“Every great city has one or more slums where the working-class is crowded together. The poverty often dwells in hidden alleys close to the palaces of the rich; but in general a separate territory has been assigned to it, where removed from the sight of the happier classes, it may struggle along as it can. These slums are pretty equally arranged in all the great towns of England, the worst houses in the worst quarter of the towns".
Engels wrote that passage in 1845 (The Condition of the Working-class in England. Progress Publishers, 1973, p. 86). One is struck by the thought that the passage could be written about the state of housing today. That is not to say that the housing conditions of the working class are exactly the same now as they were in the 19th century. Many of the appalling living conditions described by Engels in his book no longer exist; in particular the sanitation of most homes and the health regulations that now cover all dwellings and built-up areas have substantially removed some of the more obvious eye-sores that Engels so vividly described. On the other hand, as is well known, some of the actual houses that Engels refers to (in the Manchester and Salford areas for example) as being unfit for habitation in the early 1840s are still standing and still inhabited. So much for the progress of capitalism.
Capitalism has not even made a start on solving the problems of the homeless, or in solving the problems of the living conditions of many workers “lucky" enough to have a home at all. The reports in the capitalist press show that their system, capitalism, has not even scratched the surface of these problems.
In 1966 yet another charity was formed, this one called “Crisis at Christmas". The modest intention of this lot was to help homeless single people at Christmas; to provide these people with homes and food at a time when the capitalist sales ethic is at its fiercest usually matched in intensity by the weather. The intention of the charity was to be a short-term effort, clear up the particular problem and then concentrate on some of the charity’s other, more “long-term", aims. Ten years after its formation, the charity finds it has more work to do than ever before at the season of “goodwill" (meaning of course “good sales”). The society found that for Christmas 1976 the size of the problem had grown at a frightening pace since the charity’s formation. They estimated that there would be at least 8,000 men and women “sleeping rough” in London alone. According to Shelter the figures now show that “since 1970 the number of families becoming homeless in England had doubled." (The Times 1st Sept. 1976.)
Now let us look at the situation of those workers who do have a home. Sections of the working class are living in rented council and private accommodation that though “passed” by all standards of capitalism, in many cases is not where people would choose to live had they any say in the matter. The high-rise flats developments of course are one of the best illustrations of that situation. But there is a sizeable minority who are scarcely better off than the officially homeless. In England and Wales in 1975 1,200,000 homes were unfit according to the statutory definition. A further 1,800,000 homes “whilst not legally unfit, lacked one or more of the so-called ‘standard amenities’ which most people would accept as being basic needs for modern living" (The Times 8th June 1976). And The Times report goes on to point out that the standard of what is fit for habitation is still largely based on public health criteria of the early 1900s. The problem is particularly severe on old people. One person in every five aged over 80 has no inside lavatory and no fixed bath and 500,000 people over 65 have no hot water.
The problem of inadequate housing is not peculiar to English workers; it applies to members of the working class throughout the world. For example French workers have the same conditions to face: “Sixteen million people live in sub-standard housing in France, that is to say without the minimum modern conveniences of a bathroom or a shower and indoor lavatory. Half of these sub-standard homes are inhabited by people over 60.” (The Times 16th Jan. 1976.) Capitalism is a world system; it has world problems that require a world solution. But before getting on to that it is worth examining the housing surplus. It may seem strange to talk about a surplus when so many people are either homeless or living in unfit conditions. But as with other commodities of capitalism, there is an apparent shortage and an actual surplus. It is the dictates of the market that result in, for example, food going to waste whilst people starve. The same is true of housing.
The number of “fit" homes standing empty is probably difficult to estimate. One attempt was given by Arthur Latham (Labour MP for City of Westminster and Paddington) who said that the 1971 census showed “there were 790,000 empty flats and houses in the United Kingdom which were habitable dwellings" (The Times 7th May 1976). And he ought to know — according to the report of the Paddington Federation of Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations called “Empty Properties in Paddington" there were nearly 1,000 homes standing empty for over 18 months in one part of Latham’s constituency alone! (See The Times 7th June 1976.) Another estimate is that there are at least 57,000 homes empty in London. This figure was given by Mr. Tony Judge, chairman of the GLC housing management committee. (The Times 16th Sept. 1976.) The Nationwide Building Society’s survey on Housing published in April 1976 estimated that there was a “surplus" of 850,000 houses in the UK. The building society, ever anxious to look after its own, suggest that in view of the public preference for “owner occupation” (they mean of course "purchase on a mortgage”) there were too many local authorities doing their own development and that “it seems doubtful whether such a high rate of new local authority building is required”!
In the capitalist sense the building society are right — if people can’t pay for houses then there is no point in building them, no point that is for the capitalist class. Like all other contradictions of capitalism, the fact that there is a chronic housing plight does not mean the builders are busy with bricks and mortar. On the contrary: “House building activity fell sharply in October . . . Total starts in October were 21,5000, more than 8000 down on the previous month. Completions dropped by more than 4000 . . . Discounting normal seasonal movements total starts in August to October were 11 per cent below those in August to October last year . . . Stocks of bricks rose during October from 408 million to 432 million.’ (The Times 1st Dec, 1976.)
Faced with this situation, there are two choices. The first is to try to do something about housing within the present economic system. If history teaches anything it ought to be that such a course is a waste of time. Even the capitalists’ own research programmes can tell you that. For example, commenting on a secret Department of the Environment report the Sunday Times said that the report shows “that new investment will not solve homelessness . . . the report recommends that instead of spending more money on housing, London’s new building programme should be cut as quickly as possible (22nd Aug, 1976). The Sunday Times comment ((apparently in all seriousness) is that the report shows that “the housing shortage in London is well on the way to solving itself’! No doubt just what every capitalist politician always dreamed of—you write a report, you pass it round a few government departments, you let it out to the press and hey presto the problem will vanish of itself! Or you could listen to a lunatic’s solution to the problem—this one from the Prime Minister of Canada. His solution to the environment problem, of which housing is a part, is simplicity itself. In his opening address to the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements 1976 (known as “HABITAT”) he gave as his answer: everybody “loving one another”! (The Times 1st June 1976.)
There are no prizes for guessing the second choice—Socialism. In brief, this means the taking over by the working class of all wealth (including houses) in society and from then on running society in the interests of all. When all wealth is owned in common it will mean that it is no longer possible for houses to stand empty whilst people are homeless. Homes will be built for use. And what is needed to achieve a society where it will be possible to solve the problems of the physical needs of all? Men and women ready to take the steps necessary to bring it about, fully aware of what the transformation of society requires. “For the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement . . .” (Marx and Engels, The German Ideology; Collected Works Volume 5 p. 53, Lawrence and Wishart edn.). The instrument of that movement, the SPGB, is ready, it is now up to the reader to investigate further.
Ronnie Warrington
No comments:
Post a Comment