in parallel with the rise of radio and television, leaving Speakers’ Corner as the sole survivor’.

The project involved interviewing speakers, hecklers and regular visitors past and present. Perhaps the biggest criticism of the project is that there are very few audio or visual clips of the speakers themselves speaking or dealing with hecklers in the Park, and the material relies mainly on the interviews conducted, which gives it a more reflective and passive feel than might have been intended.

Of the four outputs, the website (soundsfromthepark.org.uk) is probably the most impressive, with pages on various noteworthy interviewees, including three current members of the Socialist Party. Several other Party members from the past are featured in reminiscences (like well-known orator from the 1930s, 40s and early 50s Tony Turner) and in photographs (such as the wonderfully evocative picture at the exhibition of Steve Ross on the platform in the 1970s). As might also be expected, the Methodist and pacifist speaker Lord Donald Soper – who spoke at the Park tirelessly for decades – features prominently too.

The Socialist Party has long had a noticeable presence at Speakers’ Corner – indeed, we are the one political organization that has maintained a regular presence there for the majority of its existence. Many of the Party’s most well-known orators who featured in an article on open-air speaking in the June 2004 centenary edition of the Socialist Standard cut their teeth in the Park, and for all its faults Barltrop’s The Monument contains as good an analysis of this phenomenon and the Socialist Party’s role in it as can be found. Also Steve Coleman – a former regular Party speaker in the Park himself – contributed usefully to the discussion of this phenomenon in his Stilled Tongues, From Soapbox to Soundbite.

Today, many would argue that Speakers’ Corner is something of a shadow of its former self. The Socialist Party maintains a sporadic pitch there and other political speakers still periodically appear too (such as the anarchist Tony Allen – who wrote a book on the subject called A Summer In the Park a few years ago – and Heiko Khoo from Socialist Appeal). But the crowds are now ever more composed of tourists from the hotels of nearby Park Lane and Bayswater and the speakers are predominately of a religious bent, with as many Muslims as Christians. This tendency towards domination by religious demagogues is a shame, because as a rule they rely much less on an analysis of current events than the political speakers, making instead a timeless appeal to faith that disregards reason and evidence. It can also be argued that the comedic value of some of the contemporary speakers often lies less in their wit and originality (as was previously evidenced in deliberate entertainers like Norman Schlund and Martin Besserman) than in their near-hysterical religious sectarianism and general lack of self-awareness.

The sparks of controversy and repartee generated by Speakers’ Corner are now more often found in other arenas for discussion, including online. But this project has played its part in chronicling something that has been of real use to the working class movement over time and which has served to introduce many to a distinctive socialist viewpoint that can stand out – head and shoulders – in any crowd.

DAP

Cooking the Books: Who are the wealth producers? (2011)

The Cooking the Books column from the June 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

In an article in the Times (2 May) headlined “This belief in making things is make-believe” and subtitled “It is pure fantasy to argue that the solution to Britain’s economic problems lies in boosting manufacturing”, David Wighton argued:

“The idea of the primacy of manufacturing makes little economic sense. It is the modern equivalent of the 18th-century French physiocrats’ argument that all wealth derived from agriculture and everything else was unproductive. Wealth is created by providing insurance on ships, just as much as by making the vessels.”

The Physiocrats did indeed claim that only agricultural work produced a value, in the form of rent, greater than that of the producers’ subsistence. Marx discussed their views in Part I of Theories of Surplus Value where he credited them with transferring “the inquiry into the origin of surplus-value from the sphere of circulation into the sphere of direct production, and thereby laid the foundation for the analysis of capitalist production.”

Their mistake was to conclude that, as the material basis of all wealth came from nature, only the work of those directly interacting with Nature was productive. But manufacturing as well as agriculture transforms materials that originally come from nature – the definition, in fact, of production – and both are capable of producing a surplus (value) over and above the cost of maintaining the producers.

But what about services? Those providing them certainly produce a service but do they also add a value over and above its cost? Marx answered, no. But it was not as simple as that. He accepted that providing these services could bring a profit to a capitalist who invested in them, but the origin of this lay elsewhere, not in surplus value produced by those they employed but in the sector of the economy producing goods for profit. It was the result of a sort of division of labour amongst the capitalist class to ensure that services essential to capital accumulation were carried out as cheaply as possible.

The example Marx gave (in part IV of Volume 3 Capital) was merchants. He explained that if there were no merchants specialising in selling goods then the capitalist firms producing them would have to tie up some of their capital to do this themselves instead of investing it in their core business. There was a price to pay. The industrialists sold their commodities to the merchants at below their market price, i. e. not to realise themselves all the surplus value embodied in them so as to allow the merchants a share in it. The same applies to other services provided for profit such as banking and Wighton’s shipping insurance. The capital invested in providing them does return a profit but from realising a part of the surplus value created in material production.

So, while Wighton is wrong to claim that “wealth is created by providing insurance on ships, just as much as by making the vessels”, he is right to argue that it does not necessarily make sense for a capitalist country to concentrate just on manufacturing. Profits can be made by selling financial services to outside capitalists, so providing an income which can be taxed to help defray the costs of maintaining the state. This has in fact been the strategy of successive governments, whether Tory, Labour or ConDem, since the 1980s. But the origin of these profits is not new value added by those working in these services, but surplus value produced by the industrial workers of the world.

The “many people” Wighton criticises for almost seeing financial services as “a great Ponzi scheme in which money generated from making things is passed around with everyone else taking a cut” are not all that far off the mark.

'Jack London and Socialism' (1932)

From the February 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

J. W. Keable (Balham) asks if Jack London was a Socialist. He also asks us to explain a note in a previous issue which stated that his wife, Charmian London, misrepresented Jack London's views.

In reply, we would state that Jack London was for some time a member of the Socialist Labor Party in California, and later joined the Socialist Party of America. His letter of resignation from that reformist party shows his resentment of their opportunism.

We can only judge from Jack London's activities and writings. He advocated Socialism for many years, but was never clear as to the means of realising it. "The Iron Heel" is an instance of this.

His wife pictured him as being disgusted with the working class when he was merely expressing his contempt for the compromising S.P. of America. How little this bourgeois lady understood London's ideas can be seen from her so-called Life of him.

The real meaning of the class struggle was never grasped by Jack London. Hence, his support of the World War.

A. Kohn

Intellectual elitism (2014)

From the April 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Living in Cambridge I encounter many students socially. Like every other section of society they include many individuals exhibiting numerous characteristics. Most of them are less likely to exhibit the ‘I’m entitled to the earth and everything in it’ attitude they once did but there is still an underlying intellectual arrogance. It never fails to amuse me that the graduates of Oxbridge still feel entitled to ‘run the country’ despite the obvious mess they have created over the decades. The ‘old school tie’ cronyism of the city and government continues unabated. Despite giving socialists great evidence for the complete absence of any semblance of a meritocracy within capitalism they seem unconcerned by their continued failures. It sometimes seems that the only success they can claim is their continued ability (with the help of admen and spin doctors) to fool the electorate. I hope this is disingenuous to at least some of them who, one would hope, go into public life with a genuine desire to improve things. Not that this helps, of course, since the knowledge they bring to their work is the result of studying all kinds of political and economic clap trap.

Occasionally socialists can share a seemingly similar arrogance because of the confidence we have in our analysis - but any accusation of elitism must be taken very seriously and hopefully disproved. The establishment of a socialist society depends on mass consciousness and political equality. This is different from saying that we must all be intellectually equal since we all have different talents and many do not have the inclination to study politics, economics, history or philosophy in any depth. Those of us who write for ‘The Standard’ clearly have some intellectual proclivities (strangely I’m still embarrassed by this admission – presumably a residue of cultural conditioning); but does this mean that the majority must have read the three volumes of Das Capital before we can make the revolution?

A graduate once said to me that socialism was impossible because the majority can never attain the intelligence that we ask of them. Clearly a very elitist thing to say – and stranger still that he should say it to me in such a ‘knowingly candid’ fashion since I’m clearly of average intelligence myself. So the question becomes: what level of consciousness (intellectual knowledge and insight) is needed to create a socialist revolution? Clearly there has to be some since compassion and idealism alone has led to disaster in the past. Do we all have to become intellectual elitists to make the revolution?

The socialist revolution will be very different from the preceding bourgeois revolutions because, apart from anything else, it requires the participation of a class conscious majority to bring it about. There can be no leaders since, as discussed above, socialism demands equality and democracy to determine policy and action. Some believe this to be hopelessly idealistic because either they feel themselves to be intellectually incapable of such activity or despair of others political abilities. Most of this derives from cultural conditioning and the almost complete absence of any political education.

Socialists believe that political activity is an essential part of what makes us human and as soon as the dreary media politics of the establishment is undermined and people get a taste of real democracy and the empowerment it provides there will be no stopping us. Once the need for political leaders has ended and people take control of their lives the conditioning that insists on our intellectual political inadequacies dissolves.

I have never doubted the capacity of most people to achieve the requisite intelligence to change the world once their prejudices and self doubt is removed. Political consciousness can strike people quickly (as in that amusing political metaphor with Neo in the movie The Matrix when he awakes and removes his connexion with the machines) or it can be a slower process of the erosion of any confidence in the lies of capitalist propaganda.

One thing you immediately notice about socialists is their self-confidence. Some will tell you that arrogance is an essential characteristic needed by socialists to deal with the never ending criticism they endure but I think that this is just a misinterpretation of the confidence that comes with consciousness and the knowledge that this enables. Of course this comes with a large measure of political frustration and sometimes despair at the suffering of the world but I don’t know of any of us who would like to go back to the darkness of political ignorance. Our confidence helps us ridicule the still widespread prejudice that intellectual labour is somehow superior to other forms of human endeavour – yet another way of creating divisions within the working class. As I write this I’m only too conscious of the many talents that come together to create a computer. But the inventors and programmers are just as dependant on the production lines of alienated labour to produce this technological miracle as vice versa. What neither need , of course, is the capitalist who exploits both!

There seems to be no evidence for, or reason to believe that the majority cannot achieve the knowledge needed to make a socialist revolution. Those who believe otherwise are merely conditioned to think that we always need an elite to guide and lead us. The recent attacks on the education system by the present government illustrates this - the imposition of reactionary syllabuses in history and philosophy are witness to the fear our masters have instinctively of anything that might enable young people to think for themselves. It is one of the oldest tenets of Marxian thought that the need for an intelligent workforce might also enable an anti-capitalist political perspective. This ‘internal contradiction’ within the system haunts the parasite class. They may not all be conscious of why they fear learning and knowledge but hopefully one day we will be in a position to teach them this last lesson.

WEZ.

Letters to the Editors: Crises and collapse (2011)

Letters to the Editors from the November 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

Crises and collapse

Dear Editors,

As a member of the Socialist Labor Party for 43 years I'm convinced that discussion with workers about the intractable calamity global capitalist society is facing can only logically start with the Marxian Law of Value: that commodities exchange value for value in the amount of socially necessary labor time invested in their production. The corollary to this is that human labor power is the source of all value.

As every socialist knows, lurking behind burgeoning unemployment, dire poverty, and a hopeless future is the fact that workers receive in wages only a small and diminishing fraction of the values that they produce. They cannot buy back those values when they appear as commodities in the market in their real value. Global capitalism is writhing in its death throes with this fact in its craw. Every worker needs to get this message before any meaningful discussion of socialism ensues. To discuss social issues that are only subordinate to this without a basic understanding of value, I believe is futile and will never make socialists.

What approach do you encourage socialists to take in initiating discussion of capitalist collapse and the necessity of socialism with workers?

Yours for a socialist society,

Bernard Bortnick, 
United States

Reply:

We are glad to hear you are keen to make more socialists but do not agree with your view that capitalism will collapse – either on past evidence or given our understanding of Marxian economics. As long ago as 1932 we published a pamphlet called Why Capitalism Will Not Collapse which pointed out the fallacy of such predictions at the time of the Great Depression. As Marx himself said, there are no permanent crises and every economic downturn creates the conditions for the next boom.

The view you put forward that the workers can’t buy back the entire product of industry is no explanation of economic crises in itself, and certainly doesn’t point in the direction of the collapse of capitalism. It was specifically repudiated by Marx in Volume 2 of Capital in Chapter 20 where he argued that the inability of the working class to buy back the entire product of industry is a permanent condition of capitalism and of itself explains nothing. He also pointed out that if the contention is really that the restricted consumption of the workers causes crises, then this is unconvincing too. Wages as a proportion of national income usually have a tendency to rise during booms so this would otherwise indicate crises should be averted.

The working class of wage and salary earners do not need to buy back the entire product of industry incidentally. (What use would workers have for producer goods like lathes and robotics equipment?) Much of the output of industry is bought by the capitalists i.e. producer goods like those just mentioned, and also those luxury goods that the working class can’t afford to buy.

The ultimate cause of all economic crises within capitalism is the system’s tendency to grow in an anarchic, unbalanced fashion in the relentless pursuit of profit (viz. the housing and construction bubble in large parts of the developed world that laid the basis for the recent financial crisis and recession). Our approach is to point out that crises and other social and economic problems are endemic to the way the market economy works. No reform of the system can ever solve these problems – only socialism represents a positive hope for humanity. – Editors

Feasible socialism

Dear Editors

The article, 'Russia – the myth of socialism', in the October Socialist Standard, well written though it is, does raise a fundamental question. It is claimed, not unreasonably, that in the mid-nineteenth century, capitalism ''had not economically matured to the point where Marx's vision of a classless society where free access to needs (sic) would be the mode of distribution could be realised'', whereas by 1917, this economic maturity had been achieved, albeit not in Russia itself (which begs questions as to what options a bona fide socialist party operating in Russia around this time would have had, and how a world socialist revolution might have played out had it occurred in 1917).

My query is this. On what grounds can such an assertion be made? What objective criteria or economic observations can be cited in support of the proposition that world socialism was feasible in 1917 (and not feasible in 1850)? I don't think it's sufficient simply to generalise that technology had advanced over the intervening 67 years. An empirical case surely needs to be made, though. For example, it might incorporate the notion of a 'tipping point' having been arrived at.

This is not a pedantic issue. If it can be convincingly demonstrated that socialism was feasible way back in 1917, then a fortiori, it is surely the case that it is far more feasible now insofar as technology has surged ahead beyond the wildest dreams of those who were around during  those ill-fated 'ten days that shook the world'. Nevertheless, the case still needs to be made – empirically – that the world could sustain a free access society, and this must mean taking account of current technology, and indeed of a valid representation of human nature (since these aspects are respectively integral to the 'give' and 'take' sides of any economical situation).

Andy Cox (by email)

Reply:

In the 1910 edition of his Woman and Socialism the German Social Democrat August Bebel produced evidence to show that at that time the world was capable of producing enough food, clothing, shelter and otherwise provide for everybody on the planet. He saw electricity, generated by steam turbines, as being the energy source that made this possible.

“Electricity”, he wrote, “has an advantage over every other form of power in that there is an abundance of it in Nature.” His explanation has a surprisingly modern ring: “Our rivers, the tides of the sea, the wind and sunlight provide untold horse-powers, once we learn how to use them rationally and to the full.”

He summarised Sir Joseph Thompson (winner of the 1906 Nobel Prize for Physics) as saying in 1909 that “the day was not far off when the use of sun-rays would revolutionise our life, would make man independent of the energy of coal and water”  and quoted “how great is the supply the sun lavishes upon us becomes clear when we consider that the heat received by the earth under a high sun and a clear sky is equivalent … to about 7,000 horse-power per acre.” Bebel concluded that “this removes the fear that we shall ever run short of fuel” and that “there is no human activity for which, if necessary, motive power would not be available” (section 4 of chapter XXI).

With regard to food production, Bebel cited the claim of the American economist Henry Carey (who had died in 1879) that “the 360-mile long Orinoco valley alone could supply sufficient food to feed the whole human race” and commented, “Let us halve this estimate and there is still more than enough. In any case, South America alone could feed several times the present world population” (section 4 of chapter XXX).

In 1850, on the other hand, the main sources of energy were coal, coal gas, the steam-piston engine and horses. Some time between then and 1910 a qualitative change in the productive forces at the disposal of humanity occurred which meant that the problem of producing enough for all had in principle been solved. At the same time capitalism came to dominate the whole world, which Marxists and others analysed using the term “imperialism” (today we might say “globalisation”).

So, yes, the wars, famines and general deprivation of the 20th century could have been avoided had world socialism been established a hundred years ago as was technologically feasible. As you say, every new advance in technology makes socialism all the more possible – Editors.

Fake economics (2014)

Book Review from the April 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Economics of the 1%. How Mainstream Economics Serves the Rich, Obscures Reality and Distorts Policy. By John F. Weeks, Anthem Press, 2014

'The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not anyone have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody' (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754).

The '1%' are the percentage of people who own the world and profit from it. Weeks's target is mainly the neo-liberal agenda of 'free' markets and reduced state intervention. He argues that this economics obscures the reality of capitalism and distorts the policies of governments. Weeks wants 'a capitalism fit for human life'. He defends 'markets as effective social mechanisms, if and only if they are regulated through a democratic process for the collective good, not when they are left “free” to concentrate riches in the hands of a few.' The result of following the neoliberal agenda is that 'workers lose and capital gains (it is a class issue)' (Weeks's emphasis).

Despite quoting Rousseau approvingly it is clear that Weeks does not really think that the fruits of the Earth belong to us all, and the Earth itself to nobody. He favours the economist JM Keynes's proposal for a capitalism 'wisely managed'. Keynes's General Theory was 'the greatest economics book of the twentieth century'. Like Keynes, Weeks believes that governments can 'end the recession by stimulating the economy through public spending. It really is that simple.' But as Oscar Wilde said, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. By focussing on the 'golden age' of capitalism – the 30 years or so after World War Two – Weeks presents a seriously distorted account of what capitalism is and what it can do. For a start, the 1 percent has existed during the last 200 years or so of capitalism. And there is nothing in Weeks's account of a 'wisely managed' capitalism to suggest the 1 percent would cease to exist. For a work of economics there is precious little on what drives capitalism – profit. His fix for what ails capitalism is essentially political – democratic accountability. He recognises that there can be class struggles between workers and capital but attributes this to a 'fake' economics rather than the minority ownership of the means of life.

The Socialist Party has a unique record with regard to Keynes and the economics he gave his name to. From the start we recognised that Keynes' solution to mass unemployment (increased government spending) failed to address the issue of profitability. Capitalism – the profit system – is built on the antagonism between profits and wages and economic crises are ultimately the result of a failure of profitability. As we have seen in recent years, an important factor in restoring profitability is holding down wages and attacking workers' standard of living. Weeks's own work obscures the reality of capitalism, but it may inspire in some the illusion that capitalism can be 'fit for human life'.

LEW

The "Picture Post" Revelations (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

A constant problem to small political parties is the finding of opportunities for nation-wide publicity. One organization which can have no complaints in this direction at the present time, however, is the Communist Party. Most popular newspapers and magazines have had in the past twelve months articles telling "the truth" about the Communist Party's activities, and "Picture Post" has lately weighed in with a series of articles in which the "inside story" is presented.

The author of these articles is Bob Darke, who left the Communist Party in 1951. In the course of eighteen years' membership, he held various positions in and on behalf of the Party, including that of a Borough Councillor; he has now joined the procession of apostates who have scarcely allowed the ink to dry on their resignations before bellowing their condemnation of the Party they so lately, and so long, embraced. One cannot, in fact, resist suspicion of the many whose "seeing the light" has coincided with the Communists becoming the villains of the contemporary political scene. It is worth considering also that Bob Darke admits having thought and behaved irrationally and deliberately misrepresent facts for eighteen years; on his own evidence, his story and his judgements should be treated with more than a little reserve.

In fact, there is little in Bob Darke's "inside story" that has not already been told in similar articles in other publications. Serious consideration of the Communist Party's aims or the theoretical suppositions on which its case rests is completely avoided. The articles deal principally with the Party itself. Bob Darke shows it is an organization with a relentless discipline, in which members are required to follow the "Party line" blindly and subjugate their individual ideas to those which are imposed on them by the Party. That this is true is well known. Its significance, however, is considerably deeper than is shown by Bob Darke.

The question of the organization and methods of the Communist Party is as old as its Russian parent body. The basic concept of a centralised, disciplined party was that which Lenin, after the revolution of 1917, tried to extend all over the world; it was the concept which led to the formation of the Bolshevik Party. It was first expounded by Lenin in 1902, in "What is to be Done?" and in 1903, at the second congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party, it was embodied in his draft for the Party's statute. The draft was rejected in favour of Martov's, which aimed at a broad party of sympathisers, but when the delegates of the Bund, the Jewish organisation, withdrew, Lenin's supporters were left with the balance of voting power and used it to carry out their own wishes over the Party's constitution. Thus originated the Bolshevik-Menshevik feud, with its root in the Bolsheviks' conception of themselves as the highly organized Party leading the masses.

Was, and is, this concept a socialist one? Lenin did not draw it from his study of Marx. In one of his early pamphlets, he extolled the organization which was his model for a political party: Narodnaya Volya, the 19th century terrorist group with which the fanatical Nichaev was associated. The adoption of the idea of leadership of the workers by such an organization was, in fact, a rejection of the basic contention of Marxism. Marx saw the working class, through the development of industrialization and the constant increase in exploitation, becoming revolutionary; indeed, without this there could be no working-class revolution. Lenin, on the other hand, contended that the workers would never become revolutionary, and thus saw a necessity for his Party to be designed only as a group of leaders. It is interesting to note that at the 1903 congress the opponents of Lenin's concept stigmatised it as the prelude to dictatorship; the events in Russia from 1917 onwards, with many of those leaders holding political power, have borne out the prophecy.

Thus, the Communist Party's conception of the nature of a working-class political party was formulated in contradistinction from that of Marx. The behaviour of the Bolsheviks, in the years before they came to power, in many respects resembles that of Britain's Communists to-day. The Bolshevik cause was promoted by any means that appeared useful, and changes of policy were justified by Lenin's insistence that marx must be interpreted "dialectically." Any kind of dissent was branded with the word "Menshevism," just as present-day opponents are labelled "Fascists" or "Trotskyites."

At its inception in 1920, the Communist Party of Great Britain was committed, by its affiliation to the Third International, to a type of organization and methods which both were dictatorial. The "Statutes and Conditions of Affiliation" of the International included armed struggle and secret organization as clearly stated aims. The assumption of Lenin that the working class would never become revolutionary, was accepted; indeed, so far from seeking to spread understanding of capitalism among the workers, the founders of the English Communist Party believed that the capitalist economic system had broken down. This was frankly admitted in an article in "The Communist" in 1921, and for the next decade the Party's leaders continued to believe at every moment that capitalism was collapsing. The policy and administration of the Party became concentrated in a few hands, following the Russian model, until the membership was deprived of any opportunity to participate in the running of the Party and became, as it is now, an obedient rank-and-file. "Theirs not to reason why" is no less true of the Communists than it was of the Light Brigade.

Bob Darke shows his former self and his fellow-members as such obedient and devoted workers for their cause, accepting the unreasoning and often malicious discipline imposed on them; he fails, however, to make any suggestion as to why this should be. The key-word is "understanding"—or the lack of it. In spite of its Marxian pretensions, the Communist Party has thrived on lack of understanding. The supposition that the working class is incapable of becoming consciously revolutionary has provided a convenient justification for this; in fact, it is extremely well illustrated by Bob Darke's description of the methods by which Communist factions gain control of trade union branches. Far from making any endeavour to stimulate class-consciousness in the unions, the Communist tactic is to exploit the lack of it. In Darke's own words" "Our greatest ally was the apathy and indifference of the ordinary Trade Unionists."

Other examples are given to show how the Party membership itself is instructed to act without knowing the reasons for its actions. Perhaps here the hoary myth may be exploded that Communists are people who are more knowledgeable about society than most other workers. In fact, there is no reason for considering them to be superior in this respect to the members of, for example, the Labour Party or the Church of England; they have often identified themselves with the former, and at least one prominent Communist is a member of the latter. The leaders of the Communist Party are dependent upon the political ignorance of the membership as much as upon the political ignorance of the working class as a whole.

It must not be imagined, however, that Bob Darke is concerned with this aspect of the Communist Party. As was noted at the beginning, his articles are devoid of any serious consideration of Communist theory. Much of his "criticism" consists of the painting of unfavourable personal pictures of well-known Communists and even of allegations against them—for instance, that one member misuses money entrusted to him by his workmates. That is political warfare on its abysmal lowest level, and the only thing which might be said in excuse for Bob Darke's using it is that he probably learned it in the Communist Party.

Taken all in all, the "Picture Post" articles can hardly be said live up to one's normal expectations from "revelations." The only really valuable revelation of the Communist Party is the exposure of its fallacies and misrepresentations; and should "Picture Post" ever decide to do that, it need not concern itself with finding the latest adherent to the lengthening procession of penitent ex-worshippers of "the god that failed." The Socialist Party of Great Britain has maintained an attitude of analytical opposition to the Communist Party from the day of that Party's foundation. It has pointed out that the system in Russia is the same capitalism which causes the degradation of the workers in this country and elsewhere; that the aims of the Communists, if they were realised, would bring nothing but the continuation of the same economic and social problems; that leaders—would-be revolutionaries as well as the rest—can offer nothing to the working class. A party which bases its policy on the workers' lack of political understanding is, by that very fact, an anti-working-class party.

At the present time, the Communist Party is this country's scapegoat in the precipitate rush towards war. Capitalism has always to find scapegoats because the workers must always be persuaded to accept war, crises and hard times. The Socialist Party's criticism of the Communists has remained the same, whether the Russians have been "gallant allies" and their supporters have basked in reflected glory, or whether they have been regarded as villains of the deepest dye. The socialist case is one of opposition to capitalism and the political organisations which support capitalism; that opposition extends no less to the Communists than to those who now attack them to further the ends of British capitalism.

Robert Barltrop

Democracy or Dictatorship

From the July 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Thirty years ago this month the Spanish Civil War began. It continued until the defeat of the government forces in March, 1939; it killed about 600,000 people (many of them murdered, assassinated or executed) and it roused passions of one sort or another all over the world.

The war was regarded by many people as a straight¬forward struggle between a democratically elected, humane government and a band of bloodthirsty rebels; in other words, as a struggle between democracy and dictatorship.

The supporters of the Republican government even played upon whatever colour prejudice they could find by citing the fact, as evidence of Franco's brutality, that he was using Moorish troops.

A few months after Franco's victory the Second World War began and again this was said to be a fight for democracy. The effect of all this was to make democracy versus dictatorship one of the great political issues of the Thirties and Forties.

A typical reaction from the so-called Left Wing was the demand for the formation of a Popular Front. Nothing is heard of this idea now; no Left Wing party suggests an alliance against the dictatorship in Russia.

In any case the Spanish Civil War showed up the fallacy of the idea. The organisations which united in the Popular Front never succeeded in sinking their differences; many of them were too busy murdering each other. Many of the participants were anything but supporters of democracy.

There were, for example, the Communists, who stood for dictatorship on the Russian model. There were the separatists who bitterly opposed the entire concept of central government, and there were the Anarcho-Syndicalists, who rejected the use of Parliamentary election and who stood for violent insurrection.

The war was used by the great European powers partly as a rehearsal for the clash which came in September, 1939, and partly for what economic advantage they could get out of it.

The Nazis practised their dive-bombing; the French tested their aviation equipment. The Germans were after the rich deposits of iron ore in Spain; the Russians drove a hard bargain for the arms they supplied to the Spanish Government and insisted on prompt payment for them.

The details of the 1939/45 war, perhaps to the dismay of many who supported it, were similarly sordid. Far from being a clear-cut conflict between democracies on the one hand and dictatorships on the other, it was one in which both sides had their share of despotisms.

It is true that there was nothing among the Allies to quite match the refined sadism of Nazi Germany. But there was the Stalin dictatorship glowering over Russia, and there were minor countries like Greece and Poland which were under the iron heel.

When the war was over and the truth began to filter out, it was time to take stock. The first thing which was clear was that the world was no safer for democracy than it had been before the war.

The military conflict had been won and lost; the economic threat from expansionist German, Italian and Japanese capitalism had been contained, at least for a time. Yet millions of people lived — and still live — under oppression.

The simple fact is that the wars of capitalism are not fought to defend democracy. This is impossible, for democracy depends on a popular desire for it and not on which country wins a war. If the majority of people want democracy they will have it; if they do not want it they will surrender it.

In this issue of the Socialist Standard we set out to discuss democracy. For Socialists this is a vital matter, for our existence would be in jeopardy if the working class should abandon their democratic rights.

When the workers have realised how vital democracy is, when they have realised that it cannot be defended by making war, and when they have grasped the fact that it is an important part of the process to be used in establishing Socialism, they will have taken a big step nearer the new society which will be organised by the people, of the people and for the people.

Cooking the Books: Down with welfare? (2014)

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

The Times (15 January) reported that George Osborne was to tell a conference organised by the think tank Open Europe that ‘Europe will face further economic woes if it fails to cut welfare spending’:

‘As Angela Merkel has pointed out, Europe accounts for just over 7 per cent of the world’s population, 25 per cent of its economy and 50 per cent of global social welfare spending. We can’t go on like this.’

He didn’t explain why not, but the implication must be that, to compete on world markets against the products made in countries which spend less on welfare, Europe has to reduce its welfare spending towards their levels. In other words, a race to the bottom.

One dictionary definition of ‘welfare’ is:

‘1. good health, happiness, and prosperity. 2. the maintenance of persons in such a condition; money given for this purpose.’ (OxfordReference Dictionary)

On this definition, Osborne was in effect saying that, due to competition on the world market, all countries are forced to reduce the ‘good health, happiness and prosperity’ of their population. What an indictment of capitalism! And what a confirmation of the futility of reformists’ attempts to make capitalism serve human welfare.

But is it true? One thing Osborne ignores is that ‘welfare spending’ is not motivated by a desire to improve human welfare but by a desire to improve the productivity of the workforce – a better educated, more healthy workforce feeling less insecure can produce more profits. This was in fact the capitalist rationale behind the introduction of the so-called Welfare State and why the drastic reduction of such spending to the levels in China or India which Osborne and Merkel seem to be proposing could prove to be counter-productive.

Osborne probably knows this and doesn’t regard such spending as an unnecessary burden that has to come out of taxes that ultimately fall on profits any more than he does military spending which also comes from this. For him, both will be part of the necessary costs of running capitalism. What he will be against is welfare for those who can’t or don’t work and so are useless from a profit-making point of view – the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill, the old, the unemployed and the unemployable. In short, the most vulnerable members of capitalist society.

The fact that welfare has become a dirty word for capitalism shows that it is not a system geared to improving human welfare. If it was, then as productivity increased (as it does slowly from year to year) more resources would be devoted to services and amenities that enhance the welfare of everyone. But this is not what happens. Far from it. The pressure is downwards not upwards.

The fact is that capitalism is a system geared to making profits and accumulating them as more and more profit-seeking capital. That’s the logic which is imposed on all countries through competition on the world market. In this sense Osborne and Merkel are right, but that’s a convincing reason to get rid of capitalism and to replace it with a system in which the welfare of all can and will be the priority. Which is only possible on the basis of the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources and the end of production for the market with a view to profit.

Notes on "Solo Trumpet" (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

A book has just been published by Lawrence and Wishart which calls for some comments from us because of what it says and what it does not say. The book is "Solo Trumpet" by T. A. Jackson.

In the description of his early days, in the '90's and the beginning of the present century, Jackson gives an authentic picture of working class life at that time and of the struggles to clarify the socialist outlook. So also is his description of the events leading up to the formation of the Scottish Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Whilst he quite correctly points out that the two groups were dubbed "Impossibilists" at the time, by the leaders of the Social Democratic Federation, he frequently mentions the S.L.P. by name. But nowhere throughout his book does he refer to the S.P.G.B. by name; whenever we are concerned he always uses the old sneer "Impossibilist." Furthermore whilst he is lavish in detail about other parties he does not give any details about the formation of our party. This is curious because Jackson was one of those who left the S.D.F. to take part on the formation of the Party. He was a member of the early Executive Committee, and he spoke for the Party regularly from 1904 until he left in 1909. From page 64 onwards he makes references to the "Impossibilists" but in such a way that at times it is difficult to know whether he is referring to us or to the S.L.P., though he generally refers to the latter under its own name.

The complete silence about the S.P.G.B. is intriguing, particularly since the other parties and groups, about which he has so much to say, are either dead or moribund, apart from the Labour Party which might as well be dead. At the beginning of the Twenties Sylvia Pankhurst told one our members—Hardy—that instructions had been issued to Communist Party members to have nothing to do with our Party and not even to mention it. Can it be that this ostrich policy still operates?

Jackson gives two reasons for leaving the Party, though only those who know the circumstances would know who he is writing about. One reason is correct, the other is apparently a face-saving afterthought.

From pages 87 to 91 he explains the circumstances that led him to leave the Party and to become a freelance speaker. These circumstances were well known to members at the time, and the present writer is not going to throw stones at him for what he did then. He was having a very rough time, was badly on the rocks, was unable to get employment and needed what money he could get as a free-lance speaker in order to obtain the means to live and keep his family. As he himself puts it, he tried all kinds of jobs,

"But a permanent job eluded my seeking. In those circumstances I was driven at last to 'turn professional' and charge a fee for my services as a speaker. This was quite a recognised thing, in those days—indeed just as there were free-lance journalists (whose ranks I tried vainly to join) so there were free-lance Socialist propagandists—who lived wholly or partly upon their earnings as lecturers and propagandists." (page 90.)

That this was the real explanation of his leaving the Party is borne out by letters he wrote to members at the time.

After a short time speaking for the I.L.P. in the West of England he went North to join J. W. Gott of the Freethought-Socialist League. He carried on the agitiation for that body in Leeds up to the outbreak of war in 1914. This propaganda he refers to as his "whole Atheistic interlude" which "A stern critic would condemn" and after some general and footling explanations, he opens the next paragraph with the following statement:-

"In any case, in the purely personal sense I had little choice: It was the only means of living open to me—I had burned my boats' and there was no going back." (page 98.)

Surely he has given in his own words the complete explanation of the reason for his leaving the Party and for his subsequent career? Why then does he try to slip in another slant in other parts of his book? For example on page 87 where he writes:-

"Thus, as I had sickened of the doctrinaire rigidity of the 'Impossibilists,' and found both the Hyndmanites and the MacDonaldites hostile to the ideological struggle for Marxism," etc. 

Sickness "of the doctrinaire rigidity" had nothing to do with the action he took that burned his boats, but his subsequent activities may have influenced him to change his outlook—if he really has changed it!

Although he refers to the attitude of the B.S.P., the I.L.P., and the S.L.P., on the 1914 war, about which they were hopelessly at sea, he makes no reference to the opposition of the S.P.G.B. which was stated in clear terms immediately the war broke out. If he did not know this at the time he must have known it soon after. He tells us that he was in Leeds at the time war broke out and that it came as an unexpected shock with which he was associated, groping in the dark.

In the course of his book he speaks very well of two members of the Party who have passed out—Fitzgerald and Baritz—but refers to them as belonging to the "Impossibilists." He tells a humorous story of Baritz's escapades in Manchester, when he climbed on a roof to blow a horrible clarinet obligato through a ventilator shaft while Hyndman was speaking at an indoor meeting. The story is funnier still when one realizes that Baritz was perfectly serious. Jackson refers to Fitzgerald as the man who took him through Marxian Economics and writes very appreciatively of him. It may interest him to know that Fitzgerald always had a regard for him, in spite of the line he took. He is mistaken in thinking that he and George Hicks (another ex-member of the Party) were the only two "outsiders" at Fitzgerald's funeral: there were others.

Gilmac. 

What Do We Mean By Revolution? (2014)

From the April 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Whatever else you might think of Russell Brand at least he has re-introduced the word ‘revolution’ into the political vocabulary. But what is a ‘revolution’?

One good definition was given by the Victorian era socialist, William Morris, in a talk he gave in 1884 later published as the pamphlet How We Live and How We Might Live:

‘The word Revolution, which we Socialists are so often forced to use, has a terrible sound in most people's ears, even when we have explained to them that it does not necessarily mean a change accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have somehow managed to seize on the executive power for the moment. Even when we explain that we use the word revolution in its etymological sense, and mean by it a change in the basis of society, people are scared at the idea of such a vast change, and beg that you will speak of reform and not revolution.’

A revolution, then, is ‘a change in the basis of society’, whether or not this is accompanied by violence (Morris in fact thought it would be), a change that has to be fairly rapid, involving a clear break with the existing society.

The change in the basis of society which socialists envisage is a change from what exists today, where society is based on the ownership and control of the means of wealth production – the means by which society survives – by a tiny minority of rich individuals, corporations and states. We want to change from that to a situation where the means of production have become the common heritage of all to be used, under democratic control, for the benefit of all. A change from a class society to a classless society. A change from capitalism to socialism.

Why a revolution?

But why is a revolution against capitalism needed? Could it not be gradually reformed out of existence? No, basically because capitalism cannot be reformed so as to work in the interest of the majority. For a start, it is based on their economic exploitation. Because most people are deprived of access to means of production they have to sell their working abilities for a wage or salary to those who do have access. But employers are not philanthropists. They only employ people if there is something in it for them – a profit. If there isn’t, they won’t employ people or else they make people redundant. This happens all the time.

Since the only way that wealth can be produced is by humans applying their physical and mental energies to materials that originally came from nature, the source of a non-work income like profit can only be the work of those who work. It’s workers, not their employers, who are the ‘wealth producers’.

Profit is the difference between the value of what wage and salary workers produce and the value of what they are paid as wages and salaries. The extraction and accumulation of profit is the aim of production under capitalism.

A good alternative name for capitalism is the profit system. Because that’s what it is. It’s a system whose economic aim is the accumulation of more and more capital out of profits. It’s a profit-making system in which profit always has to come before meeting people’s needs. If a profit is not made, economic activity slows down, stops or declines. One of the basic economic laws of capitalism is ‘no profit, no production’.

This has various consequences. An obvious one is that production is geared only to what people can pay for, not what they need. The rich get their whims met while the poor have to go without heating. Luxury flats are built while many live in unfit accommodation. In fact, while technologically there could be plenty for all, the profit system means that production stops well below that point.

The struggle for profits is a competitive one, with every business trying to maximise its profits. In this ‘battle of competition’ the main weapon is reducing costs by installing new more productive machinery and methods of production. This, too, has consequences. It leads to speed-up and stress at work. And to pollution and the neglect and destruction of the environment.

All these problems – housing, stress, pollution, and many others – are interconnected. They are not just isolated problems that can be dealt with one by one. They all have the same root cause in the capitalist system of production for profit and are unavoidable consequences, inevitable effects, of it.

Revolution not Reform

This is why capitalism cannot be reformed to work in the interest of the majority by putting ‘people before profit’. Any government that tried to do this would provoke an economic slowdown, even an economic crisis, and would sooner or later have to give up and accept, and even apply, the economic law of ‘profits first’.

There have been governments in the past – Labour governments – which could be said to have genuinely and sincerely tried to put people before profits. They have always failed in the end. Not necessarily because they weren’t sincere or were sell-outs or not resolute enough, but because they had set themselves an impossible task – to make capitalism work other than as a profit-making system in which making profits has to be given priority.

The Labour Party has learned this lesson and has long since given up being other than an alternative management team of British Capitalism plc to the Tories. But some of those on and to its left have not learned this and still imagine that they can impose other priorities on capitalism than profit-making and turn it into something else. The new Left Unity party, formed in November last year, is a case in point, as are the various Trotskyist groups who campaign and contest elections on such platforms as tax the rich to pay for better schools, homes, transport and the like. If tried, by reducing profits, it would probably provoke an economic crisis.

It is surprising how widespread this belief is that governments can change the way capitalism works, when they obviously can’t. This is why we say that socialists should direct their energies to ending capitalism not to mending it, to abolishing it, not managing it. In other words, ‘Revolution not Reform’. That’s our policy and that’s what we advocate.

What kind of revolution?

But what sort of revolution do we need? Going back to William Morris it ‘cannot mean a change made mechanistically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have managed to seize on the executive power for the moment.’ Speaking in 1884, Morris probably had in mind the French revolutionary Louis-Auguste Blanqui and his followers who were forever plotting an insurrection to take over the Town Hall in Paris. They never succeeded and Blanqui spent most of his life in jail.

His ideas, however, were inherited by Lenin and the Bolsheviks and propagated by their followers in the 20^th century. And still are by the Trotskyist groups. It is true that they are not so crude as Blanqui but realise that they need some degree of popular support before staging their uprising. But this support is to be won not for replacing capitalism with socialism but from people discontented for any sort of reason. The end result is the same: a group of people – a minority – find themselves in control of ‘the executive power’ but without majority support for socialism.

What they can do in these circumstances is as limited as Labour and other reformists who have got control of executive power on a non-socialist basis, in their case with non-socialist votes. The revolutionary minority, too, have no alternative but to manage capitalism in one way or another.

Lenin eventually realised this and had the honesty to admit it and say that the only way forward for Russia was state capitalism, which is what really happened, though both Stalin and Trotsky refused to recognise this. Stalin called it ‘socialism’ while Trotsky regarded it as some sort of ‘workers’ state’ till his dying day, which was when he was murdered by an agent of his supposed ‘workers’ state’.

Democratic, majority revolution

So, by ‘revolution’ we don’t envisage the type of revolution advocated by Leninists of a conscious minority leading a mass of discontented but non-socialist workers and others.

What we envisage, rather, is a majority revolution in which the majority want and understand socialism and participate in bringing it about. For us, this revolution must be democratic in both senses of the term. It must have majority support and it must be carried out by democratic means.

In a politically and economically advanced capitalist country like Britain and most of Europe, a socialist majority can win control of the ‘executive power’ via elections. That’s our view, as argued in detail in our pamphlet What’s Wrong With Using Parliament?

Of course, establishing socialism is not just a question of voting for a socialist candidate and waiting for a majority of socialist MPs to vote it in (much as people do today who vote for a party which promises some reform of capitalism). People have to have organised themselves outside parliament into a mass democratic socialist party, into trade unions and other workplace organisations, into neighbourhood councils and the like. The socialist MPs would be merely the delegates – the messenger boys and girls – of the organised socialist majority outside parliament.

So, we have in mind a democratic, majority political revolution which begins with the winning of political power via the ballot box by a socialist-minded majority. The majority  then uses this control of political power to dispossess the capitalist class, declaring all property titles, all stocks and shares, all bills and bonds, all limited liability companies and corporations null and void. This means that the means of production become the common heritage of all. The socialist majority can also co-ordinate the physical take-over of the means of production by people outside parliament, organised and ready to do this and keep production going.

This done, production can be re-orientated towards meeting people’s needs instead of for sale on a market with a view to profit as at present under capitalism. Goods and services can be made freely available in accordance with the principle ‘from each their ability, to each their needs’. This social revolution will then have been accomplished and socialism will have been established.

Adam Buick

Voice from the Back: Capitalist moonshine (2003)

Voice from the Back column from the September 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalist moonshine

Phineas T. Barnum (1810-1891) was a famous showman and circus owner who is perhaps best remembered for the phrase, “There's a sucker born every minute”, but even that old huckster would have been astounded at capitalism's most recent scam. Selling property on the moon! It's true; a Mr Dennis M. Hope of the Lunar Embassy is offering on the internet to sell you an acre of the moon. According to their website “The sale of lunar property has been ongoing for 22 years by the Lunar Embassy, which is the only company in the world to possess a legal basis and copyright for the sale of lunar, and other extraterrestial property within the confines of our solar system.” They claim to have sold over a million acres already. Its not as unlikely as it sounds, after all the majority of people on the planet earth seem to think it is a sensible arrangement to have all the resources of this planet owned by a tiny handful.

Winners and losers

“America's defence spending grew so strongly in supplying the war against Iraq that it propelled the US economy to a spring surge just as Britain and the eurozone suffered from cuts in tourism and travel.” Times, Business Section (1 August) In any war some sections of the capitalist class will benefit, such as the armament business, others will lose business and have to face possible tax increases. There is one section of the population that never gains from war – the world's working class. Ask the recently bereaved families of Iraq, Britain or the US.

Yesterday's allies

In reviewing Clyde Prestowitz's book “Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions”, Economist (9 August) highlights the duplicity of US foreign policy. “He reminds us that the United States tacitly accepted the Taliban's assumption of power in Afghanistan, tells us that it supplied them with anthrax and botulin, and unkindly notes that it was one Donald Rumsfeld who went to Baghdad in 1983 to assure Saddam Hussein of American support.” This is not peculiar to US foreign policy, every country in the world adopts a policy that it hopes will advance the interests of their capitalist masters. Duplicity and double-dealing are the norm in the cut-throat world of capitalism.

US charm offensive

Some sectors of the US population seem puzzled that their troops in Afghanistan and Iraq don't seem to be universally loved so perhaps the following may shed some light on the matter. “ Like many of his fellow GIs, (Pte Simon) Behrndt's take on how best to conduct security in an occupied nation is not complicated. “Basically”, he told the Daily Telegraph, “we go in, kick in the doors, pull the guys out of bed, drag them outside, put zip ties around their wrists, throw them in the truck and take them in for questioning . . . The raids are a real adrenaline rush, plus I get to practice my Tae Kon Do moves on out-of-line EPWs (enemy prisoners of war).” The Week (9 August)

The final solution?

Labour's David Blunkett wants longer sentences, Conservative spokesman Oliver Letwin wants more prisons built, but Phil Wheatley, the new director of the prison service reckons they are both wrong. “In a direct challenge to central elements of the home secretary's criminal justice reforms, Phil Wheatley declared that prisons should not be “lightly used” because “they are not the answer” to crime. Mr Wheatley's extraordinary comment that overcrowding was one factor behind the record increase in suicides is likely to be welcomed by members of the judiciary, who have warned that Mr Blunkett's reforms will swell the prison population yet further.” Guardian (18 August) Maybe Wheatley, Letwin and the judiciary have got it wrong; could Blunkett have a “cunning plan” a la Blackadder? With a prison population in England and Wales of 74,000 and 105 suicides maybe his plan is to double the overcrowding and thus the suicide rate. More suicides equals less criminals! It could be a New Labour vote winner with league tables just like schools and hospitals.