Some Comments on the American Election (1956)

From the November 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

We take our elections somewhat more seriously than they appear to do in the United States. Here the stunts are a little more subtle, less reminiscent of circuses and music-hall shows. But there is something in the American way of life after all, for if we are going to have the farce every few years of “choosing” between capitalism and capitalism, let it at least be entertaining.

And no one can deny that the American elections are that. 

The “Choice"

In America the two major parties are the Republicans and Democrats, and it has been said that the difference between the two is that one is in power and the other is out. This is true in America even as it is in this country with the Labour and Conservative Parties. Tradition plays a large part in American support for their parties. The Democratic Party is traditionally “for labour,” although in practice this means little except that they can count on some support from the Trade Unions. Traditionally the deep South, with its violent opposition to any advancement for the negroes, is Democratic, but some Democrats of the North, who consider the Party to be “progressive,” are considerably embarrassed by the reliance that the Party places on its Southern support.

Personalities

Personalities are important in any election, so we should see who are the people hoping to get the votes in the present election.

The Republican candidate for President is, of course, Eisenhower. A man by experience not a politician, but a soldier, mainly useful to his Party because of his extraordinary popularity. He appears to be something in the nature of a figurehead in that, judging by his speeches, he does not show signs of having a great grasp of the problems that his government has to attempt to tackle, and his comments are usually vague generalities mixed with good will, such as when, speaking on the problems of de-segregation of schools, he said: "Here is a problem, charged with emotionalism, where everybody has got to' work hard with all of the strength he has, and I think that the more that work is done privately and behind the scenes rather than charging up on the platform and hammering desks, the better and more effective it will be.” This statement was in answer to a question as to his policy, and it will be seen that although be says quite clearly that we must all work hard to solve the problem, he does not suggest what the solution should be.

His running mate, for Vice-President, is Richard Nixon. A young man, with a reputation for ambition, and unpopular with both Parties, he would probably not have been nominated had not Eisenhower backed him.

On the Democratic side we have the Presidential candidate in Stevenson. He is the man who didn't want to be President, and who, in 1952, took a lot of persuading to agree to stand. This time it was easier. As one columnist said (before Stevenson agreed to stand in this election), it is a little difficult to play the reluctant virgin twice.

The reluctant egg-head

Stevenson has a great disadvantage in a politician in that he has a reputation for being intelligent. This is commonly known in the United States as being an “egg head.” and although in most countries intellectuals are looked upon with some suspicion, this is particularly so in the United States. In the last election Stevenson lost many votes because of his habit of using words of more than two syllables, but this time he is determined to overcome this disadvantage. In the recent Californian Primary election campaign he met "the common man ” on street cars, shook hands, kissed babies and young ladies, and spoke in a way that the people could understand. It worked, although it is said that Stevenson looked most uncomfortable in his new role. One of the minor aspects of his background that could affect the voting is that he has been divorced. Although be has not remarried, it is thought that some Catholic voters would feel unable to vote for him for that reason.

The Common Man himself

The Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate is Estes Kefauver. He is the man who wanted to be President, but has settled, for the moment, for the chance of being Vice-President. Kefauver goes in for all the gimmicks of elections—only more so than anyone else. He has put hand-shaking on an assembly line basis, and has worn more funny hats than any other American politician— his favourite being the coon-skin hat. Kefauver is a contradiction—a man who goes in for more electioneering tricks than the others, but a man who is generally liked by the public—especially in the farming areas, and disliked by other politicians. One voter explained that he liked Kefauver because you felt that if he came by when you were raking manure in a field, you felt sure that he was the sort of man who would take off his jacket and start raking beside you. On policy Kefauver is somewhat vague. One columnist described his attitude thus: “When asked precisely what he stands for, he is likely to hesitate, ponder painfully, and finally come up with some such phrase as 'a place in the sun for the farmer,' or 'the best interests of the plain people of this nation,' or ‘an even break for the average man."’ (Time, 17/9/56).

The two most important internal issues are: (1) The Farm Crisis, and (2) De-Segregation.

The Farm crisis has arisen partly from the encouragement that was given to farm production in wartime and from the unfortunate fact that since the war the harvests have been good! This means that in order to avoid swamping the market with foodstuffs, which would decrease the prices and the profits, the Government has for some years guaranteed the farmers certain prices, and has purchased surpluses which have been stored in larger and larger quantities. This has in time produced other quite serious problems, such as where to store the surpluses when all available warehouses and the holds of the “moth-ball" fleet aw packed full? This is what each party is trying to answer. The Republican answer is quite simple. Pay the farmers, they say, to take land out of production and allow it to lie fallow for a time. Thus, less land will be “in production," and consequently less food will be produced, and the Crisis (!) will be mitigated. The Democratic answer is the continuation of the present policy, except that greater guarantees should be given to the farmers.

It will be seen that neither of these policies attempts to deal with this basically farcical, as well as tragic, problem of capitalism. What a problem it is to have so much surplus food! Simple—make sure you have less in future. These are the policies propounded by those who are fond of saying that Socialism would not work because there would not be enough to go round under Socialism. If America attempts to sell off the surpluses at cheap prices abroad, they are liable to precipitate a crisis in another country (as was threatened recently in South America).

Segregation

Recently the Supreme Court in the U.S. gave judgment that segregation of white and coloured children in American schools was contrary to the Constitution. This provoked riots in the Southern States recently when the school year commenced and some coloured children tried to take their places in white schools. The Southern States are in most cases determined to avoid compliance with the Supreme Court ruling, and are in many cases attempting to devise laws that will achieve the same end (i.e., segregation) in an apparently legal manner. On this subject both parties are most cautious in making statements. At the recent Democratic Conference the following statement was adopted; “Recent decisions of the Supreme Court relating to segregation have brought consequences of vast importance to our nation as a whole and especially to communities directly affected. We reject all proposals for the use of force to interfere with the orderly determination of these matters by the Courts . . . (the Supreme Court's decisions) are part of the law of the land." An attempted addendum that “We pledge to carry out these Supreme Court decisions,” was rejected.

Earlier in the campaign the Republican Party also was loth to commit itself on the racial issue. However, within the last few weeks they have been more outspoken. Some commentators have suggested that this is due to the fact that the Republicans have resigned themselves to the fact that the Democrats are firmly entrenched in the South, and that even if the Republicans courted the Southern votes with opposition to de-segregation, they would not have much success. It is interesting to observe, however, the reasons given for support for advancement of the negro. Nixon, speaking at Louisville on the 27th September, was reported in the New York Herald Tribune as follows: “The U.S. cannot afford the cost of discrimination. The loss of negro intellectual resources fully developed amounts to $15,000,000,000 a year in terms of the gross national product, now running at a $400,000,000,000 rate." (28/9/56). Thus, no mention is made of any ideals of freedom or justice for the negro population—merely the economic loss suffered by the country's capitalists.

Policy?

Generally, the Republican Party in this election is, as Ike says, “relying on their record," which is “prosperity." This means, of course, prosperity for big business, for, as Stevenson says, “There are ugly patches of poverty and insecurity which still deny dignity, even decency, to the lives of almost one-fifth of all American families."

Stevenson’s answer to the problem is that if his party was in power things would be different, but when we examine the proposals that he makes for changes in policy, it is clear that his programme differs in no essential manner from that of the Republicans.

Western "Democracy"

So this is the much vaunted “two Party system" that is recommended by British and American politicians to countries with more complicated party systems, such as France and Italy, and to totalitarian countries such as those behind the iron curtain! From the point of view of the ruling class, there is much to be said for it. Given two parties that oppose each other but whose policies do not differ fundamentally, the people are likely to spend their political energies arguing the toss between the two, without realising that there is a practical alternative to the system of capitalism.

Our View

What has a Socialist to say about these parties and their personalities and policies?

What is clear in America, as in Britain, is that for the worker (and this includes the many who like to consider themselves “middle class") there is little to choose between the parties, and the only arguments are as to which can run capitalism in the more efficient manner.

A Socialist examines the record of those parties which have claimed to govern in the interests of the mass of the people. Any objective analysis of the past shows that all these attempts have failed. Why have they failed? Is it for lack of good will, corruption, lack of knowledge or intelligence or honesty? These factors crop up continually in politics where there are rich plums for the successful, but the reason for consistent failure by all contenders to save Capitalism is that the nature of Capitalism itself is that it is a class society, which can only be run in the interests of the ruling class, the Capitalists.

Some Election Slogans

Do you want the threat of war to continue and possibly become a fact? Do you want the continuance of poverty while food surpluses pile up and goods accumulate which the poor cannot afford to buy? Do you want a continuance of the insecurity which means that even if you have a job now, you may be unemployed tomorrow if there is a slump? Do you want to ensure that the housing problem will remain unsolved? Do you want to make sure that your children will have a life much like yours, with all these problems that will crush the humanity out of them, make them automatons, and take the joy out of life?

In a word, do you want Capitalism?

Of course, these aren’t the words that are used to ask for your votes. But this is what, in fact, is offered you at each election, and what is being offered to the American elector now.

To the voter in America or elsewhere we say—there is a real alternative. With your help we can establish Socialism. Without it we, along with you, will continue to have all the problems of Capitalism, whichever party is in power.

Socialism will be a world-wide society in which the means of production will be held in common and used for the benefit of the whole of society. It is profit and property which cause wars and poverty. It is Socialism that can make these problems things to read about in history books.

L. B.

Education and the Southern Negro (1956)

From the November 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some parts of the Southern States of America have recently been the scenes of intense anti-negro mob violence. This violence was part of resistance to the attempts by the American Government to integrate negro and white school children within the American system of education. One of the reasons given why the negro should be rejected is that he is “biologically inferior" to the white, and that integration of negro and white will ultimately create a general lowering of human standards, both biologically and socially. We of the Socialist Party do not accept these vicious assumptions. The question important to us is this: What is it about the biological make-up of the various branches of the human family that prevent it from living together in a universal harmony of mutual co-operation? The answer is nothing, and this is the principle that is a guide to Socialists on this issue.

It is now a little over two years since, in 1954, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the segregation of negro and white students, within the American educational system, was unconstitutional. It is little over a year since the High Court ordered Federal District Judges to enforce this ruling “. . . with all deliberate speed." The Atlantic Edition of the New York Sunday Times (9th September) gives a State by State account of what has been accomplished toward the integration end since these decisions were made. Its message to those who claim such integration as an ideal, particularly when dealing with the States of “ the deep south," is grim.

“Virginia.—There has been no integration in the State’s public, elementary or high schools, nor is there likely to be any this year."

"North Carolina.—No negroes have entered the high or elementary schools of North Carolina.” 

“Georgia.—Relying upon legal safeguards enacted prior to and after the U.S. Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation in the public schools, Georgians expect to operate their schools on the customary dual basis.”

“Florida.—In Florida a record number of students have started back to school—all in completely segregated classrooms—without incident.”

“Alabama.—There is no integration anywhere in Alabama’s public schools, except at the college level”

“Mississippi.—Not a single negro student has been integrated in a white school.”

“Louisiana.—Louisiana begins the school year with segregation still strictly enforced in all elementary and secondary schools.”

In all these States, which include a total of 1,900,000 negro school children, resistance to integration is being organized at the highest civic levels.

In Texas, Arkansas, Delaware, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee, with a total of 550,000 negro school children a very casual interpretation has been placed on the directive “. . . all deliberate speed,” although some measure of integration has been achieved. In no sense is the principle of integration completely accepted by appropriate State Boards of Education.

Border States, such as Columbia, Missouri and Maryland, which contain 250,000 negro school children, whose populations are less than 10 per cent. negro, are steering a definite course in the direction of integration. In a word, action on the Supreme Court’s ruling, for the majority of America’s southern States, is being resisted in one way or another.

Both negroes and whites have founded organizations to protect what they think are their best interests. Negroes have founded the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured Peoples, and throughout the south this organization has attempted, by court order of Federal law, to enforce the ruling. On the other side of the tragic rift the White Citizen’s Councils exist solely as anti-negro bodies. Their doctrine is an irrational horror of “Jim Crow.” Their hopes and desires probably amount to nothing more than the realisation of the sentiments expressed in the corrupt version of the song sung to the tune of John Brown’s Body, “we’re gonna hang a nigger from a sour apple tree.” At all events, he should certainly be kept in his place.

This September began the new school term. In some border States of the south, where integration has been partial, some ambitious negro mothers packed their children off to schools which had formerly been exclusively white, and so were produced some explosive, very ugly situations. Clinton, Sturgis, Oliver Springs, Clay, and Mansfield were towns that received much publicity as scenes of mob violence.

Sturgis is a mining community of 2,500 in Kentucky. On Wednesday, the 5th September, nine negro students tried to register at the local high school. They were confronted by an angry mob. The New York Sunday Times (9th September) reported: “That night four units of the Kentucky National Guard moved into town: next day the guardsmen escorted the negro youths to school. A crowd of five hundred townspeople yelling for "nigger blood," tried to break through the ring of troops . . . As the negro youths left school Thursday the mob shouted: “We'll get you niggers if it takes all year." Friday the negroes did not go to school—several reported their parents had been threatened with loss of jobs unless they stayed home . . . But all across the south last week there were sporadic outbreaks—every day new demonstrations against desegregation were staged, and every night, in front of some southern schools, a cross was burned."

What are the motives behind the 1954 Supreme Court decision? In 1950, when President Eisenhower was president of Columbia University, he commissioned an enquiry into manpower wastage. The report of this enquiry was published in a book written by Dr. Eli Ginzberg, director of the enquiry, entitled “The Negro Potential." Reporting the results of this enquiry under file title “Waste of Human Resources," The Manchester Guardian (15th May, 1955) said: “America’s 15,000,000 negroes are its single most under developed human resource, and they cannot reach their full potential usefulness until they are thoroughly integrated with the white population . . . The report said that if education for negroes was raised to the level of that now available for whites, the annual rate of negro high school and college graduates would be more than doubled . . .  It said that file record of negro troops in the war (1939-45) was less good than that of white troops. It attributed the difference to the handicaps brought from civilian life by the negro soldiers and the fact that they were segregated. It said that records of Korea, where negroes were integrated, showed a marked improvement." Quoting the report itself, The Manchester Guardian further said: “Only when negro and white families can live together as neighbours, when negro children and white children can play together, study together, go to the same church—only then will the negro grow up properly prepared for his place in the world of work” (Our italics.)

The results of this enquiry, which are bound to have influenced the thinking of men in high administrative positions, should be noted in conjunction with other facts. The conference of Southern Governors held in Alabama in 1955, was told that in 1900 the south had only 9 per cent. of the nation’s manufacturing facilities; now it has 25 per cent. In 1939 the south’s industrial output amounted to 11,000 million dollars; in 1955 it reached 60,000 million dollars. In the next ten years the south expects to build 10,000 new factories

What does all this mean?' It means that in conditions of general boom, when the southern States are expanding their industries fairly rapidly, because of prejudice and segregation, the southern negro lacks the modern cultural equipment necessary to his efficiency as an American wage worker. It means that the vast mass of human material in the shape of the southern negro is not being exploited to its full capacity. The issue is not one involving any “forces of progress,” and the New York Sunday Times (9th September) will only assist confusion when it claims that the issue is “the right to learn." The real issue is that Capitalism, in its further development, in its further consolidation, is being fettered by the prejudices of local southern opinion.

What then is the role being played by the pro-integrationists and reformists in the south? The end to which they work is the integration and consolidation of the American working class as a stereotyped, regularised social grouping, efficient to the highest degree, regardless of colour, creed or clan. They seek to make all American workers the mass products themselves of a mass production technique, known as the American education system. This education is the cultural priming that the mentality of the modern wage worker presupposes. It is geared to the demands of industry. It accomplishes much more than a working knowledge of the three r’s. It cultivates a nationalist sentiment, it inculcates the values and moral concepts that provide the solid ideological pillars supporting modern propertied society.

The word integration, within the context of this problem, is used narrowly to mean negro school children receiving the same education as white children within the same classroom. This may or may not be accomplished. What is certain is that capitalism cannot contain any truly integrative principle. Capitalism of necessity sets man against man in one way or another. Even if negro children did receive the same schooling as white children, it still would not make the process of education integrative, for the education system constantly selects and excludes. Its streams and channels are selective, and its examinations are designed to exclude rather than incorporate. The education that a child receives marks his handicap or his advantage in the race, which at the lowest level starts out from being a dustman’s son and finishes ideally in being a bank manager, or perhaps even a doctor. But this is “success," and “success” comes only to the few. Education is one of the ladders by which it can be reached. At the bottom of the ladder is the broad thick base of “failures," but with selection and exclusion, the ladder is narrowed down until at its topmost pinnacle we find those for whom initiative was a virtue. They made the grade. The worker is in constant competition with the worker next to him, competing for places to live, competing to get food, competing to get jobs, and competing to hold them. Any truly integrated social situation would have to be outside this narrow individualistic competition. Only the society functioning along lines of mutual co-operation and meeting the real needs of man as a whole can be truly integrative.

One thing surely will frustrate the southern integrationist’s hopes, and that is a slump or a margin of unemployed. With little point in taking up the negro labour .slack, surely the fervour of the Government's bent on educational integration will be cooled, and events have taught us that in such a case we should expect an intensification of race hatred. Such events should teach the white worker that he is a victim not of any “black menace," but a victim of the indiscriminate vicissitudes of a system which is not concerned with his true human needs. The “black menace” problem for the white worker is a myth, just as the hope that educational integration under capitalism will bring the negro worker happiness is also a myth. In fact, with each other’s help, they have a new world to win—Socialism.

P. K. L.

The Swindle of Nationalisation (1956)

From the November 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Address at a meeting held by Swansea Branch)

Comrades,

The subject for to-night’s consideration has been selected by the Branch with some thought as one of the most important questions of the day, particularly in this area of the Coal and Steel industries.

For many years before the 1950 Labour Government, the idea was widely held that if the Government took over an industry, then progress would be made to some future ideal.

This was evidently the case with trade unionists, as resolutions passed at many Trade Union Congresses show. The notion was abroad that by removing the often objectionable or notorious exploiters and replacing them by Government officials or managers, some improvement in the workers’ position would result. This idea can only occur to those ignorant of the wages system; coal miners or steel smelters still work for wages, whether paid by the Government or private employers.

Wage-labour remains the basis of production. Wages are the price of labour power, which is the stuff a worker sells to an employer—his energy. This stuff has a value corresponding to the cost (in hours) of production. Who pays wages? Those who own wealth. Who receives wages? Those who must work to live. When are wages paid? ONLY when the sale of the work they buy results in profit. Therefore, nationalised industries, run on wages, have to show a profit, just like "private" capital.

The next point is this: if some receive wages, others must pay them. Who can pay wages? Those who own wealth. They can employ others. These employers are owners of wealth, so that wages must mean classes, rich and poor—workers and idlers, or, as the Principles of of the Socialist Party declare, society is divided into two classes, one class possessing—the other producing.

By being owners these people are also rulers, they conserve their ownership by consent and force, if necessary. That is, in a world based on private ownership and profit, the owners dominate the Government. They are the real power behind the State.

We are told that today we have a “Welfare State"; “welfare’’ or not, it remains a “State." What is a State? No better definition has been given than Marx’s own: “ It is the executive committee of the capitalist class.” Please note that; the capitalist class as a whole.

The State is the machine of power which arose when conflicts between owners, or groups of owners, threatened the existence of organised society itself.

From the days of the ancient Greek City Republics and Imperial Rome, to Napoleonic France and Stalin’s Russia, this political machinery has been used to feather the nests of exploiters at the expense of the labourer. Sometimes it was a committee, sometimes a group, often a personal dictator, a Caesar, a Cromwell, a Bismarck, a Lenin, or a Hitler.

These "personal" States—whether of Persian kings of antiquity or rabble-rousers like Tito, are usually the most rabid and ruthless "Nationalisers" of all.

And the reason is obvious. The State exists to further the interests of the owners, not only by stopping one group of capitalists from reducing society to ashes, but also by providing services of value to capitalists’ businesses. Therefore, all those branches of industry which are of vital concern to most capitalists are the target of the Nationalises. Bismarck nationalised the German railways to get troops quickly to the French frontiers. Napoleon covered France with “Routes Nationals” to get armies on their way. Attlee nationalised coal mines to provide British capitalists with raw material. The Post Office, Docks, Electricity, Cables and Wireless occupy first places.

Some people claim that even if all this is true, it is still possible for the workers, fed up with private employers, to alter the position by Nationalisation in a democratic country. If the manager or director were replaced by trade union officials they think that these officials would then be subject to their control. This is nonsense.

The workers who wish to do this do not understand enough about the wages system. Workers cannot control wages—they can only abolish them.

Not understanding this, those workers vote for the Labour Party, which is committed to the maintenance of capitalism.

Nationalised concerns are expected to show a profit —they can only be capitalist. Whoever signs the order to close the pit is of little real consequence. What is important is the group the order is issued for—the capitalist; it is the same in Russian factories, or German railways, in Swiss electricity or the American postal service.

The nationalised industries must make profits for Bond holders instead of Shareholders.

Before the workers had undergone many years bitter experience of nationalisation, parties like the Labour Party (and also Lord Beaverbrook) made great play with some rubbish they called “public control of finance.” They included demands for the “Nationalisation” of the Bank of England in their election addresses and rashly promised to curb the wicked financiers. The actual nationalisation of the Bank of England has turned out to be as little momentous for the British worker as the question of which group of capitalists control the Suez Canal

Actually the Bank of England always has been controlled by Act of Parliament, and the investors who owned its capital. These investors had to satisfy the customers (the joint stock banks or Big Five). The Bank was always and still is the Government banker. 

When today the Treasury raises (borrows) money by issuing Treasury bills, it must pay interest on the loans. When .an investor buys Government bonds he receives interest which can only come from profit made by exploiting the workers.

When the Labour Government “socialised” the Bank of England, they bought out (compensated) the owners whose stock paid 12 per cent., by declaring a guaranteed rate of 3 per cent. interest and paying £4 for a £1 share, so that the former owners still got their 12 per cent.

The payment of interest by nationalised concerns can only come from profit it must be capitalism.

The demand for nationalisation, therefore, is not a demand for Socialism at all; but strong Capitalism.

Under Socialism—a system of society based on common ownership, there will be NO wages, classes, money, armies or State, but freedom, equality,

What then, would the Socialist say when faced with the widespread growth of nationalised capitalism in all countries, spreading now to India and China.

This is the normal development of Capitalism, which concentrates in fewer hands. The biggest band is the State. Let is be so. We can no more stop it than stop uranium turning to lead. In Frederick Engels words: 

“The modem State, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the State of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But brought to a head—it topples over.”

Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,

The solution is Socialism.

In the discussion which followed the question was raised as to whether, in spite of being still run by wage-labour, the South Wales coalfield had not improved working conditions under the Coal Board.

In answer to this, the chairman of the meeting cited the case of the pits at Gwaun-cae-Gurwen, where the whole population of the village had been threatened with destitution due to the Board's decision to close the pit if output did not increase.

A special group of the strongest men had been picked and told that the decision depended on them. They went down, ignored safety precautions, went without meal times, slept in their pit clothes, and slogged away. They were then told “Not good enough” and given two more weeks by the Board. Finally the Board agreed to keep the pit open for a further trial period. It was questionable whether the South Wales miner had ever been reduced to such a position in the past, with miners' officials egging them on and the local parson thanking God for the "miracle.”

The question of distribution without the payment of wages was raised, and the possibility of abuse of free consumption under Socialist.

A local resident from Loughor (Swansea) pointed out that fifty years ago there were no water mains there. When water pipes were laid, it was true that for a time people left taps running and took more water than they needed, but they “soon grew out of it."

The meeting also dealt with some anarchist objections to political action.

Horatio.

How a Russian factory is run (1956)

From the November 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

To those people who think that the status of the Soviet worker is different from that of hi British counterpart, or that the motive for production in the Soviet Union is not the same as in capitalist Britain, a recent article in the Soviet Weekly should dispel any illusions.

A certain Mr. Mick Akerman, chairman of the Finsbury Area Committee of the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers, asked the Soviet Weekly the question: “How is a Soviet clothing factory run?” And in the Soviet Weekly of September 20th, 1956, V. Segalov answered him. In his reply Segalov shows that, despite the fact that Russia is supposed to be a “Socialist” country, its factories are run on good, sound capitalist lines. Segalov gives as his example “ The Red Seamstress” clothing factory.

The Director

In the early days of the Soviet regime, in many factories the workers, through their “workers’ committees” or Soviets, appointed not only their foremen, but also their managers and directors. Even on ships of the Soviet Mercantile Marine the captain often took orders from the committee elected by the ship’s company. But within six months of the Revolution Lenin decreed that, there must be in every case a manager appointed by, and responsible to, the appropriate organ of the government. Still, for a long time the “workers’ committees” in the factories retained a large measure of control. Today the picture is a different one. As Segalov says: "The factory is managed by a director appointed by the Minister”; much in the same way as is done in nationalised industries elsewhere. The director’s duty, in a Soviet factory, is to fulfil the government’s production plan and to make the most effective use of the machinery and materials allocated to him.

The article by Segalov continues:

"He has complete control of the factory he is managing. He is the responsible head, and his orders are obligatory for the whole staff. He has two managerial assistants—the chief engineer and the assistant of business transactions."

Production Councils and Workers' Participation

The Production Council at the “Red Seamstress” factory is composed of seventeen people, chosen by the director from the engineers, technicians and foremen, and is headed by the chief engineer. Its main function is to examine technical problems, the introduction of new technology and mechanisation—and suggestions made by ordinary workers in the factory! And, says' Segalov, “On the basis of the council's recommendations the director makes a final decision in each case." The factory has three shops, each headed by a shop superintendent, who bears full responsibility for the fulfilment of the quota of goods that his shop must turn out during a given month.

The factory works in two shifts. Each shift in the main shops is headed by a chief foreman, and the foremen heading the different teams of between 25 and 40 workers are subordinate to their chief shift foreman.

“Before each shift the foreman holds a five-minute conference with his or her team, at which the workers are told about the day's quotas and production processes which should be the object of particular care.”

And if you think that the running of a Soviet factory is completely undemocratic, you are wrong. For the Soviet Weekly tells us that:

"The workers also have a say: they ask for clarifications or make their own suggestions." (!).

They also participate in regular production meetings arranged by the factory trade union committee in all shops. The object of these meetings is to get the workers to increase their productivity, and thereby to increase the profits.

Profits in the Soviet Factory

For those who think that the basis of production in the Soviet Union is a Socialist one—that is, production solely to satisfy human needs—be surprised to hear that u Profits make up an important factor in the production plan." And:

“Naturally,” writes Segalov, “the greater the economy in the consumption of textiles, the higher the labour efficiency, the better the management of the enterprise, the lower will be the production costs of each item and the higher the profits."

Part of the profits are turned over to the state budget and the balance remains at the manager’s disposal. “Out of the share of profits earmarked for the factory in 1955, many of the best workers and officials received bonuses." The article also tells us that the management paid for the accommodation of 400 workers in health and holiday centres—but does not tell us what proportion of the staff received these benefits.

The Function of the Trade Unions

Every year a collective agreement is negotiated between the management and the trade union. The draft agreement is discussed in the shops.

“After the draft has been discussed the factory trade union committee examines jointly with the management all the proposals made by the staff, and they draw up the final text, which is signed by the director and the chairman of the trade union committee."

But, of course, if the trade union or the workers themselves are not satisfied with the agreement, they cannot legally call a strike. Except for this, life in a Soviet factory is very much the same as it is in Britain or any other avowedly capitalist country, and has nothing in common with the administration of a factory—or anything else—in a Socialist society.

Peter E. Newell

SPGB Meetings (1956)

Party News from the November 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Noted:

'R. Coster' was the Party name for Robert Barltrop during his first stint of membership of the SPGB. The ILPer debating Coster/Barltrop, Frank Maitland, was an interesting political figure. It's worth checking out his obituary from the Revolutionary History website.

Voice From The Back: Kids and Capitalism (2008)

The Voice From The Back Column from the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Kids and Capitalism

The author of the Harry Potter books JK Rowling recently donated £1 million to the Labour Party because she thought they were doing more to solve the problem of child poverty than the Tories would. She obviously could have not seen the following news item. “Millions of children in the UK are living in, or on the brink of, poverty, a report claims. The Campaign to End Child Poverty says 5.5 million children are in families that are classed as ‘struggling’ – 98% of children in some areas. The campaign classes households as being in poverty if they are living on under £10 per person per day. … The Campaign to End Child Poverty is a coalition of more than 130 organisations including Barnardo’s, Unicef and the NSPCC. According to its research, there are 4,634,000 children in England living in low income families, 297,000 in Wales, 428,000 in Scotland and 198,000 in Northern Ireland. It says 174 of the 646 parliamentary constituencies in Britain have 50% or more of their child population in, or close to, the poverty line.” (BBC News, 30 September) JK Rowling may be a very good writer, but obviously she is not a great thinker.

Capitalist priorities

We live in a society where millions try to survive on a $1.25 a day, where children die for the lack of clean water and yet this society spends billions of dollars trying to find more efficient ways to kill people. The priorities of socialism would be to feed, clothe and shelter its citizens but capitalism has other priorities. “Top U.S. Army officials on Monday said a $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program managed by Boeing Co and SAIC Inc was ‘on budget, on track,’ but could see changes over time. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said the Army was going through a detailed review of 14 separate weapon systems included in the program to ensure that the technologies involved were on schedule. ‘We’re committed to Future Combat Systems. It’s just a question of adjusting as the world changes, and as the need changes,’ Army Secretary Pete Geren told reporters at the annual Association of the U.S. Army meeting. …The Army’s FCS program is a family of 14 manned and unmanned aerial and ground systems, tied together by communications and information links.” (Yahoo News, 6 October) Lots and lots of money to kill, bugger all for starving kids. That is how capitalism operates.

A Much Better Idea

Robert Reich, former US secretary of labour, commenting on the recent economic crisis showed that he understood that China was a capitalist country when he said “There are still only two kinds of capitalism. There’s authoritarian capitalism as in China and Singapore, and there’s democratic capitalism as in US and Europe. If there’s anyone out there who has a better idea, I’m sure the world would love to hear it.” (Newsweek, 13 October) If someone can get us Mr Reich’s address we will send him a subscription to the Socialist Standard so he can learn about the socialist alternative. Although we don’t think he would be too impressed, because we want to get rid of the exploitative system that gives him a privileged existence.

Putting his foot in it

Last year when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown outlined his annual budget speech with these words – “Britain’s growth will continue into its 60th and 61st quarter and beyond . . . Inflation has fallen from 3% to 2.8%, and will fall further this year to 2% . . . Looking ahead to 2008 and 2009 inflation will also be on target. And we will never return to the old boom and burst.” (quoted in Time, 13 October) He was warmly applauded by the Labour benches and praised by the press for his sagacity and prudence. What a difference a year makes. Inflation stands at about 4.7 percent, banks mortgage lenders have been taken over on the verge of bankruptcy and a deep economic recession looks likely. Capitalism is an anarchic, uncontrollable system. Boom and burst are the very foundation of capitalism. No doubt a future Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer will in turn pretend that he can control this mad profit system. Capitalism makes fools of the politicians who claim to be able to control it.

Another Reform of Capitalism?

When socialists see workers cram into buses and underground trains on their way to work, we often remark that if cattle were crammed into transport like that on their way to the slaughterhouse there would be a public outcry by Animal Rights groups. Workers are often treated worse than animals but this latest outburst against the working class takes a bit of beating. “An Australian politician has used his first speech to parliament to call for unemployed idlers to be stung with a cattle prod to get them to work. John Williams, a former truck driver, shearer, farmer and small business owner who only took his place in the Senate on July 1, said he had seen many people living on employment benefits who were ‘determined not to work’. ‘They are simply getting a free ride on behalf of tax payers of Australia and it is about time they received a touch on the backside with a cattle prodder to get them off their butts and actually do some work,’ he said.” (Yahoo News, 16 September) To use his fellow Australians use of the language – what a bahstard!

Pathfinders: Crisis? Which Crisis? (2008)

The Pathfinders Column from the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

A recent EU study headed by a Deutsche bank economist reveals that global economic loss through deforestation is vastly greater than economic loss through the current crisis in the world’s banks (Nature loss ‘dwarfs bank crisis’, BBC Online, 10 October). The study puts the estimated annual loss at between 2 and $5 trillion.

Graphs of consumption or growth trends almost all follow a hockey-stick trend, largely flat for a thousand years until 1900 and thereafter rising rapidly to nearly vertical today. These trends include consumption of water, paper, rainforest, ozone, fisheries, and increases of motor car production, population, CO2 and global temperature, and species extinction. Not surprisingly, the trend for GDP follows the same pattern.

This is capitalism’s normal modus operandi, regardless of banking crises. This relentless consumer-driven growth goes on year in year out, without respite, and the trends climb higher and higher with no end in sight. The world is burning itself out in an apparently unstoppable quest for economic growth, and nobody seems able to do anything about it.

Scientists can only do so much by reporting the facts. For instance, they can show that the Earth can sustainably support just 200 million people in a North American lifestyle, a figure which is not even large to account for North America’s present population. In answer to the much-loved argument that growth is the only way to lift the poor out of poverty, they can point to the fact that, during the 1990’s, the poor’s share of this growth was just 0.6 percent. According to this argument, for the poor to be even marginally better off, the rich have to become stupendously richer, so that “to get the poorest onto an income of just $3 per day would require an impossible 15 planets’ worth of bio-capacity” (New Scientist, 18 October).

Governments of course are very good at ignoring facts they don’t like. One scientist, Tim Jackson, professor of sustainable development at Surrey University, was accused by a UK treasury official of ‘wanting to go back and live in caves’. Herman Daly, formerly senior economist for the World Bank, describes how the first draft of its 1992 World Development Report contained a diagram showing the economy as a simple rectangle, with an arrow going into it, labelled ‘inputs’ and another coming out labelled ‘outputs’. When he pointed out that this implied that the inputs (resources etc) appeared to be coming from nowhere and the outputs (including waste) going nowhere, thus suggesting that the environment had infinite productive and absorptive capacities, the diagram was simply removed altogether from the draft. He remarks dryly that ‘mainstream economists are mostly concerned with the [economic] organism’s circulatory system … while tending to ignore its digestive system.” (New Scientist, ibid).

The problem is that when scientists, for all the right reasons, try to get political, they don’t seem to realise that they are in serious danger of reinventing wheels and using them to cycle over old ground. Worryingly, they show under-informed prejudices that any socialist can hear any night down their local boozer, to wit, that a global revolution against capitalism is utterly out of the question, and that even if it wasn’t, it would be utterly undesirable. Here’s Susan George on wealth ownership: 

“Must we organise world revolution … to save Earth? Is there a single point of attack? If so, tell me the name of the tsar… Nor would anyone welcome the political systems that shrouded those vast areas where revolution did occur. Somehow… we need a third way between red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalism and a worldwide uprising as unlikely as it is utopian.” 

Showing a similar knee-jerk horror of what he imagines socialism to be, Yale environmentalist Gus Speth: 

“I’m not advocating state socialism, but I am advocating a non-socialist alternative to today’s capitalism”, while Daly maintains that “shifting from growth to development doesn’t have to mean freezing in the dark under communist tyranny.” (New Scientist, ibid).

So, having written off as utopia or tyranny any possibility of an alternative to the capitalist system, they are driven of course to consider how best to modify the system from within.  What they are left with is a mishmash of reforms which have either been tried in the past (Keynesian inflationary investment), are even more utopian than the ‘utopians’ (scientists as technocrats dispensing orders to the wealth class), or contradict the internal boom-slump logic of capitalism (zero-growth ‘steady state’ capitalism), or would bankrupt by capital flight any country which first introduced them (various taxes). At best, the reforms wouldn’t work. At worst, they could accelerate armageddon. If capitalism really could be run more equitably and sustainably, don’t they imagine that it would already be running that way? No, they don’t. They just seem to think that the correct solutions have somehow eluded the rest of us because we’re not as smart as they are.

Still, all in all, it is undoubtedly a good thing that scientists are turning their attention to the question of free-market capitalism. They do at least have more credibility than politicians, priests or pop-idols, and one can only hope they don’t squander it by failing to sort through their various ill-conceived assumptions and prejudices. After all, that’s what the scientific method is supposed to be all about. The worst and most absurd assumption of all was always that science was somehow above politics, and that seems to be changing. What scientists need to do now however is recognise that they are latecomers to the political and economic debate, and that it is unhelpful to cloud the issues with careless ignorance of genuine socialist ideas, or to promote unworkable and possibly dangerous solutions which ignore capitalism’s known behaviour. Most of all, they would do well to recognise the importance of class in the debate, and their own class position as workers. If they don’t do that, they are always going to be so far behind other workers that they think they’re in the lead.

Paddy Shannon

The Russian Revolution recalled (2008)

From the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Even 90 years after the Russian revolution there are still some who claim that the event shines as a beacon for socialism. We were able to say at the time that whatever was happening in Russia it was not a socialist revolution.

In August 1918 the Socialist Standard pointed out that, while there were industrial towns in Russia, the country was largely agricultural with about 80 per cent of the population still living on the land. The answer to the question whether “this huge mass of people” (about 160 million), which indeed included some industrial and agricultural wage slaves, was “convinced of the necessity and equipped with the knowledge requisite for the social ownership of the means of life?” was “No!”; beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claimed to be Marxian socialists there was no justification for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution.

Our analysis of the situation was based upon Marx’s definition of capitalism as a relation of wage-labour and capital and on the conditions necessary for that relation to be ended and replaced by socialism. Before “the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production”, as the Communist Manifesto put it, can happen, there must be a sufficient development of the productive forces, and the class which has to sell its labour power in order to live – the working class – must fully understand what is involved and be ready to take the necessary political action.

The conditions envisaged by Marx to be necessary for the ending of capitalism and establishing socialism did not exist in Russia in 1917, so why have the events been claimed as socialist?

Russia in 1917

The country had suffered huge losses during the war against the more heavily industrialised Germany, the economy was in a mess and there were food riots. The Tsar had been forced to abdicate in March 1917 – while both Lenin and Trotsky were out of the country – and the situation was confused. There was a provisional government which included capitalist and landowning representatives. In July Kerensky became leader with support from the Committee of the Duma (the Russian parliament) but with increasing support from the councils of Workers and Soldiers – the Soviets. However he continued with the war despite its unpopularity.

There was widespread discontent with soldiers, workers and peasants reacting against the adverse conditions, which the Bolsheviks were able to take advantage of the discontent. They gained control of the Soviets using slogans like “All power to the Soviets”, and crucially “Peace! Bread! Land!” In other words, this was what the war-weary, hungry workers and peasants wanted – they were not after socialism. That there was not a majority ready for socialism would not have concerned Lenin. The situation fitted his vanguard theory that the working class by its own efforts is only able to develop trade union consciousness and needs to be led by professional revolutionaries. There were enormous difficulties including the backward state of the country and the civil war; also the expected uprisings in other European countries did not take place. The development of capitalism was all that could happen and the Bolsheviks as the new rulers would have no choice but to do their best to aid it.

That it was a minority revolution is illustrated by the way in which Lenin dealt with the political situation. The All-Russia Soviet Congress had met in November 1917 and had passed resolutions in favour of peace, ending landowners’ rights to possession of the land, and the setting up of a ‘workers and peasants’ government, headed by Lenin and dominated by the Bolsheviks, pending the election of a democratic ‘constituent assembly’.

However when the Constituent Assembly was elected the Bolsheviks did not have a majority and it was dissolved. Trotsky’s excuses for this are instructive – the election had taken place too soon after “the October Revolution” and news of what had taken place spread only slowly. “The peasant masses in many places had little notion of what went on in Petrograd and Moscow. They voted for ‘land and freedom’”. Precisely, for that, not socialism. So, not only did the Bolshevik takeover not have majority support, majority support for socialism not present either.

By the middle of 1918 the Communist Party (as the Bolsheviks were now called) had firmly established its dictatorship and freedom of the press and assembly were restricted. The All-Russia Soviet Congress had ostensibly taken all power to itself but this was a façade. The Congress elected the 200 members of the Central Executive Committee but the credentials of delegates to the Congress were verified by Communist Party officials. Lenin claimed that what he called “Soviet Socialist Democracy” was “in no way inconsistent with the rule and dictatorship of one person; that the will of the class is at times best served by a dictator” and this was approved by the Central Executive Committee in 1918 (Martov The State and the Socialist Revolution, p.31).

Labour discipline

Raising the productivity of labour was a priority. In an address before the Soviets in April 1918 (The Soviets at Work) Lenin declared that not only was it necessary to halt ‘the offensive against capitalism’, they also had to employ capitalist methods which included strict discipline at work. They should immediately introduce piece work and measures which “combine the refined cruelty of bourgeois exploitation and valuable attainments in determining correct methods of work.” The previously stated aim of equal wages for all was abandoned and a “very high remuneration for the services of the biggest of the bourgeois specialists” was agreed. State control was seen as the “means to establish the control and order formerly achieved by the propertied classes” and he chided those who considered the “introduction of discipline into the ranks of the workers a backward step”.

In January 1920 the Bolshevik government abolished the power of workers’ control in factories and installed officials who were instructed by Moscow and given controlling influence. Democratic forms in the army had also been abolished.

The need to use capitalist methods to control and discipline workers in order to increase production, illustrates the absence of the absolute pre-requisite for socialism – the conscious participation of the majority of the working class.

State capitalism

In 1921 the Bolshevik government adopted a New Economic Policy. In proposing it Lenin argued that permitting some private industry and allowing peasants to keep surpluses were not dangerous for socialism. “On the contrary, the development of capitalism under the control and regulation of the proletarian state (in other words ‘state’ capitalism of this peculiar kind) is advantageous and necessary in an extremely ruined and backward peasant smallholder country…in so far as it is capable of immediately improving the state of peasant agriculture.”

Our criticism of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks is not that they did not achieve what was not possible at the time, i.e. socialism. It is rather that they adjusted theory to suit the circumstances: seeing the necessity for capitalist development they claimed that state-monopoly capitalism was socialism. In Can The Bolsheviks retain State Power? Lenin wrote about the “big banks” as the “state apparatus” needed to bring about socialism. “A single state bank…will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus”.

It was also Lenin who said in The State and Revolution in August 1917 that the first phase of communism was usually called socialism, when Marx made no such distinction between the terms. (In the 1888 Preface Engels refers to the Communist Manifesto as the most international of all Socialist literature). In Marx’s conception of the first phase of communism there was still common ownership, an end to buying and selling, and no money. (Marx mentions the possibility of labour time vouchers despite their obvious drawbacks). What happened in Russia did not qualify even as a “first phase of communism”.

Contemporary Trotskyists still call their aim of state capitalism socialism. The former Militant Tendency (now called SPEW) think that nationalising 150 big corporations would express in today’s language the demand in the Communist Manifesto for the “abolition of private property”. They also support Lenin’s vanguard theory that a revolutionary minority can by their leadership turn protest movements into a ‘socialist’ revolution. So it is hardly surprising that they claim the events in Russia in 1917 to have been a socialist revolution, blaming the backward state of the country, civil war and Stalin for what went wrong.

Both Lenin and Trotsky thought that democracy was not appropriate to their situation. Having taken power in a minority revolution they had to rule by force. This included the use of secret police – the Cheka. Trotskyists excuse Lenin’s red terror on the grounds that it was the outcome of civil war necessity, likewise with the measures taken to deal with the problems of production. However, it was precisely the conditions and the absence of a majority for socialism that made capitalism the inevitable outcome.

The rule of Lenin supported by Trotsky paved the way for Stalin. The legacy of the Russian Revolution, of Lenin and Trotsky, is that socialism/communism has come to be identified with state capitalism. It was not a victory for the working class, but a tragedy since it brought socialism into disrepute and diverted attention away from the vital need to reject capitalism in whatever form.

Pat Deutz

Letters: My Cupboard is Bare (2008)

Letters to the Editors from the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

My Cupboard is Bare

 Dear Editors,

Gordon Brown was said to be a great economist. Whatever model he used to predict an end to boom-and-bust capitalism was wrong, however. His thinking was worse than one who thinks-not. Recently he stated that Labour were committed to reducing poverty at the same time as he doubled the income-tax burden on the poorest earners in society. In Manchester he said this was a “mistake”. Are we to take it that the man is simply an idiot? No, he is not an idiot, but a man is revealed by his work. Like most in his position his primary interest is in the retention of power and privilege. The working-poor, whose income-tax he doubled, do not bother voting, (as he knows) for we, the low-paid, realise that there is no-one worth voting-for.

There is no important difference for us, the drivers of buses, the cleaners of houses, the makers of windows, the maintainers of property, the workers in offices, all the low-paid working-men and women of this country, between the Labour and Conservative Parties. What politicians call spin we call bullshit and we want no part of it. Middle-England, on middle incomes, voted Labour into power, and for that voting-base income-tax was reduced in an attempt to retain support for Labour. The books were balanced at the expense of the worst-off, without risk of making the Labour Party worse-off. It was no “mistake”, but rather a ploy so transparent that at the next election even fewer of the ordinary hard-working women and men of this country will bother to vote. The real “mistake” made was that of a government without ideology which assumes those of us who vote-not, think-not.

The front page of the Guardian (30 September) reported that “opposition from ordinary Americans killed the bill” to bail-out their failing banks. Over here, we are repeatedly told by the chancellor that the economic cupboard is bare. This is certainly true of my cupboard. Yet the cupboards in the homes, second homes and yachts of those who have caused and profited-from the banking crisis overflow. If the British government makes yet another “mistake” of having ordinary hard-working British citizens bail-out British banks and the greedy millionaires who helped cause the problem it will be one mistake too far and I for one may be looking to my pitchfork rather than the ballot-box. Somehow I do not think I will be alone.

Stephen Haigh, 

Barnsley.

 

Reply:

We trust that your threat to use your pitchfork rather than your vote is just poetic licence. – Editors.

Language

Dear Editors

I read with interest your article on Belgium (September Socialist Standard). It is also of interest to socialists to note how the ruling classes in Belgium used and in some instances continue to us language to divide and rule. By forcing the majority of Flemish (Dutch) speakers to speak French in education matters and totally ignoring the small minority of German speakers in the East around Eupen they managed to get workers at each others throats just by virtue of the fact that they spoke a different language.

Whether socialist society decides to use English, Spanish, Chinese, Esperanto or any other language as a means of communicating with places which speak a different language will be entirely a matter for the people concerned to decide and will not be imposed by the ruling classes. What is for sure is that in socialism all people will be free to speak and learn whichever language(s) they chose. And I dare venture to say that the enjoyment and pleasure gained by learning a new language because you choose to will be immense compared e.g. to the occupants of a country being forced to learn and/or use the language of someone else choice e.g. British colonies being forced to speak English, state capitalist occupied Czechoslovakia being forced to learn Russian or Hungarian speakers in current Romania being forced to speak Romanian in the Ceaucescu state capitalist dictatorship.

Of course some people in socialism may choose to speak only their own native language(s) and rely on a phrase book if they decide to travel, what is for sure is that that will be a personal choice rather than one forced by economic necessity as in capitalism e.g. Polish speakers being forced to speak and learn English if they want to work in the UK (economic migrants). Of course in socialism people will be free to choose where they want to live and work but that choice will be a matter of personal preference rather than economics driven.

Language of course also plays a part in that scourge of the working classes, religion. Much of the church’s hang up about sex probably derives from young lady being erroneously translated as virgin at some point in history. Also they were as thorough as any East German Stasi thug in preventing information getting to where it could harm them. People were burned at stake for the “crime” of publishing or possessing bibles in the English language at a time when literacy was not widespread. So afraid were they that the bible should be stripped of its mystique if common people who didn’t speak Latin could read it in their own patois.

Colin Brown, 

Grantham

What revolution? (2008)

Book Review from the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘The Communist Manifesto’, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Introduction by David Harvey, Pluto Press, 2008. £7.99.

The publisher’s blurb on the back says: “This book truly changed the world, inspiring millions to revolution.” Unfortunately, this is not true: this book has not changed the world, nor has it inspired millions to revolution. The Manifesto of the Communist Party (to give it its original title) has been republished many times since its first publication in 1848. And now, 160 years later, in this edition it has a new Introduction by David Harvey. The Manifesto needs to be understood in its historical context, in order to sift out the immediate demands of 1848 from its timeless communist content. Marx and Engels emphasised this point in their 1872 Preface where they argued that already part of the Manifesto dealing with immediate demands (at the end of Section Two) had become “antiquated”, a point which was repeated in the 1888 Preface.

Harvey acknowledges this point but then goes on to claim that some of these immediate demands – such as free education for all children in state schools, a heavy progressive or graduated income tax – are still “wholly sensible proposals … to rid ourselves of the appalling social and economic inequalities that now surround us”. But that was then and this is now: however progressive those reforms appeared then, it is clear now that reforms of capitalism do not reduce social and economic inequalities. Harvey argues that eradicating class privilege requires an organised association of workers backed by democratic control of the state, and then adds in brackets “this is as far as the Manifesto goes”. But this is untrue: in the paragraphs preceding the immediate demands the Manifesto calls for the revolutionary “communistic abolition of buying and selling” and other specifically communist demands. Astonishingly, Harvey has nothing to say about this.

Harvey refers to the collapse after 1989 of “actually existing communisms” without irony and asserts that the former Soviet Union succumbed to “capitalist counter-revolution”. But there is nothing in the Manifesto which would warrant such claims. The Soviet Union and similar regimes did not institute the abolition of buying and selling and are best characterised as state capitalist dictatorships over the proletariat. Harvey has an online course “Reading Marx’s Capital” (http://davidharvey.org/), but in this Introduction he alleges that crises can be brought about through underconsumption (lack of effective demand), an economics theory which Marx emphatically rejected. Harvey’s Introduction is very disappointing, but the Manifesto itself is still an inspiring read.

Lew Higgins

Pieces Together: Baby, it's cold inside (2008)

The Pieces Together column from the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Baby, it's cold inside

“The number of households in fuel poverty in the UK rose to 3.5 million in 2006, government figures show. The figures from the Department for Environment and the Department for Business show this is an increase of one million on 2005 levels. Fuel poverty is defined as households who spend more than 10% of their income on fuel. The Unite union said thousands more people are likely to suffer from fuel poverty this winter. The figures include around 2.75 million homes classed as “vulnerable” – containing a child, elderly person or someone with a long-term illness. The number of homes in fuel poverty in England rose from 1.5 million in 2005 to 2.4 million in 2006, including an extra 700,000 vulnerable households.” (BBC News, 2 October)

Got it?, Flaunt it

“While most of us are tightening our belts, they are planning to increase spending, taking advantage of the falling price of everything from property to private jets. About 80% of those worth £50m or more plan to spend more this year, according to a survey by the US-based wealth analysts Prince & Associates. Take Al Waleed. The small fortune he dropped on the Airbus is, it turns out, pocket change. The 53-year-old recently bought the Savoy hotel in London for £250m and is spending a further £100m giving the grande dame of the Thames the kind of makeover that would make Demi Moore blush. He is also doing up his other favourite five-star bolt holes, the George V in Paris and the Plaza in New York. But there’s no place like home. His £500m palace in Riyadh is constantly being remodelled and enlarged. At the last count it had 317 rooms, including 20 kitchens that can cater for up to 1,000 people.” (Times, 21 September)

World hunger worsens

“Global numbers afflicted by acute hunger rose from 850 million to 925 million by the start of this year because of rising prices, the head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation said Wednesday. The number of people suffering from malnutrition, before the worst effects of global price rises, ‘rose just in 2007 by 75 million,’ Jacques Diouf, director-general of the Rome-based agency, told an Italian parliament committee, according to ANSA news agency. An FAO prices index showed global food price rises of 12 percent in 2006, 24 percent in 2007 and 50 percent over the first eight months of 2008, Diouf added – suggesting the number affected is likely to top one billion by the end of the year. ‘Thirty billion dollars per year must be invested to double food production and eliminate hunger,’ Diouf said, calling the figure ‘modest’ in comparison with the amount many countries spend on arms and agriculture.” (Yahoo News, 17 September)

A Frightening Future

“Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures. The new estimate, which the Pentagon plans to release shortly before President Bush leaves office, would serve as a marker for the new president and is meant to place pressure on him to either drastically increase the size of the defense budget or defend any reluctance to do so, according to several former senior budget officials who are close to the discussions.” (CQ Today, 9 October)

Fighting for Profit (2008)

Book Review from the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘War PLC’, by Stephen Armstrong. Faber and Faber £14.99.

In a world of privatisation and globalisation, it is perhaps only to be expected that combat and security activities should also be outsourced. Private military companies are being increasingly used to guard both people and places.

Oil companies, for instance, are starting to set up their own private armies. Aramco is establishing a security force to protect oil and gas fields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia, while the Russian parliament has given permission for gas and oil companies to raise corporate armies of their own. But for the most part it is a matter of private companies that hire their employees out to corporations and governments, companies like Sandline and Blackwater. The latter has its own vast training camp in North Carolina and possesses helicopter gunships and armoured personnel carriers.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has fuelled the growth in private military companies. In 2006 there were 100,000 private contractors (as they’re called) in Iraq, and Donald Rumsfeld regarded them as an official part of the US war machine. They have increasingly taken on combat roles, and in September last year a Blackwater convoy killed seventeen Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.

Contracting out security tasks supposedly frees up government soldiers to do more actual fighting, though the private forces are, as just seen, getting more involved in combat operations. It is also claimed that they perform a useful service because new states may not at first have properly organised armed forces of their own. They also mean big profits for their owners, partly brought about by hiring cheap labour from Latin America, including former thugs from Pinochet’s Chile. And like other companies, they are concerned about their image: one boss interviewed here says, ‘Even though it was making us lots of money at the time, we took a view of Iraq and the margins and felt it was dragging our brand down.’

If any contractor is killed or injured, the company employing them will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying compensation. The soldier’s family will find their struggle made far more difficult by the complex web of ownership: a person from country X, fighting in Y for a company based in Z but officially registered elsewhere.

Making a profit from war is perhaps the ultimate expression of the profit motive. Armstrong’s book gives a good account of these developments, though notes and/or references would have made it more useful. And the publishers have a nerve charging this much for a 250-page paperback that doesn’t even have an index.

Paul Bennett

Cooking the Books: M – C – M’ (2008)

The Cooking the Books column from the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

The person who wrote the editorial in the Times of 17 September must have had their dictionary of quotations handy. At the end of the editorial, entitled “Crisis and Capitalism” and which argued that “the Lehman collapse shows, paradoxically, that the mechanisms of the market are working. What is not needed now is government intervention”, they tagged on a quote from Marx:

“Capital is money, capital is commodities . . . By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at least, lays golden eggs”.

The relevance of this quote is not clear but the editorialist seems to see it as a justification for leaving the capitalists – described as “rational actors in the marketplace” – alone in case they stop creating new value, stop laying golden eggs. Marx of course never held that it was capitalists who create new value. He identified the source of capital’s “occult ability” to increase itself as the exploitation of the unpaid labour of the workers capitalists employed. It was their labour that added value to the original money capital. They were the ones that laid the golden eggs.

The quotation is taken from Chapter IV of Volume I of Capital on “The General Formula of Capital”. The formula for the simple exchange of commodities, Marx explained, is C – M – C. A person starts with a particular commodity (C), sells it, i.e. converts it into money (M), which they then use to buy a different commodity, some use-value they need. In other words, they sell in order to buy.

Under capitalism, Marx went on, the aim is rather to buy in order to sell, M – C – M, but this is pretty pointless if you are just going to end up with the same amount of money as you started with. So, in fact, the aim under capitalism is not just to buy in order to sell, but to buy in order to sell at a higher price, to end up with more money than you originally had, or M – C- M‘:

“More money is withdrawn from circulation at the finish than was thrown into it at the start. The cotton that was bought for £100 is perhaps resold for £100 + £10 or £110. The exact form of this process is therefore M-C-M’, where M’ = M + ⌂M = the original sum advanced, plus an increment. This increment or excess over the original value I call ‘surplus-value.’ The value originally advanced, therefore, not only remains intact while in circulation, but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itself. It is this movement that converts it into capital.”

Marx commented in a passage the Times could have quoted more relevantly:

“As the conscious representative of this movement, the possessor of money becomes a capitalist. His person, or rather his pocket, is the point from which the money starts and to which it returns. The expansion of value, which is the objective basis or main-spring of the circulation M-C-M, becomes his subjective aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist, that is, as capital personified and endowed with consciousness and a will. Use-values must therefore never be looked upon as the real aim of the capitalist, neither must the profit on any single transaction. The restless never-ending process of profit-making alone is what he aims at. This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange-value, is common to the capitalist and the miser; but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser. The never-ending augmentation of exchange-value, which the miser strives after, by seeking to save his money from circulation, is attained by the more acute capitalist, by constantly throwing it afresh into circulation.”

So, the capitalist – or whoever personifies capital, these days, the top executives of capitalist firms – is more a “rational miser” rather than a “rational actor in the marketplace” (who, presumably, would go for C – M – C). Not that “the appropriation of more and more wealth in the abstract” can be described as rational. Doubly irrational is the behaviour of finance traders who think that golden eggs can be laid independently of the “occult” activity of production.