Proper Gander: Up to date (2026)

The Proper Gander column from the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

While each instalment of ITV’s Up has the simple format of conversational interviews with people about themselves, the series as a whole has become one of the most significant ever broadcast. The first episode, Seven Up!, was made in 1964 and featured a group of seven year-olds talking about their views and aspirations. Its narrator says ‘We brought these children together because we wanted a glimpse of England in the year 2000. The shop steward and the executive of the year 2000 are now seven years old’. In 1970, the children, now teenagers, were interviewed again, then every seven years the cameras returned for another update: 21 Up, 28 Up, 35 Up… with the series now ending on 70 Up.

An inspiration for Seven Up! was the Jesuit motto ‘give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man’, the notion being that a child’s future – as a shop steward or an executive – can be seen from an early age. The producers interpreted this as meaning that society’s class structure is rigid enough for a person’s life path to be set by the circumstances in which they grow up. As the programme was made as a one-off edition of the World In Action strand, the idea of an ongoing run to demonstrate the premise only came after the interest generated led to the follow-up, 7 Plus Seven.

When finding children to interview, the first episode’s producers wanted to represent a range of socio-economic backgrounds. So, they chose from private schools and comprehensives, suburbs and estates, with two who were living in a children’s home. Of the 14 followed in the series, Neil has had perhaps the least predictable journey over the decades, including periods of homelessness, then being a Liberal Democrat councillor and lay minister, moving around the country every few years before retiring from work and settling in France. When the series introduced Charles, John and Andrew, they were attending the same Kensington pre-preparatory school, and each went on to have prestigious careers (not without some struggles along the way). The others’ later status in terms of job or wealth were also influenced by their levels of schooling. Whether they went to a private, comprehensive or a grammar school, or then on to university (Oxbridge or otherwise) depended very much on the income and situation of their parents, as did their other opportunities and expectations. Symon was staying in a children’s home at the start of the series, and later moved back with his mother. Much of his employment was in warehouses, in contrast to the broader and better paid job options available to others with more formal education. At the age of 70 he has a contented life with his extended family. Up’s participants from both more and less wealthy backgrounds have largely found lifestyles they’re satisfied with today, although some have been dogged by illnesses, including long-term depression. The four women taking part were all married with children during their twenties, with Jackie in particular objecting to how the interviews framed them, rather than the men, through their relationships.

To its credit, the programme itself has acknowledged the tensions between some of the 14 and the main interviewer and producer, Michael Apted. According to a 2013 article by Rebecca Mead for The New Yorker, Apted ‘can be unbearably patronising toward his subjects, particularly the working-class women, while he sets his more affluent participants up to look ludicrous’. Charles dropped out of the series after 21 Up because he, and others, felt that they were being presented to fit into roles.

Even so, the premise behind Up’s initial episodes was generally confirmed, with what could be called the participants’ ‘standing’ in society at the age of 70 tending to echo that of their surroundings in childhood. Their families’ financial situation at that time would later affect the extent of any financial security they have in adulthood. Our place in society’s economic framework constricts what options we have. As the series progressed, more emphasis was placed on the people themselves than on their class or economic context. At the time of 63 Up Tim Adams wrote in an article for The Guardian, ‘The primary question as its subjects have aged has become not what makes them successful, but what makes them happy’. So, as it developed, the series became more about how people live according to their opportunities, rather than what forms them. More of the participants likely wouldn’t have wanted to continue taking part if the series was pitched as an academic study of how they are moulded by wider societal forces. Focusing instead on their changing lives gives Up a rare position among television programmes, which otherwise don’t tend to bother with people’s everyday experiences. The series doesn’t present unmediated coverage, of course. The interviewer guides the conversations with his questions and the responses are edited and reframed into brief snapshots, in ways some participants haven’t liked. This approach is standard when making TV documentaries, with their separation between the producers and their subjects. This distance doesn’t apply to social media, which now gives us the means to directly broadcast whatever aspects of our lives we choose without being mediated by a production company with its own standpoint. However, the usual results of this on TikTok or YouTube are much less involving and affecting than Up, nor do they have its impressive six decade-long span.

Mike Foster

Class Divisions (2026)

Book Review from the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Underdogs: the Truth About Britain’s White Working Class. By Joel Budd. Picador £10.99.

By working class here is meant those who fall into the census groups of lower supervisory and technical occupations, semi-routine and routine occupations and long-term unemployed (this covers 40 percent of adults, and includes jobs such as baristas, gardeners, bricklayers, chefs and shop assistants). People count as white if that is how they see themselves or how most people would see them. But ethnicity, it is said, is not a stable characteristic, and people born in Ireland or with recent Irish ancestors, can be described as Britons.

Budd investigates white workers by means of statistical studies and his own visits and interviews, which were overwhelmingly done in England and Wales. Three main kinds of area are distinguished. Heartlands, such as Rhymney in south Wales, have very high proportions of white workers who are mostly quite old. Wythenshawe is an enclave, a large council estate on the edge of Manchester and ‘an example of deep poverty in a pleasant setting’. Thetford in Norfolk is a colony, settled by white working class people from elsewhere (mainly London). The three types are not mutually exclusive, and Edlington near Doncaster is a mixture of a heartland and a colony, mainly white but with people who have come from all over England and Ireland.

The book contains a number of interesting points. For instance, poorer white British children generally do very badly at school, while better-off kids do fine. Poorer children can have high aspirations in terms of education and career, but lack high expectations. Few people expect to move for a new job, and young people from poor places usually stick around, so Britain is now ‘a nation of stayers-at-home’. Moving to a new city or town can be expensive and the rewards are not obvious.

Attitudes to immigration are determined not so much by class as by age, as ‘young white working-class Britons … are largely unbothered by immigration and ethnic diversity’, seeing diversity as ‘a fact of life’. Class (in the sense used here) does not indicate how a person will vote but whether they will vote at all, with poor people less likely to vote. White Britons have largely ceased voting Labour, but this change applies less to black and Asian Britons.

One informative section deals with the Lithuanian community in Boston in Lincolnshire. Agricultural work in Fenland is badly paid, and much of it is now done by immigrants from Eastern Europe. A community organisation teaches English to migrants and Lithuanian to their British-born children. The children have an accent that is ‘part Lincolnshire, part Multicultural London English’. More generally, language skills can vary by gender, with Polish women speaking decent English if they work in industries such as care and hospitality, while men often work on building sites with other Polish speakers and so their English is much less good.

An informative look at part of the British population, but without placing it within the general social structure of the UK.

Paul Bennett

Sociology in America. Where Yankee Scientists Fail. (1917)

From the November 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has been often claimed for America that it has done signal service in the cause of social science. Almost every university here includes sociology in its curriculum. Thousands of volumes are devoted to it in its static, dynamic, or applied aspects by the professors and savants. Arthur M. Lewis, one of the most active lecturers on this subject in the States, says in his book “Introduction to Sociology,” that “In sociology, thanks to the labours of Lester F. Ward, America holds a foremost place.”

It is true that what passes for sociology receives a great deal of attention in America. Much of it, however, is mere advocacy of reform, organised charity, and similar nostrums. A good deal of the interest “sociology” receives is due to the “problems” inevitably arising from the development of modern industry in America. Terrible poverty, with its multiform sufferings, has played such havoc with the proletariat in America that “Surveys” and “Special Commissions” have piled up tomes with reports and programmes. Almost every large factory has a “Sociological Department” to investigate the social conditions of its employees. Real Sociology, however—viewed as a study of social laws and social development—gets as little attention here as elsewhere.

Sociology is the science of Society. It deals with the whole field of social life, past and present, and gives us an indication of the future. Sociology embraces the study of Socialism as of capitalism; feudalism and slavery; primitive communism and also the developed communism toward which Society is now tending.

The relation between Socialism and sociology is briefly this : Socialism is a system of society which will occupy a stage of social development. Sociology covers the entire range of social development, and is concerned with more than the economic life of peoples. It enquires into the mental, moral, and physical activities of the population. The data of sociology are the facts presented by all the social sub-sciences—history, economics, ethics, and politics—besides the social aspects of psychology.

Where Socialism does enter upon the entire field of social life, past, present, and future, is in its value as a philosophy of history. Socialism as a theory of human society is based upon the generalisations of sociology called principles of human development. The place of Socialism within social evolution depends upon the scientific principle which teaches that systems change according to social laws. These laws should be the real subject of enquiry for sociologists, but they seldom are.

The great generalisation which forms an inevitable part of Socialist philosophy is the Materialist Conception of History. This view of history, when applied to the tendency of past and present points the road to Socialism. As a statement of the dynamic forces working throughout human development it belongs to the philosophy of history. Many non-Socialists have accepted the Materialist Conception of History theory, but as they have only applied it as an interpretation of the past and present, they have not identified it with Socialism. We apply this materialist key to the future society, and therefore associate it with Socialism. While the Materialist Conception of History forms an integral part of Socialism, it must be borne in mind that this conception may be held by non-Socialists, who step short when it comes to drawing conclusions from the material tenden­cies of present society.

Several “keys” to history have been offered us by modern sociologists. Gabriel Tarde finds “imitation” the fundamental fact of social life and social change. As, however, he does not trace the causes of social change, hie “solution” does not go far enough. Professor Giddings is one of the most noted of American Sociologists, and he sees in kinship the driving force of social advance. His interpretation is a psychological one, as is also Professor Mark Baldwin’s, and neither explain the varying mental culture between one epoch and another. Why association and kinship became stronger factors as the race advanced is not told.

The late Professor Lester Frank Ward was considered the most advanced of sociologists in America, and his writings deserve close study. He assimilated the evolutionist culture of our time and, unlike Professor Giddings, rejected religious superstition. His examination of social life led him to the conclusion that religion had not helped the race. His teachings are contained in “Pure Sociology,” “Applied Sociology,” “Dynamic Factors of Sociology,” and more completely in “Dynamic Sociology.” He was a pronounced exponent of evolution applied to every sphere of life and nature. A specialist in the science of botany and a voluminous authority on the flora of the American Continent, he also spent a good deal of time in his application of science to social life. He was a rigid disciple of Comte, and therefore in many ways a critic of Herbert Spencer.

The chief shortcoming of Ward’s writings is that they are more concerned with psychology than with real Sociology. His inductions are in the main gathered from the mental life of peoples. Take, for instance, his view of the origin of Society :

“I regard human association as the result of the perceived advantage which it yields and as coming into existence only in proportion as that advantage was perceived by the only faculty capable of perceiving it, the intellect.” (“Outlines of Sociology,” p. 43.)

For Prof. Ward Society is a psychical product, not a material product born out of the pitiless pressure of the struggle for existence among primitive peoples. To assert that Society is born of men’s perception and reason is to credit primitive men with greater mental concepts than modern anthropology allows. His theory is akin to Jean Jacques Rousseau’s, which was that society originates from a contract between individuals.

The same psychological view is taken of the characteristics of the human being. Contrary to the Aristotelian view that man is a political animal, and to that of later writers that man is a social animal, Ward finds the chief distinction between man and the lower animals is that man is a reasoning animal. He says :

“I am inclined to the view that man is not naturally a social being, that he has descended from an animal that was not even gregarious by instinct, and that human society, like so many other facts that I have been enumerating, is purely a product of his reason and arose by insensible degrees, pari passu with the development of his brain.”—(Same work, p. 90.)

Happiness, says Ward, is the goal of all human effort, and the sum total of Society’s effort is achievement. Feeling is the dynamic agent throughout social evolution according to him, and it is the motive force behind all social change. Such a philosophy, however, does not explain the varying concepts of happiness that have existed throughout the ages. It does not account for the changing social structures and institutions existing while human feelings have remained comparatively constant. Ward says human desires and wants have been the propelling power behind the evolution of Society, but why desires and wants change in their nature is not stated.

Summing up this enquiry I will quote Prof. Simon N. Patton of Pennsylvania University, whose statement on this question is unanswerable. He says :

“It is often put forward as an objection to the economic interpretation of history that there are just as strong grounds for a social, an intellectual, or a religious interpretation.

Such critics fail, however, to perceive the essential difference between an economic interpretation and those contrasted with it. The qualities of mankind are divided into two groups, the natural and the acquired. For many thousand years there has been little or no change in natural characters. As biological beings we are to-day what our ancestors were when historians began to keep records ; all the changes have been within the group of acquired characters, which are in the main economic. Religious, social, intellectual and sexual feelings cannot be regarded as the causes of the changes appearing in history if these feeling have not varied in intensity during the historic epoch.

It is only their relation to economic events that has altered, and in this way many institutions have arisen that reflect and reinforce the natural feelings. Institutions, however, are acquired phenomena, and their alterations give evidence of changes within the realm of economics to which natural feelings must adjust themselves. Should industrial habits, methods of production and institutions become stable, while new natural characters appeared or the older ones gained strength, a period of history would begin in which progress must be interpreted in other than economic terms.

The present epoch with its fixed natural characters and rapid industrial changes can have but one valid method of interpretation, and that is in terms of acquired characters impressed and modified by the pressure of economic conditions.”—”Social Basis of Religion,” pp. 34-35.)

In a further article the real cause of social change will be discussed.

Adolph Kohn

By the Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the November 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Recently we were informed that a “soldier’s wife gets £400 a year” made up by army allowances, working on munitions, and some of her children also going out to work. The sequel of the case was that the woman was summoned for the non-attendance of her boy at school. In fining the mother £1 the Mayor remarked : “£8 a week ! £400 a year ! It sounds like a fairy tale from the ‘Arabian Nights.’ “—”Daily Telegraph,” 13.9.1917.

No mention is made in the report as to whether the learned gentleman passed any criticism on the state of society which tolerates the employment of children (in this case a boy of 13 years of age) on munition work when they ought to be at school. The condemnation being reserved only for the mother. Such are the methods of those who rule over us.

During the past three years great prominence has been given to a few cases where members of the working class have been the recipients of increased money wages. So extraordinary is it for those who toil and spin to be able to count their fabulous income by the hundred pound per annum method that our capitalist masters and their henchmen are screaming themselves into hysterics. Members of Parliament may receive anything from £400 to £5,000 per annum, others may be appointed insurance commisiioners with correspondingly high salaries and emoluments, and such things pass unnoticed. But when the merry wage-slave gets an increase in his or her salary as a result of capitalist anarchy, then it is a fit subject for our “superiors” to wax eloquent on.

* * *

Three years and three months of what our masters are pleased to call the “war of liberation” have rolled by. And the time is fast approaching when the priest and his satellites will be chanting their hymns of praise to the “Prince of Peace” the while they urge their fellow humans on to the slaughter of each other! After all this time further signs are not wanting to confirm the correctness of our Manifesto issued in the early days of the war. Many stood aghast after reading our pronouncement, but at long last we are coming into our own. Those who then differed from us are having the scales removed from their eyes, and are beginning to see the position from a different view-point, which corresponds more nearly with our own.

Concerning the class to which we belong and the sacrifices that class has been called upon to make, another interesting admission recently saw the light of day in a weekly newspaper. Dealing with the Representation of the People Bill much adulation was being dispensed to the hard-working (and long-suffering) men and women who compose the bulk of the inhabitants of this isle. Then occurs the following notable passage :

“Such a measure of this kind could never have been passed by any Parliament in the days when Peace presided over the land. But there has been given to us all a new perspective of national things. The great burden of this vast war has fallen on the common people, who have had to make the highest efforts and to sorrow under the heaviest sacrifices. It is only in the hour of supreme danger that large numbers of the comfortable classes have learned how little relatively they have borne of the labours necessary towards victory in the bloody conflict on which the future of our Empire depends.”—”Reynolds’s,” Oct. 21st, 1917.

We have said similar things ourselves over and over again.

* * *

Turning to another phase of the same article one reads that “In every land the labouring man and the labouring woman have had the value of their efforts recognised at long last ;” and “the foundations are being laid for the political edifice of the future.” Passing on we observe that “so far all our electoral law has been so full of obstacles both to voters without property and candidates without wealth that numberless constituencies were safely set down as the preserves of the rich and the influential.” Having thus been taken to Pisgah’s heights we view the promised land, for the writer informs his readers that: “The new Bill changes all—or nearly all—this state of things. For the first time, the Democracy will be able to determine the course of legislation in this country in full degree, if it wants to do so.” Then follows a very significant observation, and one which we have had occasion to refer to in the past. It continues ;

“If it wants to do so. There, indeed, lies the pith of the whole matter. A people without vision, that does not know what it wants, can always be tricked by political charlatans, and set in conflict over petty things, while the graver issues are settled over its head.”

All this on the part of our contemporary is “much ado about nothing” and avails us little. Before the war the working class had all the essentials ready to hand. The one thing lacking was Socialist education. Given an understanding of the conflict of interest between capitalist and labourer, the class struggle and its necessary culmination, they could not be “tricked by political charlatans” nor “set in conflict over petty things.” Neither could they be hoodwinked by radical rag-time journals dangling the red-herring of an extended franchise before them.

                                                                            * * *

Reference was recently made to Sir Auckland Geddes’ schemes for using available man-power in the country and the case of the conscientious objector. The concluding portion of the paragraph was as follows :

“One man, engaged before his arrest on income tax and excess profits work, is now making mail-bags in Wormwood Scrubs. I suppose there are scores of similar instances of the eminently intelligent way in which our national labour resources are being husbanded.”—”Daily News,” Oct. i8th, 1917.

Such is the wisdom of our masters’ agents.

* * *

At the beginning of the war, when “voluntary” enlistment was the order of the day, we used to read of young ladies shouting to the men to “join up,” and even going so far as to present white feathers to the men who were in civilian clothes and minus an armlet. To-day we read that —

“Of the 13,000 volunteers 3,460 did not respond to their call to the Selection Board.

An official of the Ministry of Labour suggested to-day that girls should get the conditions of service from an employment exchange and ask the officials all the questions they are anxious about before filling in the form and wasting everybody’s time.

“The numbers of volunteers are not anything like what we need,” said an official to-day, “although the women are coming along steadily. The middle-class girls are still holding back.”

This appears to suggest the question : “Who are the slackers now ? Is it a case of when they are asked to join up they lack the courage, or have gained discretion ?

* * *

One has often wondered why some imperialistic capitalists have gone into hysterics over the utterances of Ramsay MacDonald. More amazing still does it become after reading the following.

“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, speaking at Loughborough on Saturday night, said they wanted no patched up peace, or peace at any price, which would bring war in ten years. They wanted to remove the causes of war.”—”Daily News,” Oct. 11th, 1917.

Perhaps he will inform us how this result is to be obtained.

The Scout.

Pricking our bubble. (1917)

From the November 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our September issue we took up a little matter with the S.L.P. In the “Socialist” of September the editor of that paper promised to prick the S.P. “bubble” in his next issue—if he has room ! Mark the “barrage” !

Blogger's Notes:

This snippet was untitled in the original Standard.

In the December 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard, there was a follow up article to this snippet entitled 'Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth: SLP's cry from "outer darkness.' " 

It's not on the blog . . . yet.

Life-like portraits of Marx & Engels. (1917)

Advert from the November 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

This advert would occasionally appear in the Socialist Standard during this period. I don't make a habit of posting it on the blog every time it appears but every once in a while is okay. Don't quote me on this but I'm sure a copy of the Marx portrait was in the SPGB archives in the early 2000s. 

I wonder if these portraits qualify as early party merchandise?

October's "Done & Dusted"

No false modesty, a really solid month for finished Socialist Standards. The months of August and October are now permanently dust and dusted. It was a long time coming. What's important is that I try to match it for November and December.

Usual schtick . . . click on the months for the full issues.

October's "Done & Dusted"

October 1909

October 1910

October 1911

October 1912

October 1913

September 1915

September 1917

October 1917

August 1933

September 1933

September 1934

October 1934

October 1935

October 1936

September 1937

October 1937

September 1949

October 1950

September 1953

October 1953

October 1955

October 1961

August 1962

October 1962

October 1963

September 1965

October 1965

October 1975

October 1976

September 1982

September 1985

October 1985

September 1988

October 1988

September 1996

October 2004 

October 2026

World Socialist Number 6

World Socialist Number 7

Another Labour Gimmick (1976)

From the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party’s proposals to nationalize the four big banks and the seven largest insurance companies has predictably met with bitter opposition from banking interests. Banks are an integral part of the capitalist system and exist mainly for the purpose of holding idle capital pending its employment in industry, or any other project from which interest can be earned. The banker derives his profit from borrowing money at a lower rate of interest and loaning it at a higher rate. The rate of interest payable by banks has been approximately 8½ per cent., whilst the lending rate now varies between 16-19 per cent, dependent upon the type of risk the banker carries and when he expects to get his money back. The difference between the two rates less expenses represents the banker’s profit. All interest, like all rent, is derived from the surplus value created by workers at the point of production.

It is the constant wrangling between sections of the capitalist class over the division of this surplus value which shows the true character of class society. All sections of the employers are opposed as a class to the interests of the working class, but they are also in competition with one another. A high rate of interest for the banking section, or a higher level of rent for the landlords (mainly commercial and industrial) will diminish the profit of industrialists and manufacturers. Obviously, if the banker charges the manufacturer 18 per cent, on any borrowing, the manufacturer has to earn a rate of profit sufficiently high to be able to repay this rate of interest if he is to remain in business.

The capitalist naturally does not borrow all his capital from the banker, but the higher the rate of the interest the lower the industrial profit. Recently a speaker on the TV Money Programme (2nd September) estimated that the net return of investment for 1975 amounted to 2% when the borrowing rate for capital was between 13-14 per cent. In periods of declining business, the industrialist will be unable to earn even the cost of the interest on his loan, so he does not borrow or re-invest because there is nothing in it for him. His ability to meet foreign competition is impaired. He will lay off workers or introduce short-time working. This is how capitalism works.

Another futile reform

This is where the Labour Party comes in. Having over the period of the past 70 years gone in for every possible permutation of means to reform and control capitalism, they have resurrected the ancient corpse of bank nationalization. The Labour Party claimed at the time that the 1929-30 slump was due to bankers withholding credit from the industrialists — today they are making the same claim. They have forgotten that the 1945 Labour government nationalized the Bank of England in order to prevent this happening again, so they said. The Bank of England has power, under the Bank of England Act 1946, to direct any bank to loan money to any undertaking, industrial or commercial, without any public disclosures. It also has power, which it uses frequently, to require banks to make special deposits with it, and also determines the priority of bank lending and the rate of interest. In effect, it is in charge of the banking system.

The fact is that the nationalization of the Bank of England, bringing it under the direct control of the government, has made no difference to the boom and slump economy of capitalism, despite the arguments in favour of nationalization. Never at a loss to explain away its failure, the policy document issued on nationalization states “The Bank of England was nationalized 30 years ago. it has yet to be socialized”. Apart from giving a deliberate false meaning to the world socialize, in the context of the statement this means the diversion of bank and insurance company deposits from property and other commercial investments, including existing bank deposits and pension funds, into manufacturing industries. This is plain old-fashioned capitalism, and the Labour Party know this, but want their followers to believe it has something to do with Socialism.

Due to the circumstances of the War, West German and Japanese industry in particular were re-modernized. British manufacturing industry lags behind, with the result that foreign firms are obtaining an ever growing share of the markets, including the British market, at the expense of British capitalism. It is an economic necessity for British manufacturing industries to re-capitalize or reinvest by bringing in modern machinery. Maurice Green in the Daily Telegraph of 29th Sept. 1976 estimates that companies would need to raise between £2,250 million-£2,500 million from outside sources to help finance fixed capital expenditure of £11,000 million. Normally the City of London could raise this amount without difficulty, but taxation and other restrictions, including dividend control, have discouraged capitalists from investing. But before you can bring in new machinery, the old obsolete machinery has to be scrapped. This amounts to a writing off or wastage of capital, and the capitalist will leave it to the last possible moment because the market conditions are unpredictable at the present time.

The fact that successive governments have played the three-card trick by inflating the currency in attempts to solve their political problems complicates the matter, and tends to slow up re-investment pending clarification of government policy and T.U. reaction. In the meantime, the employers will play safe and not employ workers, thus continuing the social problem of unemployment.

Various spokesmen for the big four banks and insurance companies have repeatedly stated their willingness to lend money to industrialists and manufacturers under the standard bank conditions; i.e. that the interest charged shall be the normal business rate, that the period will be short to medium, and that the loans will be properly secured. The Labour Party wants low rates of interest, long-term loans with minimum security. In other words, it wants to finance the industrialists at the expense of the banker; by attacking the banker’s and depositor’s profit it hopes to provide more finance for industry. This they think will create more jobs or retain existing employment. Unfortunately, capitalism will not stand still whilst the Labour Party conducts its experiments in nationalization. State control of capital is no more effective than private control of capital as a means to secure full employment, because we are dealing with a system of international industrial anarchy which cannot be planned. The state is the instrument of the ruling class, and exists to protect their property incomes and assets — it cannot function in any other way, but it cannot guarantee property incomes.

Left Wing ignoramuses

The capitalist world outside Britain is not subject to the protestations or policies from the Left wing of the Labour Party. These ignoramuses envisage a “socialist Britain” (without socialism) as a haven from the economic pressures of external capitalism — they are blind men trying to lead other blind men. It is not the workers’ concern to referee contests between rival capitalist groups who are quarrelling over the division of surplus value, whether they be bankers, industrialists, or landlords. They should not take part in debates which put British working-class interests above that of their fellows overseas.

Here we are in the 20th century with practically the whole world at our feet, squabbling over the wealth this system allows to be produced, the bulk of which belongs to a small parasitic class; worrying ourselves sick about the present and the future — mystified as to our real rôle in this appalling environment. Are the working class to allow their individuality and creative powers to be prostituted in the interests of capital? And all this to maintain a system of production and exploitation which is a social anachronism and a blight on civilization. The domination of the world by capitalism has to be ended.

The political economists, and other servants of capital, have no desire for a complete social reconstruction. The Labour Party, and its industrial lap-dog the TUC, persistently burden the working class with capitalism’s problems when they should concentrate on their own. We must establish a Socialist economy where we can produce wealth without the fetters which are a condition of capitalist production. A Socialist economy does not require investments, capital, bank loans, or sterling balances — it simply requires the application of human labour-power to nature-given materials, and the direct consumption of the products without the nonsense of markets and competition.

Jim D'Arcy

Are Children Human? (1976)

From the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is one of the perennial criticisms we Socialists have to face: A harmonious society like Socialism is bound to fail because human nature is against it. Humans are not harmonious and co-operative, we are told. On the contrary, they are born aggressive and warlike. An article dealing with one aspect of this subject in this paper a while back pointed out that the notion that humans arc like tigers falls down on one simple comparison. Whereas it is no doubt easy to point to apparently barbaric humans (among one’s neighbours maybe, let alone the Hitlers and Stalins of history), it is equally easy to instance many of one’s acquaintances who are clearly the reverse. Every tiger is tigerish. Every human is not. It is the different that is important. (It is interesting that mention of the tiger’s aggression being as inevitable as his stripes brought a note of dissent from the editor of our American paper, The Western Socialist, in a letter to the writer, on the grounds that even a tiger has to be taught aggression by Mummy tiger. If not so taught, it can’t catch and rend its prey when it grows up. True, of course. But it is equally true that every tiger must be taught aggression because if it can’t hunt it can’t live. So it comes to the same thing in the end.)

Now even if, for the sake of argument, we accept our opponents’ case that human adults are aggressive and are not fit for Socialism, is this a built-in mechanism from which there is no escape? Let us look at two little animals, the human child and the tiger cub. Both are delightful creatures and it is a pleasure to study them and play with them. (The writer is not claiming to have played with many tiger cubs, but the reader will take the point.) We know what happens with the little tiger, it has no way of getting its living when it grows up except by “taking on the aspect of a tiger” and so the cuddly animal becomes a snarling brute which can tear equally attractive creatures to pieces.

Now few people would seek to deny that the little human cub is as friendly and sweet as the tiger cub. Not long ago, I saw on a beach a kindergarten teacher with a couple of dozen human cubs of two or three years of age. They were sitting on the sand making gurgling noises to each other and laughing and giggling in the most delightful way. I said to the young lady that she was lucky to have such a sweet lot of kids to lock after. She replied that she had many such classes and without exception they were all little angels. Clearly the lady was speaking (to mix a metaphor) through rose-tinted spectacles. The smallest children can be bad-tempered and appear possessive and cunning. Yet not even the most rabid anti-Socialist would suggest the opposite of the teacher’s thesis, that all are potential monsters. So where does behaviour come from?

In The Brothers Karamazov Dostoyevsky proposes that all children are innocent dears till they are seven and after that they diverge: some become aggressive in greater or lesser degree, while others remain truly human all their lives. One can see what he means. Though the innocent humanity of the gurgling infants on the beach was self-evident, among them there may well have been a potential Jack the Ripper or Irma Grese: who knows? But I do not recall that Dostoyevsky offered any insight as to why the innocents, as they grew up in society, separated into goodies and baddies. And in fact the position is a false one. Children do not grow up to be one thing or the other, kindly and self-sacrificing or aggressive.

Social behaviour has to be learned. From where? — from society in the shape of parents and others, themselves the products of society. As we have seen, the young tigers are moulded by the inveterate laws of the jungle. They must learn to kill in order to eat. There is no question of morale involved; Mummy tiger does not teach her little ones anything about right and wrong. One may think tigers are lucky in the simplicity of it all. For humans in the capitalist world, behaviour is not a firm single strand but a mesh. The essential humanity which made the kindergarten teachers’ work a pleasure is there. So is the training to behave as a social being that she and others impart. Yet these are set to function in a divisive system of society: the capitalist jungle.

In that environment it may seem a minor miracle that all humans don’t grow up like tigers. Instead, they behave in different ways in reaction to different circumstances. The IRA bomber may be kindness itself to his old granny. When Adolf Eichmann, the notorious Nazi, was found he was living not a murderous life but a very ordinary one. So far from aggression asserting itself come what may — as opponents of Socialism allege — it is the social and co-operative aspects of human nature that insist on coming to the surface. Think of the children on the beach. Regardless of what else is in their destinies they will all, despite the pressures to “look after Number One” in the jungly world we live in, help lame dogs over stiles, rush to the rescue of people marooned in floods or buried by earthquakes. Or lying wounded in No-man’s Land in one of capitalism’s wars. Some will be nurses and accept rotten pay and dirty work because they want to help their suffering fellow-humans.

Now how can there be anything intrinsically bestial in human nature in the light of these instances (which we can all multiply from our own knowledge?) And are not the effects of a “fortunate” environment obvious, as against those of conditions where the laws of the capitalist jungle operate at their most savage level? The laws against stealing are much the same in Millionaires’ Row as in a shanty town in Bangladesh. We can take for granted that fewer people will steal loaves of bread in the former place than the latter. The same human nature will produce two quite different sets of human behaviour. Put Inshan Ali from Bangladesh into Millionaire’s Row in his cradle and he will not feel the need to steal the loaf. And obviously the converse applies equally well.

Indeed one of the troubles in writing an article like this is that the word “obviously” keeps forcing its way in. The human nature argument against Socialism is so obviously untenable that it becomes difficult to take it seriously once one has got down to dealing with it. And it is obvious too that most of the anti-Socialists who use the argument can see the wood for the trees themselves quite well enough. It merely shows the weakness of the case against us that they keep trotting out this derisory stuff.

It is doubtful if Dostoyevsky tried to envisage the alternative to his idea of two human natures. As a citizen of the Tsarist system he could hardly be expected to imagine what a truly human society could be like. But he must have wondered: if there were different paths for the innocent infant to take at the critical age of seven, what was the origin of the paths themselves? In the Socialist world, human nature will blossom in a way that is perhaps barely conceivable today. The people of the future will surely not understand how it was ever possible for human nature to have thought other than humane. And to think that we humans could have that sort of world right now!

L. E and A. R. Weidberg

The Russian Embassy attacks the Socialist Standard (1976)

From the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader sent a copy of the July Socialist Standard containing the article "USSR, Land of Privilege” to the Russian Embassy. The letter he received from them is is reproduced below, in shortened form, with our comments.

Dear Mr. Brinton,

I am certainly glad to answer your letter in which you say that you were disturbed, and understandably so, by the enclosed article in the Socialist Standard.

As regards the subject matter in question, the following should be said. Material wealth is distributed in the socialist society according to the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work”. Different kinds of work, as regards both quantity and quality, bring different remuneration in the USSR. As a worker gains skill and experience his wages grow accordingly. An experienced teacher gets more than his younger colleague, fresh from a teacher’s training college. A captain of a ship gets more than the crew. Eminent scientists, writers and other creative workers are better paid than ordinary working people.

The principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” will be applied under communism, which is the highest stage of the development of socialism. But to achieve this an abundance of resources must first be secured, and this is what the Soviet people and their government are working at.

Objective laws governing the development of the society in the USSR prevent material inequality from becoming a social evil. First, there is no exploitation of man by man in our society which means that material benefits can only be obtained by working for them. Second, all citizens have access to public consumption funds: free education, free health service, pensions, etc. These funds grow from year to year alongside the development of the national economy. Third, the policy of reducing gaps in the wage levels of various groups of working people is being carried out consistently. The minimum wage has been steadily rising, pensions have also been increased.

As to shortcomings, their criticism is regarded in our society as an indispensable means of progress and is in fact, encouraged in every way. There is a difference, of course, between constructive criticism and slanderous distortion. Articles like the one in question only misinform the British public about the Soviet reality and thus stand in the way of better understanding and stronger confidence between the people of the Soviet Union and Great Britain.

(signed) Secretary

Our answer:

The thinness of the above reply is somewhat surprising. Our article maintained “that there is no essential difference in the class system in the Soviet Union from that elsewhere.” We went on to say: “The common features of western capitalism, exploitation of wage labour and production for profit are present — with the resulting social inequality.” These statements formed the basis of our article and it is these points which our opponent must answer. We note the glossy phrases such as “slanderous fabrications”, “gross distortion” and, to round off the vocabulary roundabout, “slanderous distortion”, but the attempt to refute our statements in fact does the opposite. We are told that in Russia there are laws to prevent material inequality from becoming a social evil; that material benefits can only be obtained by working for them; citizens have access to free education, health services and pensions; there is a policy to reduce gaps in wage levels and that the minimum wage is rising together with pensions. It hardly needs pointing out that this could be Mr. Callaghan or the President of the United States talking about their avowedly capitalist systems. The description certainly has nothing to do with Socialism where there will be no gaps in wage levels, minimum wages or pensions for the fundamental reason that the wage-labour and capital relation will not exist.

It is significant to note that the Russian Communist Party has moved away from its original position when Socialism was described as a society “in which there will not be the market, buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution.” [1] The secretary chooses to call Russian capitalism “socialism” — he is not the first, but mere repetition of a contradiction does not allow it to make any more sense.

To give, as our article gave (with sources), further instances of inequality in Russia would be superfluous as our opponent is prepared to dismiss them airily on the one hand as “slanderous fabrications”, while prepared to argue on the other that “Different kinds of work, as regards both quantity and quality, bring different remuneration in the USSR.” He makes our point for us. This piece of timid justification is advanced in all capitalist countries in defence of inequality. If our opponent did not mean to be evasive, no doubt he would be prepared to produce official statistics outlining the extent of inequality of income and wealth in Russia, as do all other industrialized capitalist countries. Then we may go into the matter in detail. We are, however, not unduly optimistic that such information will be forthcoming — our opponent does not appear to have much time for details.

On the question of "reducing gaps in wage levels” it is again worth noting the move in policy. Almost 60 years ago Lenin had declared that the introduction of “equal wages” was “a concrete task immediately practicable” although he had to retreat from this position in 1918 and acknowledge that the Russians had “to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed to a very high remuneration for the service of the bourgeois specialists.” To Lenin this was a temporary measure however. He considered it “a step backward.” [2] Now, we learn from our opponent that this state of affairs is considered “just.”

He refers to “public consumption funds”. These appear to finance education, the health service and “pensions etc.” It is the “etc” which attracted our attention. For instance, is spending on armaments considered “public consumption”? If it is not, clearly the government must finance it from some other fund. The point being that any funds which the Russian government may control can only be the monetary expression of the surplus-value (unpaid labour) of the Russian workers. No amount of twisting and turning can remove that fact. This then puts a true light on his statement that “there is no exploitation of man by man”, which we take to refer to private capitalists exploiting workers in a private concern. Although this statement in itself can be refuted, its purpose is calculated to evade the crucial point that the Russian system is predominantly one of exploitation by the State.

In short, a system of state capitalism. It will be remembered that it was Lenin who said “Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us”. That step has been taken, but the Russian workers are no nearer Socialism, or Communism — the terms mean the same — than are the workers in the Post Office and other state-capitalist institutions in Britain or elsewhere. The ruling class, in this case the State, retains control and ownership of the means of production and distribution. To claim that the State is the people completely flies in the face of all the facts. Our opponent does not make this claim directly but refers to “what the Soviet people and their government are aiming at.” The distinction between the two is appropriate, they are opposing classes, but the statement also belies a fundamental misconception over the nature of Socialism. The implication is made that, given the right internal conditions, the Russians could establish a Socialist (or Communist) society within their national borders. To anyone who understands the concept of a system of society based upon common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution, it is evident that such a society can only be established on a world-wide basis. The writer clearly has no- such concept in mind.

In conclusion we draw attention to- one point made in our original article. We said: “At other times when there are differences of policy with western powers, anti-Russian propaganda will expose and exaggerate these shortcomings”. In short, we are aware that the Press in Britain (as elsewhere) has an axe to grind more or less severely, according to circumstances. This, of course, is not limited exclusively to Russian affairs, it is true of their dealings in all aspects of international capitalism. Our purpose is not to grind axes, or to single out the Russian system of capitalism for special treatment: indeed the point we have made is that from the view of the working class, the form of society in Russia is little different from that of other countries. Our opponent has ably confirmed this conclusion. Our purpose is to work for the democratic removal of private property society. In doing so we must necessarily reject the arguments, or more accurately the assertions, of those who claim that Socialism exists in certain countries today. The interests of the Russian people, and the interests of the working class outside Russia, are the same. The abolition of capitalism, state or private, and the establishment of Socialism.

[1] Bogdanov: Short Course of Economic Science.

[2] Lenin: The Soviets at Work.

Blogger's Note:

"Mr. Brinton" wasn't Maurice Brinton. Of course not. There was a Colin Brinton from Harwich who was writing to the Socialist Standard at this time. Maybe it was him.

Cancer—A Curse of Capitalism (1976)

From the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

It would be foolish to attribute cancer solely to the development of capitalism when evidence is available that cancer has existed at least throughout written history. However there can be no question that only in the present century has it reached such epidemic proportions that it now accounts for 20% of all deaths in Britain (Sunday Times article: “Cancer: How to cut the risk,” 13th June 1976.)

Evidence suggests that most diseases are the result of the environment, and it must be remembered that the environment, especially today, is largely man-made. Consequently it should be within man’s power to alter that environment to one more favourable to good health.

This to a large extent has already been achieved. With better sanitation, nutrition and living conditions (together with antibiotics) the epidemic infectious diseases of the last century have largely been eradicated. It must, however, be remembered that the introduction of these measures was purely for economic expediency, since a healthy work force, being more productive, ensures “healthier” profits. Proof of this can be seen in the underdeveloped countries whose populations are suffering similar diseases only because it is not yet “economically viable”, in capitalist terms, to divert the necessary resources to public health measures. (For a good historical account of this see F. Engels’s Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844.)

Whether a similar change can be effected in the incidence of chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease which have replaced the infectious diseases as the prime killers, depends upon whether other (removable) factors in the environment are to blame.

But before we consider this aspect, we must first dispose of two common beliefs about the reason for the increasing incidence of chronic diseases. These are: (1) That chronic diseases largely affect elderly people and with the increase in life expectancy there has been a consequent increase in the incidence of these diseases. (2) Due to better diagnostic techniques these diseases are more often recorded now.

These ideas are attacked as fallacies by, amongst others, David L. Ledge and Walter T. Martin in their book Social Stress and Chronic Illness — Mortality patterns in Industrial Society, (London, 1970). They claim in answer to fallacy No. 1:

“. . . the variability of chronic disease mortality patterns in the United States suggests causation other than changes in age, or other biological factors.”

And fallacy No. 2:

"While improved training of medical personnel and modern advances in diagnostic technology undoubtedly have had some effect in recorded incidence and prevalence of these diseases, these factors are not regarded as accounting for a significant proportion of the changes or variation observed. For example, how can this explanation account for the fact that death rates for males increased more rapidly than those of females in the case of disease of the cardiovascular system? . . . Are we to understand that physicians are becoming more effective in diagnosing diseases only in the case of males?"

That chronic diseases are engendered by our social and physical environment is beyond doubt: as one microbiologist has said:

Each civilization has its own kind of pestilence and can control it only by reforming itself . . . just as the great epidemics of the nineteenth century were precipitated by environmental factors which favoured the activities of pathogenic microorganisms, so many of the diseases characteristic of our times have their origin in some faulty factor of the modern environment . . . (Rene Dubos, Mirage of Health: Utopias, progress, and biological change. New York, 1959.)

So the question we must now ask is: is there such a “faulty factor” in the modern environment and is capitalism capable of “reforming” it? Scientists who reject the idea that cancer is caused by viruses or is inherited appear to be divided basically into two camps as to what the “faulty factor” is.

The first theory can be best summed up by the report in the World Health Chronicle (No. 3 Vol. 30, March 1976) of a symposium held at Lyons, France, 3rd-5th Nov. 1975.

Addressing the symposium Dr. John Higginson, Director of The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), observed that there is good circumstantial evidence that 80-90% of all cancers are dependent, directly or indirectly, on environmental factors, and that at least 90% of these factors are chemical in nature. For the majority of cancers, racial or hereditary factors are relatively minor compared with environmental factors. Hence the importance of the control or elimination of the latter as a means of primary prevention.

This is based on evidence that many chemicals found in food, for instance, have been proved to be carcinogenic (cancer causing). But many of these chemicals are in the form of additives (“The average Briton eats some 3.2 lbs. of food additives a year — equivalent to about 12 aspirin-sized tablets a day”. Sunday Times, ibid.) and at least half of these additives are used purely to “improve” flavour, and consequently cut costs thereby “improving” profits. Compounding this are the toxic chemicals released into the air by nuclear explosions, factories who “can’t afford” anti-pollution devices, etc.

The other theory is on something more familiar to most people.

Stress increases the amount of corticosteroid hormones (produced by the cortex of the adrenal gland) circulating in the body and this suppresses the immune processes which protect the body. White blood cells circulating through the body kill abnormal cells, which are constantly being formed in the body, before they turn into uncontrolled cancers. This process may be interfered with by the corticosteroid hormones produced under stress.

(Sunday Times, ibid.)

Stress has been defined as the response of the body to any demand made upon it, whether pleasant or unpleasant, that requires it to readjust to an entirely new situation and consequently some degree of stress will always be present. But in today’s industrial capitalist world, stress has become a constant and excessive feature. The “rat-race” by its very nature, the myriad anxieties over money, work, the threat of wars, etc., are all part and parcel of capitalism, and all engender stress. So does the phenomenal increase in noise due to traffic and aircraft.

An illustration of the effect of socially-induced stress on a population is that of Germany during the twenties. Following an abrupt fall at the end of the first world war, tuberculosis mortality increased sharply during the years of inflation and fell again with the stabilization of the currency. (Dubos — Man Adapting.)

Whether capitalism is capable of curing cancer is uncertain. Much research is still being funded by charity and it is one of the more detestable contradictions of capitalism that more resources are spent on finding the most efficient ways of killing people than of preventing their deaths from disease. The two researchers mentioned earlier (Lodge and Martin) who have constructed a theoretical model for predicting the prevalence of socially induced stress, point out that:

"while the overall testing design suggested . . . is theoretically possible, the tremendous costs involved in compiling the necessary data make it unlikely that these tests will be carried out in the near future.”

Capitalism revolves round this nexus of cost and profitability.

Much medicine today reflects acceptance of the framework of capitalism and therefore is, analogous to placing an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff rather than fencing off the top. This was pointed out by the World Health Organisation:

In its preoccupation with the minutiae of diagnosis and the pathogenesis of disease, medicine is in danger of neglecting its most powerful resource — the manipulation of the external environment.

We cannot say that Socialist society will eradicate diseases completely, but we can say that in a society where the “manipulation” of the environment will be on the basis of catering solely for human need, not profit, conditions will be more conducive for the total wellbeing of man than the present, moribund, society.

Paul Moody

So They Say: Saving Grace (1976)

The So They Say Column from the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Saving Grace

Readers will have noticed the Prime Minister’s decree about high unemployment: “Quite simply and unequivocally it is caused by paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce.” We had been under the impression that it is caused when the owners of capital no longer find it profitable to employ workers in such great numbers. Some people seem to have taken his judgment personally. One who has volunteered for a degree of “self-sacrifice” is Mr. Horace Cutler, Conservative leader to the Greater London Council. He has made a “Save Britain” gesture (his term) — putting his money where his mouth is, and is giving up his £10 a day councillor’s allowance.

Considering the size of the governments debts, they could do with quite a few more of Mr. Cutler’s calibre, although his generous action will last for only one year “because he did not want to create an awkward precedent for other Tory leaders”. However, the government should not count the benefits too hastily.

How ridiculous for the GLC to pay me £2,700 of which I get only 12½ per cent [after tax]. All it means is that the ratepayers are pouring money into the State coffers. I just do not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should get their money.

London Evening Standard, 5th October ’76

Pouring it into Mr. Cutler’s pockets he regards as fair enough no doubt, but that’s another thing. But before readers feel impelled to initiate a "Save Mr. Cutler fund” they will take into consideration that 12½ per cent of £2,700 is in the region of £350. Mr. Cutler draws £20,000 a year as managing director of various property and finance companies. Thus we learn why he wants “Britain” saved.

Capital Fellows

Mr. Callaghan informed the Labour Party Conference that he “did not become a member of our party even less its leader, to propound shallow analyses and false remedies for the fundamental economic and social problems”, which as the phrase goes, takes away all his best punches. However it became clear that intentions are to fall short of the performance. His proposition to deal with the social problems of capitalist society seems to be bending the knee to capital’s requirements.

When I say that they [industries] must have sufficient funds, I mean that they must be able to earn a surplus — that is a euphemism for saying that they must be able to make a profit. Whether it was called surplus or profit, it was necessary for a healthy industrial system whether in a socialist economy, a mixed economy or a capitalist economy.

London Evening Standard, 28th September ’76

Confirmation that all three, in Mr. Callaghan’s mind, are the same thing. The fundamental sameness of Labour and Conservative was made even clearer when Lord Thorneycroft, the Conservative Party Chairman, remarked that Callaghan had made “a brave speech.” Mrs. Thatcher conceded that he “seems to be saying much the same thing” as she was. Which goes to show that, when it comes to running capitalism, great minds can tinker alike.

Scum Clearance

The anti-pollution supporters may take heart from the development of electroflotation. This, essentially, involves the passing of a low electric current through “dirty” water which splits the hydrogen and oxygen elements, forming gas bubbles. These help to bring foreign particles in the water to the surface. Once there, the particles of scum can be made to cling together chemically, then scooped off or collected in special fibrous materials designed to attract them. ICI are marketing the process in Britain, and approach potential users with more than the welfare of the environment in mind.

It has taken two baking summers for us to appreciate that we have been undervaluing water, and that there is a strong case for treating it with a respect more usually reserved for the metallic minerals.

Daily Telegraph, 4th October ’76

Therefore the strength of the case is an economic one, and some industries may find it worthwhile from two angles. Firstly polluted water (the industries themselves cause this) becomes re-useable, and secondly the extracted pollutants may have value.

A road tanker firm which carries cooking oil, and whose tankers have to be cleaned after every load has been using the flotation technique to clean up the washing water. As a bonus the firm has succeeded in reclaiming about 30 tons of vegetable oil a month with a commercial value of about £6,500.

Astounding to think that this sort of wealth was simply being pumped away into the rivers, the seas and other unimportant places, until someone realised that there was money in it.

Stand-by Flight

Figures popularly given at the time of the death of Mr. Howard Hughes concerning his assets, appear to have been slightly inaccurate. On the 29th of September the Daily Telegraph made the discovery of a plane owned by Hughes which cost £1m. in 1971. He had kept the plane secretly in a hangar in Cheshire, and it had been ready for take-off over the last five years. Over that period it had logged only five hours flying time — presumably on routine test flights. Hughes had never used it.

Pleading Ignorance

Politicians at home seem more than willing to give all manner of explanations for inflation; have treasury officials been instructed to play possum while abroad? Sir Douglas Wass, permanent secretary to the Treasury, was recently in Manila applying to the International Monetary Fund for a loan on behalf of the government, when he remarked:

Inflation does not have a unique cause and none of us can claim to understand the casual mechanism.

London Evening Standard, 5th October ’76

In spite of his rank it seems that the government must have been keeping something from him. It is they, after all, who have been printing what Mr. Healey and Mr. Callaghan now refer to as “confetti money”.

Alan D'Arcy

Letter: Control and countries (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Control and countries

Many people on the Left define Socialism simply as workers’ control of industry through workers’ councils or soviets. As commodity-money relations would remain this cannot be Socialism, could it be workers’ control of capitalism? or would such circumstances inevitably give rise to a governing élite? If not would the workers to be exploited, if so by whom?

Marx wrote that “no nation that oppresses another can itself be free.” Whilst it is correct not to support capitalist “National Liberation” movements, what is the position of the remaining colonies of a European nation if that nation becomes Socialist? For instance, in Britain’s case what would happen to Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, etc?

In my previous letter regarding the actions a single Socialist country would need to take when surrounded by hostile capitalist countries you accused me of seeing only a “one way dependence” when I said such a country would have to be self-sufficient. In the first instance there will be only one Socialist country, it would inevitably be joined by others, but not immediately. In this period it will be isolated and even attacked by capitalist states who will see it as a threat to their survival, remember the Allies attacked Russia in 1918. In this situation it would certainly require an armed Force even if structured differently than at present. I do not believe you have devoted enough thought to this problem.

As most workers in the world live under some form of dictatorship should they aim first for a parliamentary democracy which would allow them to organize industrially and politically, or is it possible to have a direct transition from dictatorship to Socialism?

Finally, do you think Socialist society should have an industrial or ecological base?

Ian Greenslade

Southminster

Reply:

You rightly point out that any change in the running of industry which left commodity production intact could not be Socialism. Those who advocate workers’ control of industry, through workers’ councils, also envisage the mass of workers following a revolutionary leadership to the promised land. It does not need much imagination to work out who would then do the exploiting.

We suggest that you examine the full implications of Socialism. It would be quite impossible to implement production solely for use and free access to goods and services in one country. Capitalism is worldwide and its inherent contradictions and social problems are experienced by workers in all countries. Ideas do not develop in isolation. Both the need to end capitalism and the possibility for that end arise out of the nature of the system itself. It is extremely unlikely that the vast majority of workers in only one country will realize their class position in society. It is quite inconceivable that Socialist understanding could mature among the working class in one country unbeknown to fellow members of their class throughout the rest of the world. (The Russian revolution was not Socialist). Socialism is by definition worldwide. The establishment of a social system based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means for production will signify the end of national frontiers. There will be no possible use for armed forces. For reasons already stated the existence of dictatorships will not prevent the spread of Socialist knowledge. The aim for democracy should never be separated from the objective of Socialism.

In Socialist society production will be geared to human need. Industry will be necessary and ecological balance possible.

Editors.

Letter: Unfair to Anarchism (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unfair to Anarchism

I should like to take issue with your comments on anarchism in the June issue. You claim that anarchists see “not the capitalist system but ‘authority’ as their enemy” and that it is difficult to generalize about anarchists due to their varying opinions. I find the latter remark inconsistent with your subsequent claim that many anarchists call for social reforms, and that therefore anarchism in general should be dismissed (“we have nothing in common with that”). The behaviour of individual “anarchists” has little to do with the classical principles of anarchy which derive from the theories of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and others.

A principle held in common by all anarchists is that the revolution must be social (see your own Declaration of Principles), though it must clearly involve a physical aspect (I believe starting with the appropriation of the means of production by the members of the working class). Equally clearly, the capitalist system is an inevitable manifestation of authority. Government of an individual’s life must rest very largely in the individual’s hands. He may be recommended to do something, but once he is told what to do, whether by a government in Whitehall or by a local union, he becomes subservient to "society”. This is where a new class structure inevitably develops, of the governors and the governed. Such a development, like the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, and all the other social democratic revolutions, is merely social reform.

To achieve social revolution, it is necessary to subvert the system, not manipulate its own means to the “revolutionary” end, this is a dead end. Subversion is possible where capitalism is weak and unrest comes to the surface. Most people are ready to consider ideas propounded for decades by syndicalists and libertarian communists, though most would probably shrink in horror at the name of “Anarchy”. World revolution must start where the State is most firmly entrenched in capitalist industrialism, trying to destroy the system or to take it over is futile in less “developed” areas. As alienation grows in the industrialized, militarized countries, so does the potential for anarchic revolution. Worrying about the social reformism of fringe anarchist/liberals, such as even appear to be involved in Freedom to some extent, would seem to be rather off the point.

Nicolas James

Reading

Reply:

Your letter illustrates our statement about the varying opinions of anarchists. It claims, in effect, that the ideas of “syndicalists and libertarian communists” alone are true anarchism. But what would the editors and contributors of Freedom say to the suggestion that they are only “fringe anarchist/liberals”? And if the behaviour of individual “anarchists” (your inverted commas conveying an upturned nose) has "little to do with the classical principles of anarchy”, what has it to do with? This reads like a dismissal of the people whom you later say are alienated and ready for anarchist revolution.

Your statements about capitalism do not mention its central feature—exploitation. Nor do you explain where authority and the “governors and governed” position come from; to say a class structure develops from people being told what to do turns things upside down. What this is about is political power. It exists to gain or sustain class ownership. The Russian and French Revolutions (and the English, American, Chinese and others) were the securing of political power by representatives of in-coming capitalism to give legal sanction to its becoming the social system. You say these revolutions were “merely social reform”, presumably because they did not liberate the people at large. They were not intended to: the liberty preached in them was for the capitalist class.

The authority and subservience against which anarchists rebel derive from class ownership. The state is its instrument. Though anarchists deny a priori any possibility of using the state to change society, in fact it is the only possible means. The section which has the obvious interest in social revolution is the working class, the great majority; and to change the ownership basis they must go to the point where ownership is maintained.

On reformism, the magazine Anarchy No. 3, May 1961, had an editorial article “Moving With the Times . . . But not in Step”, making anarchist proposals for the 1960s. Under various headings it advocated participation in movements for criminal reform, education reform, devolution, and community work in undeveloped countries. There is good reason to “shrink with horror at the name of ‘Anarchy’ But these recommendations were made while citing Godwin, Thoreau, Kropotkin and other “classical” theorists, and must be taken as representing anarchism.

Editors.