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.

Letter: Science and Ideas (1976)

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

Science and Ideas

Your recent reply to my letter (“A double bind or two”) involved a total misinterpretation of the argument I presented.

I did not say that the SPGB was wrong because it was small. What I did say, quite simply, was that the SPGB was small — and, as such, virtually unrecognized by the working class.

The misinterpretation continues. I did not say that because working-class interests are known only to the SPGB this “somehow invalidates working-class interests and Socialism”. What I now would say however is that Socialism as an “ideal” should be differentiated from Socialism as a “scientific truth”. The one is undeniable, the other is a lie.

It is possible to prove by experiment that Newton’s First Law of Gravity is a scientific truth. Lift up the apple and it will invariably fall to the ground. Can you prove in the same way the certain formation of a socialist society or the certain collapse of capitalism? The apple falls to the ground by virtue of the force of gravity. A scientific truth. You assert that the workers will fall into socialism by virtue of the force of your ideas. Idealism, pure and simple.

Come back Hegel — at least the SPGB forgive you.

Tim Caulfield

Bury

Reply:

Much of your letter in the June Socialist Standard was given to sarcastic parody of the SPGB’s position — “the working classes [sic] must pay heed to their mentors” — and drawing attention, in similar terms, to “the working classes’ refusal to walk the road Marx laid out for them”. Your conclusion from this was that the SPGB is “doctrinaire” and its case “idealistic utopianism”. We do not think you were misrepresented at all.

You now shift your ground to a different rendering of the Socialist case. Previously you asserted it to be that the working class would become revolutionary through the collapse of capitalism. This was dealt with in our reply: it is a view the SPGB has never held and actively opposes. Your new version is that the workers “will fall into socialism by virtue of the force of [our] ideas”. Again, this is not our position. We contend that ideas are products of the social environment, which is the superstructure on the property basis of society. Many workers “discover” the SPGB because it corresponds to their own conclusions. Our function is to give precision to class-consciousness and to organize for the attainment of Socialism.

Your remarks about the law of gravity do not contribute to the argument; they might be used to invalidate any branch of science which cannot show an equivalent of an apple falling to the ground. We spoke of scientific theory—general conclusions from observation and practice—and opposing interests. This was the case with the theory of evolution, which is still rejected by many religionists. The term “scientific socialism” was used by Marx and Engels to mark a Socialism based on economic and historical analysis, i.e. from observable facts about society past and present. In this analysis, the foundation of society is production; and the dynamic of change from one social form to another is the class structure and the conflicts of economic interests between classes. From it, we assert that the next stage in society can only be Socialism brought about by the conscious action of the working class.

Editors.

Letter: Master plan (1976)

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

Master plan

On achieving a majority Socialists would be faced with the task of setting up a plan for democratic control by society. This would need to be something in addition to and above the specialist’s control of their respective industries, and this democratic control by society could not commence independently by local minority groups without a complete co-ordinated organization for the whole society, and likewise it could not be commenced by a central minority before organizations for local representation were in existence. Therefore a complete democratic organization for the whole society would have to be in existence before a Socialist society could be possible.

This argument does not apply to industrial control, nor to political control, because organizations for these controls are built upon the basis of existing organizations. Democratic control by society will abolish political party control and thereby political party locations.

It is impossible to plan the locations needed for control by society before that society is actually in existence, and conversely Socialist society could not be in existence before the actual organizations for its democratic control by society were in existence.

Therefore if there were a Socialist majority now Socialism could not be established now, and this fact will not disappear with the passage of time.

Graham A. Smith 

Bristol

Reply:

Your opening sentences reveal a misunderstanding about Socialism and how it will be achieved. There will be common ownership of the means for production which will be democratically controlled by, and in the interest of the whole community. There will not be “specialist control of their respective industries” but social control of production.

The working class must organize politically in order to abolish capitalism. The Socialist Party of Great Britain is the nucleus of this democratic organization. It is of course impossible for the SPGB to draw up a plan for the Socialist future. This we have never done. However when the vast majority of the working class understand and want Socialism we will have the necessary organization to implement it. The use of the vote by this vast majority will not be a passive act but a demonstration that they are ready, and willing, to carry through the transformation of society. Bearing in mind that the concern for society will be the straightforward issue of “administering things”, that is gearing production to serve human need unfettered by money relations, there is no reason why we cannot initially make use of the same regional basis for organization as before the revolution. Socialist society will not be static and it will be possible to amend the manner of its organization in accordance with the social need.

Editors.

Letter: Unproductive workers (1976)

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

Unproductive workers

I understand according to the  SPGB that there are two classes: “those who produce but do not possess” and “those who possess but do not produce” (from Principle 2). I was surprised, therefore, to read in an article called “The Productive and the Unproductive Worker” that there exists a group of people who fit into neither of these categories. According to the author nobody who works for the state is a productive worker, and there are certainly people who work e.g. in the Civil Service who are not members of the possessing class.

Surely the doctor (another of the author’s examples of an unproductive worker) can be productive insofar as he contributes to the production of surplus value — he maintains the health of those engaged in producing steel, cars etc.?

Alison R. Hessiter

London N.19

Reply:

The point of the article was to clarifv terms which are often misunderstood. An unproductive worker is one who is paid not out of the value created in his working day but out of capitalist revenue. What must be appreciated is that the definition is from the point of view of capitalism — like that of “useful” labour, which was also discussed in the article.

Only a minority of workers are engaged directly in production. Transport, distribution, a good deal of clerical work etc. are obvious adjuncts of production; but there remain large numbers who are employed in “services” and administration. Clearly these non-producers are also non-possessors, and they are necessary to the social process of commodity production. The motor-car worker requires the doctor for his health and teachers for his children, and the provision and payment of them involves clerks and inspectors; more apparatus is necessary to collect taxes from his employers; legal enforcement means policemen, courts and ultimately armed force — and so on.

Your statement about the doctor is therefore quite correct, and the second clause in our Principles is explained in the article: “all workers, whether their work is productive or unproductive, play a part in this process. To that extent all workers are exploited, because they are under the domination of capital and have to sell their labour-power to whoever will buy it.”

Editors.

Letter: The Christian Ethic (1976)

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

The Christian Ethic

Your reply to a correspondent and the article "Communism, Religion and the USSR” both make hostile reference to religion, and I would like you to amplify the SPGB’s attitude to religion.

In the two articles you claim: that religion and socialism are incompatible; that religion is “crude and primitive mumbo-jumbo”; and that “clinging to religious ideas anchors the workers to capitalism”. It might be said that Christ was a more thoroughgoing revolutionary than any who came after. For Christ did not say that the transformation of society from one based on self-interest to one founded on solidarity depended on a change in the economic system. His entire message implies that only a prior change in attitudes and values would safeguard the economic change and ensure its permanency.

Marx’s analysis of capitalism does not in itself prove capitalism to be repugnant: for why is it wrong for humanity to live by man exploiting man? To answer that it is wrong is a value judgement incapable of proof. Scientific socialism has no more a scientific basis than the New Testament. Socialists condemn capitalism for the dehumanizing consequences of commodity production, wealth, and wage- labour. Why don’t you admit that Socialism is applying a standard of judgement to the world which cannot be justified by reference to any society which has yet been in the world?

Must socialists reject the possibility of Christian tenets having any relevance to the struggle because they have been distorted and used by the ruling class? It is as rational to reject Marx because his philosophy was used to cloak the oppressions of Stalin and his successors. Would you deny that if the Christian ethic were taken seriously it would make the transition to socialism more practicable? Would you agree that socialism will only be worth having if non-economic goods are valued?

P. McDonald

Glasgow

Reply:

Your statements that Socialists consider exploitation “wrong” and that this is “a value judgement” show a misunderstanding of the Socialist position. Values and ethics do not come into it. The Socialist case is the expression of the material interests of the working class.

In all property societies there is a division into classes, and each class is constituted as such by its relationship to the means of production and distribution. The inevitable conflict of interests between them, the class struggle, is the agent of social change.

When a class which is identified with the development of the productive forces in society finds itself shackled because another class owns the means of living, it has to overthrow that social system and create its own. This is how capitalism was established. Though “right”, “wrong”, “reason”, “freedom” etc. were talked about, they were rationalizations from the fundamental class issue.

Since all ideas arise in this way from what is happening in the real world, it is impossible to maintain that Christ was a Socialist. The idea of Socialism and the drive towards it are produced by capitalism. Christ and other leaders of small groups in the ancient world represented the discontent of oppressed sections; but their “message” survived because it was compatible with the interests of existing or aspiring rulers.

The “Christian ethic” of harmony and brotherliness is not the special preserve of Christianity. It is social behaviour, the tendency to co-operation and order that characterizes human beings but it is obstructed by capitalism’s class division and production for profit. The Socialist Party opposes religion because its institutional forms are invariably on the side of the ruling class, but also because of idealist beliefs which are an obstacle to understanding the world. Your references to “self-interest” and “valuing non-economic goods” illustrate this point. The working class has been addressed on these lines continually by preachers. Socialists advocate not less but more self-interest by workers as a class. They should reject the opiate doctrine that “non-economic goods” are the thing to strive for, and ask instead why the material wealth they produce is not theirs.

Editors.

Blogger's Note:

I'm not 100% sure what letter P. McDonald is referring to in the opening paragraph of his letter, but it may have been this letter from George Pearson that appeared in the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Reformism Fails Again (1976)

From the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists have always maintained that parties, such as the Labour Party, which seek power within capitalism to try to improve the lot of the workers end up, not by reforming capitalism, but by being changed by it into simply a party of capitalist administration. A statement made by Callaghan to the Labour Party Conference at the end of September well illustrates this.

The Labour Party always used to support the idea that the way to end a slump and unemployment was to increase government expenditure so as to offset the decline in private capitalist investment, along the lines advocated by Keynes. But now listen to what Callaghan says:

We used to think that you could just spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you, in all candour, that that option no longer exists and that in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting bigger doses of inflation into the economy, followed by higher levels of unemployment.

(The Times, 29 September)

What a confession of failure! What a condemnation of the policy which Labour has always advocated and claimed as its own!

The experience of being in power during a slump has forced Callaghan to recognize that, in practice, a Labour government has to pursue the same sort of policy as any openly capitalist government, to try to restore business confidence and profit prospects by reducing workers’ living standards and cutting back on social reforms. In short, to accept the logic of capitalism. And it is doubtful whether even these measures will bring the slump to an end any quicker than would happen anyway due to the normal workings of capitalism which, because of its unplanned and competitive nature, goes through alternating phases of boom and slump.

Once again the miserable failure of yet another Labour government has confirmed the Socialist case that capitalism can never be reformed so as to benefit workers and that therefore workers should direct their efforts rather to abolishing capitalism and replacing it by Socialism where the means of production would be owned in common and democratically controlled to satisfy people’s needs.

L. B.

SPGB Meetings (1976)

Party News from the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cooking the Books: No reformism in one country (2026)

The Cooking the Books column from the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

In September Jamie Driscoll, former Labour Mayor of North Tyne and now a member of the Green Party, published a report called Hostage Nation: Britain’s Escape Plan. He contends that Britain is a hostage to foreign bondholders and speculators and proposes a plan to remedy this so that the government can run the economy in the interests of everyone.

Governments as such do not produce any wealth. To function they have to obtain this from the section of society that does. Capitalist governments do this by taxation and borrowing. As they control the issue of money they can also create money and spend it. However, if this is more than the economy requires, this depreciates the currency and so raises prices. It is really a hidden form of taxation, an indirect way of extracting money from those who have some since the depreciation of the currency reduces their wealth.

Driscoll, relying on the arguments of ‘Modern Monetary Theory’ (also known as ‘Magic Money Theory’), has claimed that ‘as a sovereign nation with a central bank, Britain can effectively borrow from itself’. In a section headed ‘Let’s dismantle the myth that the state cannot afford to build things because it has “run out of money”’, he argues:

‘When a currency-issuing state invests in its own economy, that money moves in a circle. Every pound the state injects into productive infrastructure sets off a powerful chain reaction known as an economic multiplier. When the state funds a project, that money immediately pays the wages of engineers, project managers, and construction workers. Those workers don’t stuff that cash under their mattresses. They spend it on the high street, paying for groceries, haircuts, and clothes, boosting local businesses. Those businesses, in turn, expand and hire more staff. The Treasury takes a cut at every stage. It collects income tax and national insurance from the workers, VAT on their purchases, and corporation tax from the businesses.’

‘This investment,’ he says, ‘creates downstream savings across the state apparatus’, giving the example of insulated homes meaning less state spending by the health service to deal with respiratory illnesses caused by damp housing. So, basically, the government gets its money back through taxation and reduced spending.

However, there is a time lag between what the government spends and when it saves money on other spending. In the meantime current spending has to continue. So, when a state does what Driscoll sets out, total government spending increases. The classical way to deal with this is to borrow the extra money and repay when the benefits arrive. Driscoll argues that the government needn’t borrow this from overseas lenders. ‘The money,’ he asserts, ‘is already here. We do not need to look abroad for capital.’ He is talking about people’s savings and suggests that the money can be raised from directing this into non-tradable government bonds and from taxing the rich. Some could be raised in that way but hardly enough to avoid borrowing from foreign bond and currency speculators.

Driscoll has very little to say about the implications of his plan on Britain’s position as a capitalist country that runs a trade deficit (more spent on buying imports than received from selling exports) that has to be balanced by payments from abroad, whether investments or loans. Reduced government borrowing from abroad would have to be balanced by a combination of increased foreign investment, reduced imports and more exports … or, if this doesn’t work, cutting government spending, ie, austerity.

Whatever the government implementing his plan tries to do about this it wouldn’t be able to escape from the pressures of the world market as the capitalist economy is an integrated world system. No state can. None is that ‘sovereign’. Reformism in one country is just as impossible as socialism in one country.

Tiny Tips (2026)

The Tiny Tips column from the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Here is a number that should stop us cold: 64 percent. That is the share of Black families in America who, right now, lack the income and resources needed to meet the true cost of economic security. Not poverty or survival, but genuine stability. On the heels of the 63rd anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, that number tells us how far we have to go… 49 percent of all Americans — nearly half the country — lacks the resources they need to be economically secure. Economic insecurity cuts across racial lines, affecting families of every background and in every part of the country. 

[The Hill]

‘Commodities must be sold, profits must be made, capital must accumulate. Short-term corporate gains are more important than long-term social losses. Capitalism, in short, is incompatible with the maintenance of the conditions that have made human civilisation possible for more than ten thousand years’. 

[Yorkshire Bylines]

The future of Babylon 5 shows time and time again that life may be different in the far future, but humanity’s problems remain much the same. There’s a long history of labor strikes and riots throughout the world, making the dock workers in ‘By Any Means Necessary’ another footnote in the ongoing battle between those who control the means of production and those who do the actual production.

[Giant Freakin Robot]

The leader of the Norwegian Union of Trade Unions, Helene Harsvik Skeibrok, expresses her condolences to the royal family and the entire Norwegian people. ‘It is very sad to hear that King Harald has passed away. Our thoughts go out to Queen Sonja, the rest of the royal family and everyone who mourns the loss of a king who has meant a lot to very many, says Skeibrok’.

[Fagforbundet]

‘Marxist Meghan’s’ list of demands for her kids’ school exposed.

[YouTube]

In 2026, the ‘rainbow nation’ will face the longest wave of organized xenophobic violence since the end of apartheid in 1994.

[rosalux]

Mason quotes the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, with an obituary of his state on the last day of its existence in 1991: Sixteen per cent of the national income went on armaments; another four on the KGB … the country was ruined, the people were kept half starved … And this was called the class approach. If that is socialism it can go to hell.

[The Spectator]

‘I’ve been sounding the alarm about how Tyson treats their workers for years’, said Nana Ouro-Agoro, founder of Akwaaba, a nonprofit organization that provides support to the Quad Cities’ immigrant population. Originally from Togo, Ouro-Agoro came to the Quad Cities after winning the immigration lottery in 2008. She learned that many of her neighbors worked at Tyson, where they were frequently injured on the job and afraid to speak out. Workers told her they were being treated ‘worse than the cattle’.

[Labornotes]

(These links are provided for information, target sites don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

Hoping against hope (2026)

From the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Hope is a bad thing,’ said Henry Miller, ’It means that you entertain illusions.’

That hope is illusory is an eternal concept. In the ancient Greek myth of Pandora, her box was filled with all the evils that beset humanity and right at the very bottom was, hope.

Fast forward a few thousand years to a Labour Party conference and there is the leader, and Prime Minister, having rummaged around in Pandora’s Box, standing before the assembled delegates brandishing Hope for their inspiration. Andy Burnham declared that by dint of his honesty, hope will emerge to unite the British people behind him and his schemes to rejuvenate the nation. ‘My plan for Britain is our chance to believe again.’ ‘Britain can hope again’ was his headline for the brief summary of his proposals published to rouse support. ‘My plan for Britain starts today. I’m asking you to stand with me.’ The plan does indeed have attractive features, especially for the multitudes struggling to cope with ever increasing bills and decreasing real incomes.

The very next day after Burnham’s address to his party, and hence the nation, a 6am news broadcast carried a headline item about energy price rises coming January 2027 in the teens of percent, with the prospect of more later next year. This announcement of not such a happy new year in prospect followed hard on the heels of Burnham’s first economic pronouncement in his summary. ‘We’re going to start with the essentials in life. Housing, water and energy will be brought back under more public control so we can make them affordable again.’

Quite apposite it might appear. Yet this statement not so much begs as pleads a number of questions. How will the public, the many millions, actually exert their control? There is no direct way they can decisively influence what will inevitably be a state body set up as a substitute for the boards of directors. Even if this state body could be more beneficent, is it going to be in place by January of next year, just a couple of months away? Also, is it going to have access to sources of energy free of the international travails presently forcing up prices?

No energy will be available unless it is profitable. The whole worldwide economic system is presently capitalist, meaning production is driven by profit and will remain so even if the state becomes the de facto capitalist.

Then there’s the question of compensation. It may be that those on, or to, the left of the Labour Party will resurrect their venerable slogan, ‘nationalisation without compensation’. Sounds good, even plausible, until it gets into the courtroom. Not only does the state serve the interests of capitalism, so does the legal system. It would undoubtedly be found illegal to simply take companies away from present owners. Even if some way of doing this was found there would, most likely, be years of litigious wrangling resulting in huge legal costs consumers would ultimately pay.

The same principle applies to Burnham’s other two essentials, housing and water.

No matter the deficiencies identified in the housing market, it is an error to suppose those deficiencies will drive house building. Houses are not built primarily to provide people with somewhere to live; that is their purpose, their use value. However, the spur to building is the exchange value of the house, essentially the price it can be sold for and thus realise a profit.

Profit is the driver of house building not the need for homes, which is why it’s known as a housing market. This is why there has been a tendency for house construction firms to build 4 and 5 bedroom detached ‘executive’ houses.

A four-bedroom house does not cost twice as much to build as a two-bed, making the smaller house relatively more expensive to build and, therefore, buy. Government can intervene and require builders to erect smaller houses, but they will not be sold at cost. They will still have to yield a significant profit. If land is identified as suitable for building, construction companies will buy it then not build on it unless and until any subsequent housing is deemed profitable. It doesn’t matter if there is a huge need for housing in the area.

Government, national or local, could initiate the building of council/social housing for rent. While this would obviate the need for buying, with its requirements for large deposits and mortgages, rents would have to repay the initial financing, indirectly paying interest on money borrowed for the purpose as well as the original capital. And rent is not a fixed term like a mortgage, but must be paid over the lifetime of the tenant or tenants. Rents may or may not be lower than mortgage repayments. It could be that those identified as having special or exceptional needs will be exempted from, or pay reduced, rents. This would not remove the value of those rents from the financial equation, but might have to be spread over actual rent payers, council tax, or both. Such provision would be very limited, otherwise the cost would become unsustainable.

There is absolutely no hope of freely meeting everyone’s housing need while capitalism’s financial market and the construction industry continue to be driven, as they must be, by the overriding imperative to realise profit.

The same applies to Burnham’s third essential, water. Rain may fall for free, but by the time it flows from a tap it has been collected, stored and treated in various ways. Then, when it has been used it has to be drained away and treated again. Each one of these processes adds a cost, as does the expense of maintaining and replacing supply and drainage systems. Why would companies bother to do all this in the first place unless there was a prospect of profit?

Railways provide an exemplar of what happens when sufficient profits are not accrued. The companies surrender their franchises for the government to take back responsibility for loss-making. Then the state must find ways of providing the services. If that means those services continue loss-making then they will have to be subsidised. As governments correctly claim, they don’t automatically have money, they have to raise it through taxation or borrow it on financial markets. Either way it’s a drain on the national economy.

Then, along with all other government expenditure, if that drain becomes too large financial markets raise their borrowing rates which adversely affects all sectors of the economy, with rising inflation and unemployment; the threat of recession, a way capitalism can discipline government.

Nationalisation or public/private partnerships are often cited as being socialistic (that is, a little bit socialist). In this way they are sold to the electorate as hope-filled alternatives to capitalism. The reality is they are not, and cannot, be anything of the sort, being as subject to capitalism’s strictures as any wholly private enterprise.

The Prime Minister can preach the gospel of hope and perhaps even convince himself. After all he could not stand up at the Labour Party conference and declare they would build a totally new, worldwide society no longer driven by the profit motive, but centred on freely satisfying everyone’s needs.

He correctly identified three essentials (though failed to mention all the others people require), but however well-intentioned he was being it is not in his power to do more than tinker a little in the hope of some limited short-term improvement. As well as putting crosses on ballot papers come an election voters can cross their fingers and hope. Both will be equally (in)effective in ameliorating the deprivations caused by capitalism.

Better to realise that it is time to move beyond capitalism and actively pursue the socialist alternative, rather than just hope for the best.

D.A.

Non-voluntary exchange (2026)

From the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

One argument made by defenders of capitalism is that it involves voluntary exchange between people. If you buy an item of clothing, for instance, both you and the shop are free participants in the purchase. You can choose to buy a different item, to buy elsewhere or not to buy anything at all.

Employment is seen in the same way. You can choose not to work for a particular employer and they can choose not to employ you, or to sack you. You can look for a job somewhere else, perhaps with better pay or better working conditions.

All these, it is claimed, are voluntary decisions by people who are free to make up their own minds and do as they wish. It is not the kind of coercion which existed under slavery or serfdom.

Except that, certainly where employment is concerned, it is not like that at all. You will have to work for someone, since if you do not, you will starve or have to get by, for a limited period only, on paltry unemployment benefits.

How much choice you have in finding another job depends on various factors, including your own abilities, the area where you live and the general state of the economy and the job market. Finding another job will be easier for some than for others, and it may mean lower pay and/or longer hours.

So the coercion involved in employment under capitalism is not identical to chattel slavery but it still means workers being in a subordinate position and having to do as their employer says. To say nothing of the exploitation that is part and parcel of wage labour.

Capitalism is emphatically not a matter of voluntary exchange, as workers have little choice but to work for a capitalist company in order to survive.

Paul Bennett

France: what was it all about? (2026)

From the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

It’s a little too early to make any definitive appreciations of the recent demonstrations and riots which spread across metropolitan France in October. Doubtless, readers of the Socialist Standard will have seen the images of massive gangs of young people looting and setting fire to shops and attacking police dressed in riot gear. As is only to be expected, it’s the most violent scenes which have found their way onto the mainstream news; the fire which destroyed the Town Hall of Limoges being a case in point. On the other hand, the media also showed images of the enormous and well-ordered demonstrations by students who were more often than not accompanied by teachers and parents. There were demonstrations in small towns right across France which recalled in many ways the monster manifestations in defence of retirement pensions of a few years ago.

Mysterious wreckers

Demonstrations are, of course, part and parcel of everyday life in France, there being something of a deeply rooted culture of defiance common to the left and right. What was notable in this case was the massive presence of hooded and masked casseurs – vandals – uniformly dressed in black who were clearly operating in organised and one suspects disciplined mobs. These agents provocateurs incited the more disorganised groups of casual looters who are now found in all mass disorders breaking out across the globe.

Strangely enough these violent groups, sometimes known as the black bloc, are rarely picked up by the police and arrested. Nobody knows who they are. They seem to be used to keep ordinary citizens at a cautious distance from their rights to free expression. Amazingly those conventional politicians who managed to find their way across the Parisian battlefield into the safe havens of the TV studios seem to be convinced that their membership consists of highly organised members of the ‘ultra-gauche’. (Earlier references to the black bloc seem to have been edited out of the official narrative). The designated culprit it would seem is what they call the ‘antifa’ (anti-fascist); heretofore a fantastical organisation which has miraculously put down solid roots in the USA. There they have – according to the official narrative – violently interrupted the work of Trump’s anti-immigrant agency and rendered the (strictly anti-constitutional) operations of the ICE goons problematic. One may ask, aren’t we supposed to be anti-fascist in a democracy?

Political ineptitude

For the point, of course, is that we are talking about a movement initiated and organised by kids; high-school students to be precise. Consequently, the maintenance of public order and the protection of protestors should run together. However, parents would do well to realize that the government at times seems to be applying the selfsame tactics cynically deployed against the gilets jaunes of a few years ago. This was a movement which was quite violently repressed in every sense of the term.

In the case of the students, however, a certain circumspection was in evidence in the days preceding the events of Saturday 17 October, even though some youngsters were roughed up, injured and arrested. It’s quite possible that something changed in the clumsy official response on that day. TV coverage insisted heavily upon the destruction of shops and public buildings, to the exclusion of the peaceful marches undertaken by school students and sympathisers. Up to a point, the authorities seem to have attempted to calm down the situation, although if anything Macron’s typically leaden televised address to the nation on the Sunday made clear his crass insensitivity to the demands of the students – mentioned in passing – and to his incredible political ineptitude.

For the point is that once the tear-gas has wafted away, it will become evident that the students had drawn up an extremely intelligent and reasonable list of demands, demands which would give some substance to the egalitarianism established by the republican constitution and proclaimed above the façade of every single lycée in France.

Neglected issues

To give effect to these aspirations, the students were asking for the urgent building of schools and for the renovation of ill-adapted and run-down premises. The recent and stifling heatwaves which hit France over the summer saw school pupils attempting to tackle the baccalaureate exams in buildings lacking window blinds and adequate ventilation, as teachers and administrators ran around with water bottles to quench the thirst of distressed youngsters. In the winter many classrooms are freezing, ceilings are leaky and sanitary facilities are filthy. Many schools lack facilities to deal with students experiencing psychological problems often resulting from learning disabilities.

Other demands include one for a massive recruitment drive to deal with the shortage of trained teachers. The typically French drama of classes without teachers at the beginning of the school term is high on the list of preoccupations.  But teacher recruitment is difficult given stagnant wages and disaffection. Note that the hapless Minister of Education hurriedly pulled hundreds of trained teachers out of a standby status when the demonstrations started to tilt public opinion to the side of the youngsters.

Other demands made by the students were nothing if not legitimate. Better student grants, subsidies to help with student accommodation, more places to be made available in the (increasingly run-down) universities, more student representation in schools and at long last, measures to reform the ludicrous and exhaustingly overloaded school curriculum. More time to eat in the midday break and so on and so on. In short, these are measures which aim at the re-establishment of an equilibrium centred on student well-being; welfare measures and so on. In short, the kind of bread-and-butter issues neglected during the long and uncaring duration of Macron’s atrocious term in office.

Malcolm Mansfield,

Paris

Blogger's Note:

An earlier version of this article originally appeared on the Socialism or Your Money Back blog on the 22nd October.