Sting in the Tail: By-election Fever (1992)

The Sting in the Tail column from the January 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

By-election Fever

The Scorpion has just suffered three by-elections on one night, it was a TV extravaganza where a load of toadies tried to get their snouts Into the Westminster trough.

"Its a good result for us", says Nigel Preservative. "It proves what we always said", says Hamish McSporran. "Another nail in the government's coffin” says Trevor Lickspittle. "Its the turn of the tide", says Walter Camera-Angle.

"Its the turning of my stomach", complains Scorpion, crawling off to bed suffering from an over-dose of cliches.

A Slap Up Meal

Should you happen to be in the London area on the night of February 13 and find yourself a bit peckish here is a bit of good news for you.

Instead of going to Joe's Greasy Eats Cafe for a salmonella sandwich, go a bit up-market and visit the Park Lane Hotel. It will be a splendid affair. You will be rubbing shoulders with famous politicians, writers and the odd film director.

This dazzling nlght-out can be yours for only £500-a-head. The organisers of this gala night out? None other than those champions of the proletariat — the Labour Party!

The Mad Professor

In the May issue we reported that Professor David Marsland had won the Margaret Thatcher Foundation annual award. This genius had won this great honour for such progressive ideas as abolishing social workers, ending unemployment benefit and recruiting 11 year old kids for defence training corps in schools.

Continuing the good work the Professor has turned his cool analytical mind to solving the civil war in Yugoslavia. Writing In the New Statesman (1 November 1991) the good professor proposes that Britain should go to war with Serbia!

"British aircraft flying from Cyprus and Austria could destroy the Serbian airforce and fleet in one day. Tanks and military formation could then be wiped out at leisure from the air without much difficulty. Within a week, Croatia and freedom could be saved."

This modern day Napoleon has a day job; he is a professor of social science at the West London Institute of Higher Education. Higher Education? Scorpion is just thankful he left school at 15!

Dry Eyed Farewell

The gloom of 1991 was lifted a little by the news that Marxism Today had ceased publication. Over the years it's Marxist content was probably slightly less than the Dandy or the Beano, so it was good to see another voice of confusion silenced.

BBC2 (5 December 1991) decided to mark the death of Martin Jacques' rag in The Late Show with a slot entitled the ABC of Marxism.

Naturally it was up to the usual high standard of The Late Show. C Is for Castro ... L is for Lenin ... the usual junk.

At P is for periodicals we saw flashes of various obscure left wing journals. Of course we did not see the Socialist Standard. This journal has been consistently putting a Marxist view for only 87 years, and we don't expect the terribly well informed BBC types to have a programme about Marxism that actually deals with Marxism.

Dim Stars

Hollywood is well described as "the dream factory" but it surpassed itself recently when Oxfam America staged the "Hollywood Hunger Banquet" to promote the plight of the world's hungry.

Movie stars Mel Gibson, Cybill Shepherd, Dustin Hoffman, Whoopi Goldberg, etc., drew lots for the privilege of sitting on the floor to eat just rice and water. The luckless losers had to make do with salad, chicken, dessert and wine.

One observer of this farce said:

It's a typical manifestation of these people's blind obsession with themselves —- as If they could actually make any real difference.

The Guardian 18 November

The banquet organiser hoped the event would show . . . "that there's totally unequal distribution of food In the world and capitalism isn't working". Well stated, but pulling stunts like this does nothing to reduce world hunger and leaves intact the loathsome system which spawns It.

Lenin — Some Guy

Bonfire night on the village common, families parading with Chinese lanterns behind a Guy destined for the flames, but what's this? The Guy is wearing a fur hat and brandishing a red flag!

Organisers of the village club's fireworks party had decided to give this year's celebrations a political theme and mark the fall of Communism In Eastern Europe by burning an old-style party leader.

Maidenhead Advertiser 8 November 

When Lenin scathingly earmarked capitalism for "the dustbin of history" he little dreamt that the mighty organisation which so slavishly worshipped him would itself become history to the extent that it could be burned In effigy as a stand-in for Guy Fawkes.

Vive La Difference

Many people insist that socialism means we would all have to conform while capitalism opposes this and encourages individuality.

The visit to Britain by Jean-Marie Le Pen gave us some examples of how capitalism opposes individuality.

The Guardian (6 December) quoted some Britons who share Le Pen's desire to repatriate coloured immigrants. One said 'The point is, they don't behave the way we behave”, while another deplored ” . . . the failure of immigrants to Integrate Into the customs of the host society”.

And look at the disapproval most people show when they see youngsters with purple hair or wearing "outlandish" clothes. What chance would someone have if he / she turned up for a job Interview dressed as a Punk-Rocker? Nor does the public exactly welcome the different sexual preferences of homosexuals.

The truth is that capitalism dislikes individuality and loves conformity.

Let's Talk About The World (1992)

From the January 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

Look, I don't believe in Utopia. My ambition is firmly rooted In reality. All I want is a decent, secure job that pays enough to guarantee a reasonable standard of living, sees the mortgage paid, runs the car, gets us a bit of a holiday every year . . . Well, you know what I mean . . . I suppose I would like the kids to get better opportunities than me . . .

That's not a lot to ask . . .

No, It's not, I suppose, but hold on, there are a few other things . . . Peace. I'd like to know that there'd never be war again and that all the violence that is now so much a part of our lives was ended. Mind you, I know that for me and my family to be happy other problems, like world hunger, would have to be ended. Not Just because it's obscene, which, of course, it is, but because it creates a dangerous situation, if you know what I mean. I suppose, when you think about it, the only way the prosperity and security of the individual can be secured is by having prosperity and security for everybody.

Do you think present society can guarantee the reasonably decent life you want?

Not guarantee. No, not when you think about It. I've seen too many people doing OK and then, through no fault of their own, some outside factor . . . recession, competition, bankruptcy — even, as we saw last year In the Gulf, war — and, whoosh! you're on the dole and the house is being repossessed!

That's a good point to start from. So you agree that our present way of organising society, the capitalist way, just cannot guarantee you — apart from everybody else — the material basis of a full and happy life?

I have agreed that, I suppose. It's a Jungle. We're all fighting to survive. And yet capitalism has improved things in many respects. Sometimes I marvel at the way the system has developed. We can turn out all sorts of complicated machinery . . . cars by the millions, washing machines, fridges, TV's videos. Even the agricultural techniques have been revolutionized to the point where we have to destroy foodstuffs and restrict food production. We can send people to the moon . . .

But we have not solved the simple problem of saving the life of a starving or sick child, whose parents have not got the money to buy the food or medicines which you, quite rightly, say capitalism can now vastly overproduce.

It's incredible, but it's true. But that still does not take from the fact that capitalism has developed the means for producing enough for everybody. I hadn't thought of it before in those terms but it is surely the means we employ to distrlbute the things that capitalism produces . . . If there were some other way . . .

You're right, of course. Capitalism has solved the question of production. It has created the potential to produce in abundance the things everybody needs but its method of distribution, the money system, denies the great majority of people throughout the world the opportunity to avail of the fantastic wealth which can now be produced.

But, if we solved this problem of distribution . . . You say it's the money system. Well, Just suppose we find another method that would allow everybody to benefit from the present techniques of production. There must be some process we could devise.

We could have free access. Everybody being free to take what they need.

As I was speaking I thought of something like that but It wouldn't work. There're a lot of reasons but the main one would be that you would need some method of restricting people. A form of rationing of some sort, and look at the problems that would bring.

Why? Haven’t we agreed that the productive techniques exist now to produce abundance?

Yes we have, but how would you prevent people taking more than they need?

Well, in the first . . .

No! Hold on — I think I've got It! No money means that people wouldn't want to take more than they need because . . . well, when they wanted more, they could get it! Yes, I see that, at least. We'd take only what we need because we would know that when we needed more it would be there for the taking. So everybody would be on the same social level.

Correct. No classes. It simply means that we would co-operate in producing the goods and services we need. Everybody who was fit to do so would have to be afforded the right to contribute in some way. I appreciate that this may create problems for some people when we remember that at present all real wealth is produced by a minority of workers.

A minority of workers? Surely workers are the majority of the population?

Yes, of course, workers form the overwhelming majority of people but only a minority are involved in producing socially useful goods and providing useful services. The majority of work performed today by workers is only necessary because of the way society is run. The buying-and-selling way: shops, banks, insurance, financial services, arms production, armed forces, crime . . .

I think we're on to something. This is a bloody great idea. There'd be no poverty or unemployment and all the waste that would be cut out, destruction of foodstuffs and all the fantastic wealth that goes into armaments and war, and cutting out all those useless tasks — everybody could be well fed, well housed and secure with less effort than it takes now. But there must be a snag! Why don't some of these experts, businessmen, economists, why don't they suggest this?

Because their training and their interests are concerned only with capitalism.

I think we're really on to something. I really do. The whole bloody thing is so logical! The implications are tremendous. Everybody would have a direct stake in society. The world would belong to us all; things like vandalism would disappear. A world without money! Without money and without class — and without wages, too, because there’d be no need . . .

And, of course, we are only scratching the surface.

A world-wide society where everything would be owned in common by everybody. Obviously we'd have to divide out the work as best as possible to give everybody a chance to contribute to production — but, of course, people would develop in other ways . . . education, travel, art . . . The interesting thing about this idea is that in such a world there'd be no incentive to corruption. Of course, it would have to be voluntary . . .

Democratic.

Yes, democratic. You just couldn't force this idea on people. To bring about a change to this way of living, to make it work, I mean, people would have to understand it and . . . opt for it politically. There'd have to be a political Movement, wouldn't there? Yes, and we'd need a name for the idea . . .

The Gulf: one year later (1992)

From the January 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the dust from Kuwait's burnt oil-wells barely settled, the race is on for UK companies to beat their rivals back into the Gulf, with rich pickings on offer from reconstructing Kuwait's war-ravaged economy and the return of local dictators to their old playgrounds. And just to show that the pursuit of profit knows no boundaries of race, religion or nation, British companies are again climbing into bed with the “bloodthirsty mullahs" in Iran, as they too seek to rebuild a country laid waste by Iraqi bombs and missiles— also supplied, of course, by US and British companies.

Last May, just three months after the Gulf War finished. US business announced the resumption of its offensive when Al-Ahlia-Gulf Line, bottler of Coca-Cola for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman, commissioned the first modern, high speed multi-packaging machine in the Middle East. According to company general manager Jim Hill, this followed “extensive tests over the past 12 months in the local Dubai market". So even as US bombs fell in neighbouring Kuwait and in Iraq, the sharp suits from Coke were planning their own offensive on the pockets and teeth of Middle Eastern youth.

British companies could not take this sort of thing lying down. The massive participation by Britain in the Gulf War—where it supplied the second largest Allied contingent—was undertaken not for protecting Kuwaiti sovereignty, nor out of particular concern for its oil. British troops were in the Gulf to stop the domino-like internal collapse of Saudi Arabia and the other four states of the Gulf Cooperation Council—Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE and Oman—which could easily have followed an Iraqi victory and a triumphalist Saddam calling on the people of the region to rise up against their corrupt and despotic rulers.

And why this touching concern? Because British trade with the Gulf states is currently worth well over £4 billion a year, according to figures compiled by the Department of Trade and Industry. Last year, as the Gulf crisis was unwinding. British, companies did some £2 billion worth of business with Saudi Arabia alone. So now the British government is anxious that its support for the local dictators during the war results in adequate rewards for the British companies it is there to represent.

The first post-war move came from the Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce, which organised a tour with the DTI of 32 British companies to Saudi Arabia, which returned in triumph with over £3.25 million in confirmed orders. “This was the most successful mission in 25 years of overseas promotion work,” Birmingham Chamber of Commerce leader Mike Turner proudly announced. A vast amount of restocking was taking place in the parts of the kingdom most affected by the war, a process being exaggerated as Saudi businessmen pump supplies into Kuwait, said Mr Turner. Interestingly, he also reported that members of the Kuwaiti elite, unimpressed by the money making opportunities in their shell-shocked native land, were to be seen wandering neighbouring states transacting all sorts of business there. Mr Turner’s advice to recession-struck companies in the UK was to visit the region in person—"the rewards are there for companies taking the trouble”.

Business interests

The government was not slow in taking up his suggestion. Whatever accusations have been laid against the DTI for “inaction" during the domestic recession, the same cannot be said for the way it sprang forward as the champion of British business interests in the Middle East, loudly announcing a Britain in the Gulf 92 exhibition to be held in Dubai at the end of April.

Any interested readers—and particularly those about to lose their homes through mortgage or rent arrears—should apply by the end of this month at the latest to take advantage of the very generous level of support being offered by the DTI. “Eligible British companies will recieve a 50 percent subsidy on the cost of a standard, 15 square metre stand”, proclaims the DTI's promotional literature. "This will include company name, carpet, flower arrangements, furniture (1 table. 3 chairs) and stand cleaning"—the latter presumably undertaken at competitive rates by some of the tens of thousands of Palestinians or other "foreign” workers expelled by the Kuwaiti leadership since its return from a heroic exile. In addition, the DTI offers a "subvention” (not a subsidy, you understand) to cover one third of the not inconsiderable costs of up to two representatives per company.

"In the aftermath of the Gulf War, Anglo-Gulf relations have never been better", enthuses Britain in the Gulf 92 News. "The DTI attaches the highest importance to sustaining and enhancing the level of British trade with the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council”. And it is not only the DTI which is involved in pushing British business in the region. “The campaign began in December and includes reports and special programmes through the BBC Arabic Service and the Central Office of Information". So much for BBC's lofty claims to "independence”—“Nation Shall Sell Unto Nation" should perhaps be its motto in the Middle East.

The Gulf War victory by the US and its allies has ensured that Dubai remains a safe place for UK business: "The pro-business policies of the government arc reflected in the liberal regulatory environments which include no taxation on profits or incomes, nor foreign exchange controls”, says the DTI. The good citizens of Dubai earned the undying respect of the DTI by ignoring the crisis enveloping the region last year and buying 13 percent more from the UK, bringing total exports to the UAE as a whole to £R600 million in 1990.

International Conferences and Exhibitions Ltd, which is jointly arranging the Gulf 92 exhibition with the DTI, was the only exhibition organiser in Dubai to carry out its programme of events during the Gulf crisis. And the response of a grateful Dubai business class to having their skins saved by British tanks, was to endow British firms at the Opportunity in the Gulf exhibition—held in Dubai three months after the ending of hostilities—with a further £20 million worth of orders, with the same amount again anticipated for the near future.

Gulf elites

And business opportunities in the region now extend much further that the basic construction, power and transport contracts of yore, argues the DTI. The Gulf elite clearly feels secure enough to enjoy the better things in life again:

The high level of government expenditure is fuelling a boom in private sector investment, reflected in a spate of new high rise office developments, five star hotels, apartment blocks, sports clubs, shopping malls and luxury villas, all of which require a full range of luxury fittings.

It also generates the need for a whole lot more services essential to the well-being of redundant oil workers, refugees and displaced peoples throughout the region—things like "printing, advertising and financial expertise”.The children of the rich are also back to unrestrained consumption, it would seem, with consumer spending being "stimulated to record levels on items such as clothing, domestic appliances, cars, food and drink, jewellery, sports equipment and overseas travel”.

A list of companies so far enlisted for the DTI's Gulf 92 extravaganza tells its own story. Starlite Chandeliers, for example, is exhibiting a range of crystal chandeliers and light fittings, while Gainsborough Silver Collections will be displaying "a selection of pieces from its comprehensive range of silver plated tableware”. The list goes on to include limousine converters and Moores of London's "corporate jewellery in solid silver and gold plate", and so on.

Finally, what of the Iranian connection?

The carefully planned visitor promotion campaign for the Britain in the Gulf 92 exhibition will cover the six Gulf Cooperation Council states and also extend to Iran, a country with which Dubai has close trading ties.

Could this be the same country the British government sanctimoniously severed diplomatic ties with after its leader issued a death threat against Salman Rushdie which has still not been withdrawn? Yes indeed, and here is the reason:

In addition to the massive rebuilding programme planned for Kuwait, reconstruction schemes in neighbouring Iran, only 40 minutes flight from Dubai, are also arousing unprecedented interest on the part of UK exporters.

So if the government starts to backpedal on its stance against Iranian state terrorism—by banning demonstrations by Rushdie supporters, for example, which it actually did in November—you will know the reason why.

Andrew Thomas

They said it in 1991 (1992)

From the January 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

JANUARY

The first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1901, since when about 100 million human beings have been killed in wars—Army recruitment advert.

We no longer take American Express. Things are not what they used to be—Baghdad hotel receptionist.

Only God could have got rid of Margaret Thatcher—Ian Paisley.

FEBRUARY

Rationing of health care is nothing new: the NHS has been doing it for more than four decades—Robert Craig, NHS manager.

We are the ones who have been given a special mission by God—Major Mohammed Abu Amnah. Saudi Army.

We are depending on God—Saddam Hussein.

MARCH

Americans can move forward to lend, spend and invest—George Bush on the end of the Gulf War.

Luxury is buying a dear brand of toilet paper—Wife of an unemployed man, Crewe.

It does sometimes strike me that we are a privileged place—Eton schoolboy.

APRIL

I have too much. Its a terrible bind to be in charge of controlling and investing money—Duke of Buccleuch.

There's one law for the rich, one for the poor—Marquess of Blandford, after being disqualified from driving.

When I pass a belt I cannot resist hitting below it—Robert Maxwell.

MAY

1. The world produces enough food to feed all its inhabitants. 2. a child dies from starvation every two seconds—Christian Aid advert.

We didn't go to war to form a democracy. We never said one American was sent there to make Kuwait a democracy—US Government official.

I shall not stop making speeches—Margaret Thatcher, in Moscow.

JUNE

Like many other parts of the capitalist economy, such as property developers, banks do well under Labour-—John Willcock, Guardian financial columnist.

If you’re given the choice of being born either rich or smart, my advice is to be born rich—Professor Stephen Ceci. 

Organisers of strikes are breaking the law. Strikes interfere with Poland—Lech Walesa.

JULY

The sort of people you step over when you come out of the opera—Sir George Young, Minister of Housing, on London beggars. 

He was only there in the first place because they had oil—Mavis Cole, grandmother of soldier killed in the Gulf.

Of course we play the stock market fairly heavily—Canon Dennis Green. Ely Cathedral.

AUGUST

The ousting of Gorbachev was just politics, but business is business—Western business executive in trade with Russia.

I'm quite surprised because most of the people here don't seem to be affected by the recession—Visitor to Country Landowners' Association game fair.

I know the dangers, I‘ve been raped at gunpoint. But I need the money—Samantha. London prostitute.

SEPTEMBER

It feels as if someone is trying to break us— Marie Pender, mother of four children, living in bed and breakfast accommodation.

I am not proud of the part I played in this affair and I shall exercise some modesty in advising a later generation on what they should be doing today—George Matthews, ex-assistant general secretary of the Communist Party, on their subservience to Moscow.

You see families counting out the pennies to see if they can buy a tin of beans. I thought it went out with Dickens—Molly Woodhouse, Meadowell Estate, after the riot there.

OCTOBER

I don’t accept there is a class system in this country. There are gentlemen and women with good manners no matter where they are in society—Sheila Lawlor, Centre for Policy Studies.

In a capitalist country a classless society isn't possible—Marquess of Blandford.

A standing ovation without a speech. Isn't that marvellous—Margaret Thatcher on her arrival at the Tory Party conference.

NOVEMBER

We're talking hundreds of millions in lost business—Sidney Barthelemy, Mayor of New Orleans, on racist primary candidature of David Duke.

When it comes to freedom there were certain shortcomings in the Soviet Union—Russian spy Peter Kroger.

No farming system is sustainable unless it makes a profit—Derek Barber, President, Royal Agricultural Society of England.

DECEMBER

When I'm hungry I have a cup of tea— Single mother of three on ITV's First Tuesday.

Life is difficult and tough—Norman Lamont.

Well, I miss me too—Margaret Thatcher at New York diplomatic dinner.

Letters: Professor rebuked (1992)

Letters to the Editors from the January 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

Professor rebuked

Dear Editors,

Congratulations on the discussion and debate section in the December Socialist Standard, in which Steve Coleman repudiates the defence of capitalism by Professor David Marsland of the West London Institute.

It really is quite incredible that anyone with professorial status can say that property, wage-labour. competition, economic inequalities and money are part of the human psyche, and imply that any alternative to the capitalist mode of organising society is not consistent with human nature. The sad thing is that many are easily swayed by such arguments, spurious as they are. We live in a society in which those concepts and values are paramount, and we are, therefore, conditioned to act and think in a manner which make those values seem to be part of our nature.

Of course, jobs and wages are a natural consideration in our lives—we can’t live without them; of course we are competitive—we are taught to be so as soon as we leave the cradle; of course we regard economic inequality as inevitable because that’s the way things must be in capitalist society; of course money is important—we can’t do without it. and thinking in monetary terms becomes second nature to us. But. to say that these things are part of our natural make-up; that inherent in our genealogy is a crying need for money, wages, or social inequality, is to talk utter nonsense.

The status of professor implies the role of educator, leader of rational thinking. I think that Professor Marsland should be ashamed of himself for trying to lead us down a path of such false reasoning.

During the second world war I served in the Royal Army Medical Corps with the Middle East Forces. I was stationed in the desert in a base hospital about 60 miles from Cairo for 5 years. Thinking back on those days I am moved by the wonderful spirit of comradeship and co-operation that grow up in those circumstances. We all had a job to do. We all depended on each other. At the same time when off duty, we were free, and when circumstances permitted we were given generous leave to travel wherever we wished—it proved a wonderful opportunity to understand something of earlier civilizations. Travelling was no problem and quite free—all one had to do was go to the main road and thumb a lift. Money was of little importance and most members of the unit voluntarily chose not to draw full pay, saving it for spending on leave. Clothing, food, accommodation were, of course, freely provided. We became a close-knit community. Individual talents emerged and were used to develop educational and cultural activities for the benefit of patients and unit personnel.

Why do I tell you all this? Well, certainly not because I believe in wars, or want to suggest that society should be organised on army lines: no, simply because I think it helps to belie Marsland’s assertion of the implausibility of an elastic human nature. I think it shows that given a common objective we can strive for a better way of life, and work in harmony without monetary considerations.

There is one simple truth that the professor cannot deny and that is that capitalism's mode of production and dissipation of wealth is not designed to meet the needs of the people—all the people. That is why the socialist alternative is imperative.

George Pearson 

London SW20

BOB POTTER. Hove: We will reply to your letter on IQ tests in the next issue.

South-East slump

Dear Editors,

An item in the Observer (24 November) vividly demonstrates the tragic situation in which many workers now find themselves.

Two thousand would-be wage slaves queued for up to twelve hours, for just 127 jobs as packers and maintenance workers for around £300 to £400 a week, at Courages brewery, in Reading. Many of them, before becoming unemployed, had been company directors, former tradesmen and even university lecturers. Few, no doubt, would have considered themselves to be members of the working class, dependent on their abilities to sell their mental and physical energies in order to live.

“Welcome to Reading, Boom Town of the Eighties, Gloom Town of 1991", commented the Observer. Unemployment in Reading has more than doubled in the last year; more than 5,000 have lost their jobs. The picture is repeated across the south-east. It is the same in Crawley, Milton Keynes and even Tunbridge Wells. Here in Colchester, the so-called prosperous First Recorded Town in England, the position is much the same. Over the last few years, hundreds of workers have been made redundant from Paxman’s, Colchester’s largest factory. Only this week, the Essex County Standard reported that the Eastern National Bus company is to cut another 35 jobs. The redundancies will affect staff across the board.

As I write this (1 December), the same paper reports that "recession-hit traders in Colchester said yesterday they were seeing the first tentative signs of the much hoped-for Christmas rush". And the Co-op said there have been the first “nibbles". Nevertheless, as one walks around the Town, large numbers of shops, big and small, can be seen empty and deserted. The owners have gone “bust”, bankrupt.

Colchester Youth Enquiry Service says that they will be collecting warm clean bedding for the many young homeless people in Colchester. They cannot actually find homes for these people (although, as elsewhere, there are many empty properties in the area), but the homeless can go and "ask for advice, help and a blanket".

The situation is not, however, just local or regional, or even national. Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are in dead trouble; and the United States has been in recession for some considerable time. And France too. A woman friend of mine in Paris has been unemployed, except for two short periods, for just over twelve months. Indeed, three million workers are officially unemployed in France. And it’s getting worse.

Will it ever end? Is massive unemployment here to stay?

Tragic as it is for those who lose their jobs or, if young, are unable to get a job in the first place, booms and slumps and unemployment, are a "normal” consequence of our present production-for-profit, capitalist, system. The owners of wealth-production will only invest, and employ us, if they think there is a good prospect of making a profit. And at the present moment, most capitalists prefer not (or are unable) to invest. Sooner or later, business will pick up. People will be taken on again, although in my view I think that large numbers of unemployed workers (a “reserve army of labour") will continue to exist, possibly well into the next century.

So, is there a way out? A solution?

Socialists say that workers, employed or unemployed, in Colchester or Reading, in Britain or Russia, or the United States, or France and elsewhere throughout the world, can solve the problems of not just periodic unemployment. but also poverty in a world of potential plenty, by organising to establish a new and completely different form of society of production of wealth solely for use and the satisfaction of needs. Such a society would not be Heaven on Earth, or Utopia; but it would soon tackle, and solve, the basic problems thrown up by capitalism. And that is more than enough.

Peter E. Newell

Colchester, Essex 

Dear Editors,

On the article in the December issue 'What Do We Mean By Class'. I would like to say that you can’t always leave your job if you don’t like it because of low wages, boring work. etc. Unemployment is so high that many people, if they are in their 40s or 50s, feel they will not get another job if they leave their employment. I have been in my job for 3 years. It is a job I hate. The first month that I worked there I wanted to leave, so any available time off I have looked for another job. I’ve had various interviews, but no luck.

Leslie Everard 

Borehamwood, Herts

Socialist Party Meetings (1992)

Party News from the January 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Interesting Case of Sir Richard Acland, M. P. (1941)

From the January 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the October issue of the Socialist Standard,  some remarks were made about Sir Richard Acland’s views, based on a letter written by him to the News-Chronicle. In a subsequent letter to the Socialist Standard Sir R. Acland suggested that instead of criticising his brief letter to the News-Chronicle we should consider the full statement contained in his book, “Unser Kampf” (“ Our Struggle ”—Penguin Edition, 6d.).

The argument of “Unser Kampf” is that the war against Germany will be long and costly unless the military weapon is backed up by propaganda that will appeal to the German people. It is of no use, he says, to threaten the dismemberment of Germany as this would rally the German workers round Hitler. As he proposes instead that we should proclaim “common ownership” as our “new order” it may appear that he has reached the Socialist standpoint. When, however, the book is examined it is found that though the author imagines he has broken with capitalism, his alternative, far from being the revolutionary one he believes it to be, is a naive, impossible scheme for imposing radical reforms on the capitalist world.

Sir R. Acland can see some of the features of capitalism, the inequality of incomes, the restrictions on production, the monopolies, unemployment, etc., but he gives no sign of understanding that the monetary system, the production of goods for sale, the system of wage-labour, the existence of property incomes through exploitation, and the competition for world markets are all part and parcel of capitalism : he does not see that if the capitalist private property basis is abolished and common ownership is introduced all the rest go too. If Sir R. Acland can contemplate “common ownership” without this necessary consequence of it, the reason is that he does not really mean common ownership. His scheme is that industry (in the first place banks, insurance companies, railways,, mines, steel, and a few other industries, p. 145) shall be taken over by the State and that the owners shall receive compensation on a graded basis providing a maximum annual income of £3,000 a year (p. 100). This would be for the life of the shareholder, but with the alternative of a somewhat smaller income which shall continue for the life of his children too. This payment of compensation he justifies on the ground that it would be both unwise and unfair to leave the former owners “to fend for themselves in the labour market like anyone else” (p. 98). This is a curious argument. Sir R. Acland does not appear fully to realise that property incomes, including these compensation incomes, can only exist through the exploitation of the workers who produce the wealth. And if this “ new order ” really offers to the whole population a satisfactory life, why should it be “unfair” to the capitalist that they should enjoy its blessings too?

What is still more revealing is that Sir R. Acland believes that “common ownership ” exists in Russia (p. 76). He says nothing of the vast inequalities of income in that country but claims that “no one in Russia sits back and draws income in respect of the ownership of property ” (p. 91). He does not seem to have heard of the enormous National Debt in Russia running to thousands of millions of roubles, through which investors can sit back and draw investment income. Or perhaps he would argue that this is not income “in respect of the ownership of property”? Yet it is not essentially different from investments in State loans in other countries where the capitalist State has industrial undertakings under its control.

He envisages that under his scheme there will be “for at least the first century or two ” better pay for “ better work or more skilful or responsible work ” (p.110). In other words, like the Bolsheviks. Sir R. Acland wants the retention of a privileged group. He fails to offer any justification for this, and does not consider the kind of methods that would have to be used to force an enlightened working class to accept it. Does he imagine that the low-paid hewers of wood and drawers of water in Bolshevik Russia willingly consent to the arrangement by which the Party men, technicians, administrative officials, writers and artists, and other favoured groups receive incomes dozens of times larger than their own miserable wage? If he wants to enforce the same system he will need the same forcible methods to compel its acceptance. He does not state a reasoned case for wanting this inequality to be perpetuated.

“Common ownership” as used by Sir R. Acland is a term that he also finds it possible to associate with Nazi Germany. He thinks it likely that the German army leaders and the Nazi Party leaders may “deprive the German owners of their swollen profits and of their grip on industry” (p.90). Then “there would,” he says, “ be common ownership in the hands of the Nazi Party." Well may the workers say that if "common ownership” means what exists in Russia, and what is possible under the Nazis, they do not want it.

One curious omission from the book is any denunciation of the State capitalist concerns that exist already in this country. Is Sir R. Acland unaware that the workers in the Post Office and in the London Passenger Transport Board are treated in essentially the same way as workers in any other capitalist concern? Yet when he is denouncing capitalist monopoly (p. 45) and gives a lengthy list of instances, he does not mention these. On the other hand, he writes approvingly of the Post Office (p. 105), and has no criticism of Labour Party plans for State capitalism except their speed of application.

For the conduct of international affairs Sir R. Acland wants an international armed force (p. 135). He does not get down to the vital question how, under conditions as they will actually exist after the war, of a continuing fierce struggle for markets and capitalist groups are to be persuaded or forced to for the control of strategic points, etc., the interested accept any international control unless it falls in with their interests. On his own showing the adoption of what for him is “common ownership” will not solve the problem of war, since he accuses “common ownership” Russia of aggression against the Finns "as damnable” as the German invasion of Poland (p. 148). He even accepts the possibility that Russia may enter on a “ Napoleonic stage ” of attempted world conquest and expansion (p. 85).

In short, as Socialists, we can only say that the solution for all the problems that Sir R. Acland takes in his field lies in Socialism, i.e., a system of society based on common ownership in the real meaning of the term. This cannot be achieved by some swift campaign to get the population to accept “the new morality” (p. 144) and change the Government (p. 139), but only by the steady, thorough winning over of the working class internationally to Socialism.

In order to remove any misunderstanding it must be pointed out in conclusion that Sir R. Acland is quite wrong in his acceptance of the view that “the Russian doctrine” is “ Marxism ” (p. 91).

It will be interesting to see where Sir R. Acland's well intentioned and courageous, though misdirected, investigations of capitalism will lead him. At present he is a Liberal whose conceptions are likely to be as unacceptable to the Liberal Party as they are to Socialists. The Labour Party will not like his independence and the Communists denounce his criticisms of the Russian onslaught on Finland 

Edgar Hardcastle

The Flimsy Basis of Race Prejudice (1941)

From the January 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The racial question has become an urgent problem in political controversy in recent years owing to the significance given to it in Germany, where appeals to race prejudice have been used mainly to promote discrimination against the Jews. Antagonism to the Jews is also showing signs of developing in quite unexpected quarters. It is therefore worth while devoting a little space to a brief examination of the question.

In the first place what does the word “race” really mean? Immediately we ask this question we realise into what a morass we have stepped, because the term is used to cover quite different meanings. For instance, the “Black Race,” the “Brown Race,” the “Yellow Race,” each covers groups of people in varying stages of culture and with contrary attributes apart from the colour of their skins. The “American Race,” the “British Race,” the “African Race,” applies to the inhabitants of a particular territory. The “Mohammedan Race” and the “Jewish Race” is a religious distinction. The “Celtic Race,” the “Aryan Race” and the “Semitic Race” refer to particular types of language.

Here, then, are four different meanings commonly applied to the term “race,” and there are many others including those that apply to the shape of the head and to the nature of the hair.

The meaning that it is attempted to foist upon the word “race” is that there are certain groups of people to-day who, like the thoroughbred horse, have kept their blood free from alien mixture for hundreds of years.

At the outset it may be pointed out that there are no physical distinctions that can denote purity of blood. People from this country who spend most of their lifetime in the Colonies develop physical characteristics that mark them from their relatives who have remained at home. In a book by Brunton entitled “Kings and Queens of Ancient Egypt” there are a number of coloured illustrations of Ancient Egyptian women. If one covers the headdress of many of these women with a piece of cardboard the features and colouring are the replica of many present-day English women who have a murky heredity. The reader can multiply instances from his own experience where a black face, apart from its colour, is the facsimile of white faces of allegedly pure blood. Every physical characteristic that one seeks to use as the hall-mark of a particular “race” bristles with exceptions. There are all varieties of white, black and red faces. It is therefore obvious that neither the colour nor the contour of a face is evidence of racial purity.

It may be added that round heads, long heads, and nondescript heads are associated with all varieties of colour, hair and facial characteristics, and even differ in the same family.

Again, place of birth is nothing to go by, as man has been on the move for thousands of years, and the most important geographical unities is inhabited by a vast assortment of mongrels. England is an example in point where one meets many who proudly boast of their “British Nationality” in strange accents. Think, also what a hotch-potch America is where nationals from all over the world have gone into the melting pot, and British and other film stars and “famous” people have recently become “American citizens.” Again, consider the people abroad whose fathers and grandfathers were born abroad, and yet the present generation still calls itself English—they look to England as their “country.” Consider also the varieties of people of alien origin born in England.

These facts banish place of birth or country of origin as a criterion of race.

The fact is that man’s wanderings over the earth have promoted such a mixture of blood that there is no such thing nowadays, even in remote places, as genuine blood purity. Twenty-five thousand or so years has bred many varieties of the human species and will go on doing so. A name may be carried down for generations, but the blood associations of that name through the female side are beyond calculation. Many a fine name has a bundle of skeletons in the cupboard.

Language is also no guide to purity of ancestry. The most diverse people speak the same language now, and did so in the past. For example, at one time Latin was the language of both Roman and Barbarian. To-day Spanish is the language of native inhabitants of South America as well as the people of Spain. English is the language of that mixture of people occupying England, South Africa, Australia, America, Canada and other places. Here we come to another point—the question of “Aryan Race.” But Aryan is a language and not a blood connection. The Aryan-speaking peoples, like the Celtic, were of mixed descent. The barbarian hordes that flooded Europe in the middle ages and mingled with the population destroyed any possibility of racial purity existing in our day.

There is, in fact, no single scheme of classification that will satisfactorily cover the different types of human beings in existence. Alpine, Nordic, Mediterranean and other strains are present in varying degrees in all the peoples of Europe.

The human race comes into the world naked, and clothes with habits and traditions the result of social circumstances. Different sections of the human race rise and fall in culture or importance according to the nature of the social environment, irrespective of colour, language or religion. Egypt, Greece and Rome were each at the top of the cultural scale and each has come down since the time of flowering.

In the long run the social environment blends people of different stocks into one type, with similar habits and outlook. In modern times the United States is an excellent example of this.

The people that to-day are regarded as representative of a low cultural stage may, under favourable social circumstances, rise to supremacy tomorrow. The Australian Maori, not long ago looked upon as at the bottom of the cultural scale, is imbibing the arts of civilisation at a remarkable rate, and may soon be equal to the highest product of civilisation.

In mankind purity of race is impossible, even if it were desirable. Even among domestic animals the greatest care can only guarantee purity from a certain point. The classic example, the thoroughbred racehorse, is only thoroughbred from the already mixed Arabian strain that was introduced into Europe two centuries ago. On the other hand, mixture of peoples has been synonymous with cultural advances from the time of Babylon and Egypt to the present day. Peoples which have not been subjected to the invigorating influence of alien blood have, like the Chinese, stagnated.

The Jews, over whom race-prejudice has been revived in a violent fashion, are of mixed origin, and represent a type with a religious basis and a particular historic tradition. It may be noted that a people that has been battered and hunted for centuries is liable while, and wherever, those conditions exist, to display the characteristics of the battered and hunted—distrust, clannishness and cunning.

Throughout the middle ages the Jew was ruled out of practically every occupation except finance, and consequently they became adepts in that business. Since then, as other occupations have been thrown open to them, they have brought into the new spheres the single-minded concentration forced upon them by their social history and have consequently excelled. This ability has produced distinguished workers in music, literature, science and the art of war. Jews are also as generous, brave, cowardly, self-seeking as other types of people who are proud of their nationality. These “virtues” or “vices,” it may be remarked, have really nothing to do with race, but depend to a great extent upon age, health, sensitiveness, knowledge and circumstances, and vary as much in one type of people as in another. It may be added that they also depend upon the point of view of those concerned.

While, in certain circumstances, the rich Jew is fair game for the rich non-Jew, the poor Jew is always fair game for both under capitalism.

Finally, the Jewish question is not really a race question at all but an economic one. When other excuses fail it serves, as in Germany, to hide the real source of the misery of the mass of people of all colours and creeds. If it is not submerged by the mixture of races by that time it will certainly be solved by the advent of Socialism, under which there will not be economic crises, stagnation and poverty for millions that require a scapegoat to explain. Also there will not be either the competition for markets or for jobs that breed the unnatural fiends of envy, pushfulness and callous brutality.

In conclusion, it may be remarked that we all use the word “race” loosely for want of better terms. But this does little harm as long as prejudice is not tied to it.

Perhaps it may allay prejudice in the mind of the reader of the above if it is mentioned that the writer is of “pure” Irish stock for several generations back—or else the skeletons have been very effectively hidden.

Gilmac.