Life & Times: To park or not to park? (2024)

The Life and Times column from the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

The street I live on has reserved parking for residents. This should mean there’s a place for me to park my car outside or near my house. Until relatively recently, that was always the case. But lately things have changed and now it can be difficult for me to find a place anywhere on the street meaning that sometimes I have to drive around nearby streets looking for (and not always finding) a space not reserved for residents. What’s going on?

Well, first of all there’s an increasing number of families in the area with more than just one car and then more and more students from the local University living in the area are turning up in cars. In the past they would get booked by wardens for parking outside their rented accommodation, but now they’ve twigged that, if they get their logbook changed to their student address, they’re entitled to a parking permit.

Cars, cars, cars

But over and above all this there’s simply an ever-increasing number of vehicles on the road. That’s a function both of the fact that more and more people find them a convenient way to get from one place to the other and also that they’re being used to transport the increasing number of goods of all description that people are ordering online. How long can this continue?

How many more vehicles can roads, both local and long distance, take before log jams of vehicles become even more frequent than they are already and, as a matter of course, the number of vehicles looking to park exceeds the number of places available. Can anything be done about it? The answer to this question has to be not very much. There have been some attempts by government and other authorities to cope, such as additional motorway lanes or charges for entering certain areas. But measures like these, apart from being limited in scope, often give rise to further problems, for example the obvious danger to road users caused by the removal of hard shoulders to accommodate extra motorway lanes.

I know the objection will be raised that the writer of this article, as a self-confessed car owner, is part of the problem. Which up to a point I accept, but I also know I’d be happier with travel arrangements that didn’t push me to jump into the car to get from A to B but instead provided an easy communal means of transport – something that only exists to a small and erratic extent in the production for profit system we live under.

Growth, growth, growth

In fact, when looked at in the context of how things work in general, the car situation can be seen as something of an emblem of capitalist production as a whole, that is the system’s imperative to produce ever increasing numbers and kinds of goods with a view to profit regardless of social advisability or longer-term consequences. In the recent general election, a watchword of all the major parties was ‘growth’, something always projected as desirable since it evokes an increase in wealth or prosperity that will somehow make people better off or happier. At bottom of course that tends not to happen, since ‘growth’ has no power to overcome or even tame all the other negative factors arising from the unpredictability of the system we live under (eg, inflation, job reorganisation, unemployment, recession, war).

Though, in their everyday lives, most people illustrate in countless ways by their actions and attitudes that they’d rather cooperate with others than compete against them, the pervading dog-eat-dog ethic that informs the way the capitalist system works and dictates the drive for ‘growth’ forces producers to compete against one another to get their products on the market and sold to buyers – very often regardless of any intrinsic necessity.

In the UK, for example, there are more than enough houses and other forms of accommodation to satisfy everyone’s need for shelter and decent accommodation, yet many people go homeless or poorly accommodated while properties are left empty and more houses continue to be built. And, to return to transport, there are large masses of cars that are little used by their owners or lie on garage forecourts, while more and more are produced each year adding, as this article began by saying, to the problem of finding places to park them.

Control?

How can all this be brought under control? Quite simply it can’t – at least not under the buying and selling imperative of capitalism, whose only urge is to continue to produce more so that profit can continue to be made by that tiny minority of people who own the means to produce – we would call them the capitalist class. Or rather, it all could be brought under control, but only, if we, the vast majority forced to sell our energies for a wage or salary to an employer, were to opt via democratic political action to establish a different kind of society – one of voluntary cooperation, of production for use not profit, and of free access to all goods and services based on the principle of from each according to ability to each according to need. Such a society would have and would need – I venture to speculate – far fewer cars than the present one. Nor would there be a shortage of places to park them.

Howard Moss

Pathfinders: Lions and lionesses (2024)

The Pathfinders Column from the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

High drama last month as the England team lost in the European Championship football final, and the press agonised about ‘heartbreak’ and ‘devastation’ amid photo spreads of downcast faces and slumped shoulders. ‘Everyone was truly gutted’, said one player. Well, perhaps gutted is the wrong word. Gutted is being made redundant, or homeless, or being turned down for an operation, or having to face a Job Centre inquisition or go to a food bank three times a week. These affable young men get paid around £200,000 a week, while their manager earns £5m a year. The poor lambs will no doubt get over their melancholy.

The press were inconsolable though. How much longer does England have to wait for a Euro or World Cup title, they sobbed. It’s been 58 years!

But wait, what about when England won the European Championship in 2022? Don’t the women count? Oh dear, this is awkward. The women’s game is not the same, you see. There are even those who mutter that women don’t really play football, they play at football. Perhaps those critics don’t realise that women’s football used to be hugely popular and drawing crowds of 50,000 until it was summarily banned by the all-male FA in 1921, supposedly for being too unladylike, but really for eating into the FA’s profits. Even today there’s a built-in bias. At a UK average height of 5’3″, women have to play on the same standard pitches with the same goalmouths as average 5’9″ men, meaning that they have to work harder than men to play the same game (tinyurl.com/mrxvxyzw).

As a reminder, England’s women managed to do what its ‘young lions’ couldn’t do in two generations, beating Germany to the title in front of a mixed stadium crowd of 87,000 ecstatic, flag-waving patriotic loonies. Now there’s nothing but silence and collective amnesia. 58 years, wails the press. The women ‘lionesses’ who held up the trophy to that deafening applause must view all this in bafflement. “Er, hello… hello?”

But seriously, some women have bigger things to worry about than equality on the pitch, like getting a post-footy kicking from violent spouses. A 2013 Women’s Aid survey showed a rise of 38 percent in domestic violence incidents when England lost a major game. And, tragic but true, they’re not even safe when the match goes the other way. A 2022 report from the Warwick Business School notes a 47 percent increase in domestic violence whenever England wins a World Cup or Euro match.

The Independent quotes one woman: ‘So now I don’t follow any football, my fiancé is not into football and if I’m being honest I don’t think I ever would have got with somebody who had a big interest in football because it’s just left me scarred and for me it was just filled with fear, and fear of what mood he was going to come home in, and just walking on eggshells.’ To underline the message, Women’s Aid took the Baddiel and Skinner Three Lions song tag ‘Football’s coming home’ and turned it into the darkly sinister ‘He’s coming home’.

Women aren’t the only ones who need fear the outcome of football matches. Many sports fans, watching the England side’s successful five-out-of-five spot kicks against Switzerland in the quarter-final penalty shootout, will have remembered the sickening racism following the failure of three players (all of them black) to score in a similar shootout against Italy in 2021. The three players endured hideous online abuse that resulted in a police investigation and 11 arrests. Tory politicians including the Home Secretary Priti Patel duly weighed in with official condemnation, after having previously scoffed at the England team ‘taking the knee’ in support of Black Lives Matter, describing the action as wokism and ‘gesture politics’. Justifiably incensed, footballer Tyrone Mings scored a sizzling counter-strike on Twitter: ‘You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’ and then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against, happens’.

And indeed it did happen. A study by a number of universities showed a 30 percent rise in racial hate crimes in London in the weeks following that match. The researchers were interested to know if such ‘trigger events’ caused increased incidents generally, or in a more uneven and localised way. In fact the increases were seen most in boroughs already known for such violence: ‘This supports the assumption that trigger events do not have a homogenous effect on societies, but rather reinforce existing attitudes.’ Well no surprise there. Guns only shoot people if they’re already loaded. One scrap of positive news is that the reverse might have some effect too: ‘The Egyptian-born, Muslim striker “Mo” Salah joined Liverpool FC in 2017, which, according to a different study, led to a significant decrease in Islamophobic violence and attitudes in the city’ (tinyurl.com/y248y54t).

People who follow sport but not politics might believe the one has nothing to do with the other. But sport is political, and politics is often sport. Many stayed up late, or indeed all night, to watch the 4 July general election results come in, as the micro-dramas including the toppling of ‘big beasts’ made for compulsive viewing. Arguably Britain’s first-pass-the-post electoral system is better understood as a championship sporting event than as any serious and legitimate exercise in democracy. And just like a sport, everyone knows it makes no real difference who wins. Monday morning, it’s back to the same old slog.

And that slog is capitalism, the enslavement of the vast majority by a tiny bunch of super-rich crooks. There’s a way to beat that rigged game, but only if the world’s disempowered workers stop growling at each other, and start working as a team with a serious common goal. Let the lions and lionesses come together. Their roar would shake the world.

Paddy Shannon

Cooking the Books: Some reformists never learn (2024)

The Cooking the Books column from the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

When, after losing the European elections to the National Rally (formerly the Front National), Macron called a snap election, the politicians regrouped to contest it. On the left, the hard-left breakaway from the ‘Parti Socialiste’ France Unbowed, the Communist Party, the Greens and the PS itself formed a New Popular Front (NFP) which emerged as the largest group in the National Assembly.

In an article in the Guardian (2 July), Julia Cagé and Thomas Piketty (yes, him) described its economic policy and the logic behind it. They wrote of its:

‘ambitious policies to improve the purchasing power of poor and lower-middle-class people. These reforms include a substantial increase in the minimum wage, wages indexed to prices and free school lunches. Most importantly the NFP wants to prioritise investment in the future by increasing public spending on infrastructure – throughout the country, including in isolated rural areas – as well as in health, education and research’.

The two are co-authors of a book about elections in France since 1789 in which they concluded that it was people in small towns and rural areas that tended to vote far-right ‘first and foremost because of socio-economic concerns: they lack purchasing power, they suffer most from the lack of investment in public infrastructure’, adding ‘and they feel that they have been abandoned by governments of all stripes in recent decades’. Hence the rise of the far-right.

This seems plausible enough; it’s unlikely to be just because they want to kick immigrants out or stop more coming in (that’s only the false solution proposed by the far-right). Cagé and Piketty reckon that, if the parties of the left increase purchasing power and spending on public infrastructure they can win people away from the ex-Front National.

An increase in people’s purchasing power through higher and indexed wages and benefits and more government spending on public services and amenities is all very well but where is the money to come from? Ultimately, there is only one source: the profits of business enterprises. But the pursuit of profits is what drives the capitalist economy and if you tax them too much to redistribute income to the ‘poor and lower-middle-class’ or to pay for first class health care and education that will provoke an economic slowdown, making this unsustainable. That’s the way capitalism works and can only work: by giving priority to profits over satisfying people’s needs. Despite the political slogan, profits cannot be put before people.

The last time this was tried in France was in 1981 after Mitterrand was elected President and a government including the Communist Party came into office. In June the new government increased people’s purchasing power by putting up the minimum wage, pensions, family allowances and housing benefit but the result was a disastrous failure compared to which what happened under Truss was a storm in a teacup.

The increase in benefits had been paid for by recourse to the printing press; as a result, the internal price level in France got out of line with the international level. The franc was devalued in October and again in June 1982. By this time, the government had learned the lesson that if you are in office under capitalism you must respect its economic laws, and rowed back on its reforms, giving priority instead to trying to revive the profits of business enterprises and adopting a policy of ‘rigueur’ regarding wages and benefits. In March 1983 the franc had to be devalued for a third time.

While, to judge by the programme of the NFP, reformists in France have not learned by their previous failures to improve people’s lives by increasing their purchasing power, reformists in Britain have. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer here is skipping trying to do this and going straight to the ‘rigueur’ stage, called here fiscal responsibility.

Material World: The politics of envy (2024)

The Material World column from the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

In capitalism, the basic marker or criterion of status is material wealth. The more wealth you can accumulate and display, relative to your peers, the more status you attract. The same goes for them. We are talking, in other words, of a zero-sum game. Crudely speaking, if Jane’s accumulated material wealth increases and overtakes John’s, then her status in the eyes of society will rise while his will fall.

In principle, as long as there is somebody wealthier than you in our present-day society, the motivation to accumulate more wealth, and hence more status, remains. This is not quite as far-fetched as it might seem. Even among the super-rich who have absolutely no reason to want for anything, ‘making comparisons’ can become an all-consuming obsession.

George Monbiot refers to one of their ilk – a Saudi prince by the name of Alwaleed – who was the subject of an article published by Forbes magazine in March 2013. Let Monbiot’s words speak for themselves:

‘According to one of the prince’s former employees, the Forbes global rich list “is how he wants the world to judge his success or his stature.” The result is “a quarter-century of intermittent lobbying, cajoling and threatening when it comes to his net worth listing.” In 2006, the researcher responsible for calculating his wealth writes, “when Forbes estimated that the prince was actually worth $7 billion less than he said he was, he called me at home the day after the list was released, sounding nearly in tears. What do you want?” he pleaded, offering up his private banker in Switzerland. “Tell me what you need”’ (Guardian, 6 May 2013).

This is someone who, as Monbiot points out, owned (at that time) a 747 plane with its own specially installed throne to sit on, a palace with 420 rooms, a private amusement park and zoo and, according to Alwaleed himself, $700 million worth of jewellery and yet, still, he was apparently not satisfied!

It would seem, then, that the title of Monbiot’s article is entirely apt in this case: ‘Why the politics of envy are keenest among the very rich’. Indeed. Not that this is going to deter those who regard any criticism of the ‘very rich’ as a class as tantamount to the ‘politics of envy’. That’s rich, as one might say, coming from these staunch defenders of the very rich when it is precisely ‘envy’ that lubricates the very system of status acquisition under capitalism. They don’t mind endorsing capitalism but, seemingly, do mind when it is spelt out to them what exactly this entails.

In any case, perhaps those who accuse others of engaging in the ‘politics of envy’ regarding the super-rich are somewhat off base in their criticism. As the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume shrewdly noted in his Treatise on Human Nature, envy tends to be quite selective as an emotional response. It is one that is likely to become more intense, the more socially proximate the object of one’s envy:

‘It is not a great disproportion between ourselves and others which produces envy, but on the contrary, a proximity. A common soldier bears no envy for his general compared to what he will feel for his sergeant or corporal; nor does an eminent writer meet with as much jealousy in common hackney scribblers, as in authors that more nearly approach him. A great disproportion cuts off the relation, and either keeps us from comparing ourselves with what is remote from us or diminishes the effects of the comparison’.

Hume had a point. Envy is stimulated to the extent that we believe it realistically possible to match or surpass, in terms of our material possessions, the person with whom we compare ourselves. We tend not to feel particularly envious of the multi-millionaire because we do not seriously envisage ourselves ever enjoying the lifestyle of such an individual. So we evict the very thought of it from our minds or, at least, recognise it for the mere idle reverie it is. However, we may very well be envious of our neighbour with his gleaming new car provocatively parked outside our front door. It somehow contrives to makes us feel a little more inferior – a little devalued. The point is that we feel devalued only because we have bought into a value system that judges people in terms of their material wealth.

If envy is the spur to enhancing our social standing, it also an emotion that helps to reproduce the kind of society that typically makes such judgements. For that reason alone, envy is precisely not the sentiment of those who would want to fundamentally change the kind of society we live in. Obsessively aspiring to become a wealthy capitalist is probably not going to be very conducive to wanting to get rid of capitalism.

What envy does is to both reinforce, and reflect, the extremely unequal distribution of wealth and income that is to be found in society today – such inequalities being considered indispensable to the system of money incentives upon which this society depends.

Robin Cox

Where Farage won (2024)

From the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

A leprous body rots not from the head but from the extremities: this applies also to our diseased body politic. Starved of the lifeblood of economic activity, England’s forgotten peripheral towns have become necrotic tissue, an economically irrelevant expulsion of the disabled, the unemployed, the retired, along with a sufficient garrison of minimum-wage staff to run the tills and dole counters and care homes: the underpaid and the undermourned.

Welcome to Clacton

A decision was made, long ago, to arrange matters in this way, first under Thatcher and then under New Labour and subsequent governments. The focus would be the City, and such industries that were most profitable to export such as the arms trade, and the rest of the nation’s economy that was ill-served by this focus would be maintained by subsidy and the dole, paid with largesse from profits. Then once this policy was in place the other shoe dropped and the subsidy was withdrawn. A wildly unequal society emerged where a regional working class possessing only the ability to labour found no one who would buy, and no one who would make up the difference. There is a profitable economic axis from London to Liverpool with industry either side of the line: agricultural labour in the shires; but at the periphery there is despair brought and compounded by the arrival of uneconomic migrants who can no longer afford to live alongside those who still have wages.

These inward migrants of course blame immigrants of a darker hue for their troubles. A classic case of a post-hoc argument, whereby cheap labour arriving in the economic centres coinciding with the displacement of English workers is treated as a cause. And there is a certain reason: arriving workers are simply better skilled and less organised, commanding lower wages and conditions for a given productivity. Instead of insisting on integrating new arrivals, as workers in the core are wont to do, they blame them for their troubles. Which is why they can be found abusing lifeboat crews and hapless seaborne migrants, resisting the immigrant wave across the South Coast like so many latter-day Cnuts.

This is the classic view, but there are significant mitigations. For example, during the Corbyn years the Clacton Labour branch as least trebled in size, hardly a sign of universal right-wing opinion. In local politics, Clacton has one Labour ward, largely of local people who work in the town. Jaywick, which one would think the most viscerally aggrieved, returned two independents, at least one of which is of a left-Labour bent and a former Labour councillor. The trend for much of the town, however, is for Conservative councillors in the business town wards but pro-Brexit independents dominating most of the just-scraping-by residential areas of the town, who are by and large expelled Conservatives. Further out, like some political chromatography experiment, the countryside is Tory, the villages are LibDem, and neighbouring Harwich and Dovercourt, being a working town, is pretty solidly Labour. So there’s nothing in the sea air that necessarily drives the Reform/UKIP vote. Inland, political views normalise. And where there is local economic activity, politics arguably fall almost as Left as one can expect south of the Wash. Brexit and anti-immigrant politics express themselves partially across the dispossessed, but mainly the displaced from London, and mainly east London, who are arguably the plague carriers, self-employed traders such as plumbers but also East End retirees migrating down the A12 corridor, bringing the knuckle-dragging Alf Garnett politics of the I’m-all-right-Jack boomer generation. Meanwhile the spouses of such workers are under pressure to, well, espouse their spouses’ views for the sake of a quiet life.

Electoral evidence

This picture tends to be supported by the electoral evidence. It is hard to recall, fifteen years on, how significant the BNP was in the 2010 general election: the year the Clacton constituency was formed, now separated from the more industrial (and Labour) Harwich. They received 4.6 percent in Clacton, but in the East End of London Nick Griffin achieved a record 14.6 percent of the Barking vote. Dagenham and Rainham was their second most successful at 11.2 percent; Thurrock at 7.9 percent, Upminster at 6.4 percent, Basildon 5.6 percent, Romford at 5.2 percent, all kept their deposits. The BNP imploded after 2010, but the hate they had inhabited and encouraged lingered, and as the years passed this rough beast shuffled along the road towards Clacton, waiting to be reborn.

If we look at the Clacton general election results we find the following. In 2010 the Tories won 53 percent, Labour 25 percent, LibDem 12.9 percent, BNP 4.6 percent, and ‘Tendring First’ (a grouping expelled from the Conservatives) 2.5 percent. In 2014 the Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell, switched to UKIP and forced a by-election which he won with 59.7 percent, with Conservative Giles Watling on 24.6, and Labour with 11.2 percent. The LibDems had collapsed to 1.3 percent. In 2015 Carswell kept the seat for UKIP with 44.4 percent as opposed to 36.7 percent for the Conservative candidate. In 2017 Carswell didn’t stand, Watling secured 61.2 percent for the Conservatives, but Labour got 25.2 percent with a local (now Green) Left candidate, and UKIP trailed at 7.6 percent with a new candidate. In 2019 Watling gained 72.3 percent of the vote, Labour 15.5 percent under a centre-right unknown (the initial Left candidate was smeared as an antisemite and replaced by head office), the LibDems won 5.8 percent, the Greens creeping up on 2.8 percent. Which brings us to the current 2024 result with Farage on 46.2 percent for Reform, Watling for the Conservatives on 27.9 percent, a foisted (but later withdrawn for apparently being too charismatic!) Labour candidate on 16.2 percent, and the LibDems on 4.4 percent and Greens on 4.2 percent. There was an additional 1 percent for two disgruntled UKIPpers standing as independents: one had been the Reform candidate before Farage thrust him aside.

So, wading through the data, the right-wing vote in Clacton (Con, UKIP, Reform, BNP, Independent) was 61 percent in 2010 but has been steady at about 75 percent since. There was a pulse of personal and UKIP support in 2014 and 2015 for Carswell’s candidacy which may have helped drive further into the rump vote for a few extra percent. 2017 was left-Labour’s year under Corbyn, gaining fully 10 percent from the Conservative vote, but sinking back later to an average 15 percent. And in 2024 the right-wing vote was arguably ‘average’ for the seat. Farage didn’t take votes off Labour, LibDem or Green (who increased their vote by 50 percent with left-Labour votes), he simply split the Conservative vote, doing much worse than Carswell did for UKIP a decade ago. Both right and left have radicalised, the right to Reform and the left to the Greens, while a 10 percent vote, rootless since the LibDem’s self-immolation, has swung to Carswell, to Corbyn, and now straddles LibDem and Green.

How did he do it?

As a Clacton resident, I can speak to how the trick was done. Money. They rented prime town space for a campaign office, just round the corner from the Wetherspoons pub. There were the Reform leaflets. Then there were several ‘personal communications’ from supposed private citizens, like a doctor begging us to vote Reform to save the NHS. As well as enormous and copious signage, there were A-frame flatbed lorries with mobile signs, at least one with a massive TV display, and also parked on prominent bridges, across not just the constituency but the surrounding council area. And of course the celebrity factor of Farage’s name. And, as Channel 4 discovered, racists from London come down to spread their filth door to door.

In conclusion, there hasn’t been a shift to the right. There has been a shift rightwards within the right (and, within the left, leftwards), while 10 percent of voters will vote for anything that looks fresh. While Thatcher defeated the National Front by stealing their policies, so the far right has metastasised within the Conservatives and Farage is holding what now amounts to an internal debate. But whereas many Northern towns can see the same right-wing voters emerge in the same place decades later, London has flung its white, politically dispossessed to the coastal periphery. In the end, Clacton’s political change may depend on probate as a resentful post-war generation, that watched the Empire fall and colonials progress to equals, and then shuffled to the coast to retire, shuffles a little further off.

Clactonian

The big picture (2024)

From the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

I have a few friends who are politically active. One with the Green Party, another for Labour. A third is/was in the Jeremy Corbyn camp, though comes from a Trotskyist background. All three agreed the priority in the election was to get the Tories out.

I must confess to an emotional sympathy with this sentiment. The Tories seem to embody the worst political features of selfishness, virulent nationalism and an absence of empathy for the plight of others. Their appeal is to encourage such in others. However, the socialist knows no matter how accurate this view may be, the alternatives cannot offer policies of significant difference. They may well have varied and more humanely positive motives, but the practical outcomes of their governance would be so similar to a Tory administration as to be virtually indistinguishable.

This is because at root the political problem was not the Conservative Party, no matter how unpleasant it may be, but the economic system that drives all government policy, whatever party label it is enacted under, capitalism.

Billions of pounds required

It was instructive listening not to what the parties claim to be offering the electorate, but the advocates for various groups and sections of society. Child care, for instance, the expense or lack of it, inhibiting family incomes and, often, women’s career opportunities. Billions of pounds required.

Care for the elderly presents increased life expectancy as an ever burgeoning financial burden society must find billions for.

The National Health Service is unable to meet the demands made upon it. People in long term pain or dying prematurely for want of appointments, treatment and operations. Hospitals literally crumbling. Another pot of gold required.

Many incomes are below what workers and their families require simply to sustain themselves. Men and women often doing two, sometimes more, jobs and still not having enough money to afford rent, never mind buy, a home, or put adequate food on the table. Food banks and income credits/ benefits required: more billions of pounds.

The mantra of the anti-Tory parties was that all this, and more, was the result of 14 years of Conservative government. Which surely poses a question. Why would they intentionally govern to deprive the vast majority of what they need?

Perhaps it is because they are the nasty party. Yet, if this was the case they would be foolishly prioritising their visceral nastiness at the expense of their hold on government. Surely, if they could simply arrange the money transfers to meet all such urgent needs they’d garner the votes of the electorate for the foreseeable future.

The argument may well be made that the Conservative Party is in such collusion with the capitalists their priority is to protect capitalism’s profit-making at the expense of the workers, the great majority. This analysis is correct, as far as it goes.

Unfortunately, the Tory motivation, in this respect, is not unique to them, but fundamental to whichever party assumes government responsibilities. It is instructive to consider what occurred when a Tory administration acted against the interests of capital.

No one could accuse Liz Truss as being anything other than an archetypal Tory, other than she has blonde hair rather than a blue rinse. Yet her premiership was brief and quickly ended not via the ballot box, but the actions of the market. The leader of the democratically elected government was brought down because she was perceived to be a threat to the financial structure of capitalism. No secret cabal required, no illicit meeting of shadowy figures acting on behalf of capital. Merely the mechanisms of the market were enough to be self-protecting and dispense with the prime minister. What price democracy?

All this will have been, and still is, perfectly obvious to the now Prime Minister and his Chancellor of the Exchequer even when they saw themselves as the government in waiting. The Labour Party campaign in this general election was founded on protestations of fiscal probity.

It’s time for a change, but without spending more. Or at least no increase in taxation. As taxation is the only source of government income, other than borrowing which is also being disavowed, the financial requirements just to sustain society, set out above, cannot be met.

Not created by governments

Unless, of course, there is the sharp upturn in the country’s economy that is being cited as a potential wellspring for meeting the increased and increasing demands. There is historical precedent. The post-Second World War boom did enable an expansion of government spending on social programmes by Labour and Conservative administrations.

But that financial boost was not created by governments. The recovery from the destruction of the war created the possibilities for capitalism to exploit and create the wealth. It was starting from the very low baseline of the economic depression preceding the war and ended rather abruptly in the 1970s.

Since when, governments have largely been managing greatly reduced financial resources. The Thatcher years saw manufacturing subordinated to finance capitalism and the supposed free market. That baton was then handed on, via John Major, to the Labour administration of Tony Blair. His government benefited from a financial uplift for a while, then in 2007-8 came the crash. By the 2010 general election the Conservative opposition was proclaiming 13 years of Labour misgovernment as being responsible for the general financial woes.

This was as an unjustified claim as is the present Labour one of 14 years of Conservative maladministration. The similarity of time periods is interesting. Governments create neither booms nor busts. Undoubtedly if they did there would only be booms.

So, voting Labour, whether of the present Starmer, or previous Corbyn, variety could not fundamentally change the economic situation. It matters little how good or bad their intentions are. The Green Party could, along with the Liberal Democrats (and even Reform), make whatever promises they wish as they won’t be in a position to realise them.

Even a proposal such as the basic income, advocated by the Greens, is really just another form of benefit that would have to be funded. Ultimately, that funding, via income tax, business tax or some sort of tax, would come from capital. However attractive that might seem initially, it is a subtraction from wealth creation that capitalism would be bound to react to. The markets would decide and an economic downturn would be of no benefit for workers.

International dimension

It always has to be kept in mind that capitalism, while it has national iterations, is an international system. A government policy, no matter how well intentioned, that was deemed adverse to capitalism would see its productive resources relocated elsewhere.

Presently some FTSE 100 companies are deserting the City to relocate in other stock exchanges. Their motivation is simply expectation of greater financial returns. The Henley Private Mitigation Report indicates that 2024 will see a net loss of approximately 9,500 of what the report terms high-net-worth individuals, compared with 4,200 the previous year. The Henley is a consultancy that monitors migration trends. It reported that between 1950 and the early 2000s Britain saw a continuous influx of millionaires. That trend has now been seriously reversed. This has been exacerbated more recently following Brexit with 16,500 leaving between 2017 and 2023.

Such is surely a demonstration of how government policy, even if implementing the decision of the ballot box, can adversely affect capital decision making. No matter how determined a particular government might be to access the wealth of non-doms, for instance, those funds all too easily migrate.

This is how capitalism works, no matter how reformers wish it were otherwise. Consider what happened to British manufacturing in the Thatcher years. For example, it is still possible to buy the quintessential British motorcycle the Royal Enfield, but made in India.

Any short-term gain made by a basic income will be undone in the medium to long term. Just as has, and is, happening to the welfare state and National Health Service.

What’s the alternative?

Supporters of the ‘let’s get the Tories out’ parties asked what other alternative there was. Truth can be difficult, especially when it is inconvenient or not immediately helpful. The only truthful response is, look at the big picture.

There is indeed a better way. That is a worldwide commonwealth based on meeting people’s self-defined needs through production based on those same people contributing whatever they can. Then there will be no need for billions or even trillions of pounds or dollars or whatever as there’ll be no money.

Capitalism transcended by socialism is the only solution. Otherwise, the electorate are merely voting to maintain what presently is with all its ills unaddressed and beyond solution while things stay as they are. Every vote, for whichever party, is a vote for capitalism.

Voters can decide they will pursue real change, but they must act consciously together to achieve it. No party, including The Socialist Party, can deliver it for them. It is undoubtedly a tremendous task and responsibility. Although it does not address immediate concerns which are so very difficult for many, it is the only real alternative.

Capitalism has developed the technology and the means for the socialist change, but its own fundamental motivation of capital accumulation through profit-making will always prevent it from being generally beneficial.

So democracy will either continue to be the means of choosing governance on behalf of capitalism, or become part of the change to socialism. That is the big picture.

Dave Alton

Government by the few for the few (2024)

From the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Manifestos have been published, promises have been made and intentions made opaque by the vagueness that always accompanies the usual mixture of hope, cynicism and downright duplicity displayed by establishment politicians. We can now all sit back and await the inevitable failures, betrayals and hypocrisy of a new government.

This is not a statement of cynical bitterness or even one resulting from the betrayed hopes of the past but merely a recognition of what the state (of which the government is merely the executive) was created for and how it has evolved. We are always told at election time that the people have the power to create political change by voting for one political party or another – this lies at the heart of the claim that ours is a ‘democratic’ country. Many believe the last 14 years of Tory rule has been a failure but the rich have become richer, the state has become ever more powerful and the Washington oligarchs couldn’t be more pleased with the government’s subservience to their imperial needs. From a ruling class perspective the Tories have delivered everything they desired.

Of course, there have been the odd ideologues who actually believe the propaganda and seek some kind of radical right-wing changes (Braverman, Truss, Patel etc.) who have rocked the boat but they have been seen off and it was business as usual. These individuals, together with their left-wing counterparts like Corbyn, Galloway and Abbott, really seem to believe that government action can improve people’s lives. Perhaps a reality check is timely for those idealists and for anyone who still believes that a government can be a vehicle for the profound change that our society so desperately needs.

The origin of parliament

The relationship between the King and his barons had, since medieval times, been a tense struggle for money and power. On many occasions actual wars broke out, and there were subsequent attempts to reach a settlement between the King and his court and the barons and their private armies, of which the most famous were a series called Magna Carta. The King was obliged to call on the advice of the kingdom’s magnates before raising taxes or going to war etc. This is the origin of governance through parliament.

As the nation-state became increasingly centralised during the Tudor period the financial system grew ever more complex requiring a specialism that was quite alien to most aristocrats. The ‘House of Commons’ became ever more important as it consisted of those who knew how to exploit the labour force for profit and so contributed the lion’s share of taxable revenue. This evolution was accelerated by the political revolution of 1642 and subsequently, despite an attempted counter revolution by the King in 1688, the capitalist class through their representatives in parliament became the dominant political and economic power. However, the purpose of the government did not change as its primary purpose remained to serve the economic needs of another tiny parasitic class.

Governments and the states they control have never existed to serve the needs of the people as a whole but only to preserve the wealth and power of parasitic elites. The first rule of any parliament is: thou shall not over-burden the wealthy with taxes, and so the running of the nation’s infrastructure is always accomplished with the least expenditure possible. The second rule is to ensure that no laws should be passed that in any way impede profitability, and so ensure that those who create wealth never have direct access to it, but only through a system of rationing called wages and salaries. Despite this, many political idealists continue to believe that social improvement is possible using the state and its government. But why this political illusion and the normalisation of this political lie?

Republicans ancient and modern

The capitalist class’s need to legitimise their form of government has a long history. Many ‘gentlemen’ historians of the past, and some even today, look back to the likes of Cicero as a hero of republican virtues, struggling against malign populists and demagogues like Catiline and Julius Caesar. He allegedly stood for constitutional values and anti-tyranny, but this overlooks his involvement with the murder squads that were sent out by the Senate to destroy anyone who spoke of reforming the system to benefit the people. His hands were drenched with the blood of those who challenged the oligarchs in control of a Senate (government) that ensured their continual accumulation of wealth and power.

There is no evidence that Catiline or Caesar ever intended to destroy Rome and we have only Cicero’s words to that effect. Of course he never mentioned the class interests that he served and all his rhetoric about the ‘Republic’ merely obscured his real motive to preserve the power and economic interests of the patrician elite. All reformers were demonised as wreckers of society – sound familiar?

Any governments who call themselves republics are essentially the same as their ancient counterparts. They believe in an elite that are entitled to rule through tradition and, usually, inherited wealth. Although the UK calls itself a constitutional monarchy it is, in fact, no different from the capitalist republics described above – the monarch is one of the wealthiest capitalists of them all. So the tradition for all capitalist governments is to talk continuously about democracy whilst ensuring its impossibility. But the gloomy gothic corridors of power within Westminster are not the only, or even the most important, centre of political power.

Since the Second World War the ruling class of this country have aligned themselves with the interests of the Washington oligarchs and so become willing subjects of US imperialism. No UK ‘foreign policy’ is decided without consulting this military empire (aka NATO). Even after Brexit, the EU together with the WTO and the World Bank have a significant impact on what Westminster can do economically, and this leads us to another great power on the global stage, the multi-national corporations. Their lobbying of governments is unceasing and connections with politicians, corrupt or otherwise, is undeniable. Many of the same individuals are involved in these organisations which can deservedly be called ‘the establishment’. They all share a common interest in defending their trade-routes, market share, cheap labour, natural resources etc. from the other capitalist cabals of Russia and China. But all of them are subject to the ultimate power of the anarchic fluctuations of capitalist economics which none of them, it would seem, have much understanding of.

The excuse of the recent Tory government for its manifest failures were the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine – both of which might have been predicted but would anyway have been ignored by the overriding necessity for economic ‘growth’ and bigger profits. Given all this one is tempted to ask, what is the point of national governments? The oligarchs of ancient Rome, like Cicero and Cato, could tell you why – to preserve the illusion of national/tribal communal interest and deny class division so as to exclude the majority from power.

Starmer is no different from his war-mongering predecessor Blair and will do anything to placate the power of the ‘establishment’. Like Cicero he will claim to be a protector of legitimacy and justice but will be infinitely flexible when he is required to excuse genocide in Gaza or persecute the sick and the unemployed. Remember, the parasites and their defenders like the Labour Party depend on the masses of workers to produce the means and wealth for their own continued exploitation. The real historical power belongs to us workers and we must turn away from these hypocrites, liars and fools and take responsibility for this world into our own hands.

Wez.

Cooking the Books: Should tokens make the world go round? (2024)

The Cooking the Books column from the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 2022 Jan Philipp Dapprich, a researcher at a German university, published a paper entitled ‘Tokens make the world go round: socialist tokens as an alternative to money’ in which he argued that ‘non-circulating tokens should be used as an alternative to money for distributing consumer products to the population in a socialist economy’.

That he is talking about a socialist or communist society (terms which he says can be used interchangeably) is clear from how he envisages the production of all goods taking place. The places where they are produced ‘are collectively administered by the people or by institutions accountable on their behalf. Since all firms would share the same owner, there is no need for firms to exchange goods, as the general public would remain the owner of those goods either way’; ‘production units would simply receive raw materials and pass on their finished products, as specified by the plan without paying or receiving payment. There would thus be no need for money as a medium of exchange within the realm of production’; ‘The constraints, benefits and costs of production are to be evaluated in purely physical terms.’

So, he is recognisably talking about what we (and Marx) mean by socialism.

Marx, writing 150 years ago in some private notes published after his death as The Critique of the Gotha Programme, did discuss the possible need for a system of non-circulating tokens (vouchers that would be cancelled after being used to redeem some product) to distribute consumer products in the early days had socialism been established at the time, though he envisaged it eventually being abolished in favour of distribution according to self-determined needs.

Marx may have had a point had socialism been established in 1875 but it wasn’t, so this could be regarded as an academic issue. Dapprich, however, thinks that some token system (not necessarily the one mentioned by Marx) would still be required if socialism were to be established today; in fact he thinks that this should be a permanent feature of a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. He goes so far as to describe free access as envisaged by Marx as ‘pie in the sky’.

His argument is that this is unnecessary anyway ‘because the ‘needs principle’ of the higher phase can be sufficiently realised within the token system’. This can be done, he suggests, by the wider provision of free services such as health care and by giving tokens to those unable to work or to work fully. But why? His hidden assumption is that, with free access, there might not be enough to go round and that therefore the consumption of some will need to be limited, even if at a generously high level, so as to ensure that more urgent needs of others are met.

He does mention the argument that ‘since we have seen significant increases in productive capacities since the nineteenth century, during which Marx was writing, perhaps the token system is already outdated’. This is precisely a point we have made but Dapprich dismisses this, rather too offhandedly, as ‘unconvincing’ without saying why.

But whether or not society has the capacity to produce enough consumer products to satisfy likely self-assessed needs is the crux of the matter at issue. If it has, as we contend, then the case for a permanent non-circulating token system falls.

In any event, once common ownership and production directly for use have been established, should there arise some temporary shortage of some products it would be up to those around at the time to settle how to deal with it. Drawing up a blueprint for this now, without knowing the exact circumstances or the preferences of people then, is literally academic.

Mail Bomb (2024)

Book Review from the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Murder by Mail: A Global History of the Letter Bomb. By Mitchel P. Roth and Mahmut Cengiz. Reaktion Books. 2024.

It’s not often we get to review true crime in the pages of the Socialist Standard. However, this book isn’t your industry-standard sensationalist pulp about Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer. Instead, it’s a well-researched, exhaustive compendium of the history of the mail bomb, or ‘Infernal Machine’ as the authors point out was its original nom de guerre. This device has been used not only by political zealots, religious extremists, and anarchist assassins but also by hot-tempered lovers, family feuders, and jealous friends.

The history of the mail bomb is as rich as you would expect from such a unique device. But beyond the contraption itself, what really makes a mail bomber tick? Unfortunately, the scope of this subject is so wide and the history so varied that the authors don’t have much room for the psychology behind the minds behind the bombs. However, each case does receive a few lines about the individuals (or groups or governments) involved, the situations they were in, and the goals they aimed to achieve. We learn that ‘while the IRA is often credited with introducing terror to the British Isles, the first terrorist bomb to explode in Ireland in the 20th century was planted by suffragettes’.

The cases span from the American bomber who wanted to plot out a giant smiley face across the map of North America in recent history to the anarchist Mayday mail bombing campaign at the beginning of the 20th century, which aimed to assassinate J.P. Morgan and almost 20 other enemies of the working class, including the Minister of Labor, in one postal sweep.

What can we as a party take away from all this? We already know why we reject violence as a means and support democratic revolution. But let’s separate out the mail bomb as a firearm and cast a scientific eye over it. This is a suitable analogy as the earliest documented infernal device was a gun rigged up inside a hat box.

Theodore Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, is a case in point. From the outside, ‘Uncle Ted’ appeared to be a genius frustrated with the ‘techno-industrial’ system, blaming not just capitalism but anything in human development after agriculture. His manifesto mainly critiqued left-wing parties and used (specious) logic to justify his personal campaign of violence and murder.

However, once you dig past the internet memes and media characterizations, Ted is just another mentally ill man with a grudge and zero social intelligence. If Ted were to start his campaign today, he would have more in common with alt-right Incels than anyone on the left.

Early signs of his mental illness expressed themselves in joke bombs of firecrackers mailed to love interests, and he was fired by his own brother for writing hundreds of harassing notes (poetry and jokes) to a former lover who had spurned him after their first date. Other red flags included breaking into his neighbour’s house and defecating on the floor and other antisocial behaviour a good ten years before he mailed his first infernal devices.

Although the authors don’t delve much into the psychology of the political groups conducting bombings, those we do learn about, and those not motivated by politics, share a common thread. The most disenfranchised, desperate, and mentally ill people resort to mail bombs. Despite all their work and planning, they needn’t bother, as 80 percent of devices don’t even ignite or trigger the main explosive. As the authors point out, you are ‘more likely to get hit by lightning than die by a letter bomb’. Ted himself struggled for around ten years before he was satisfied with the level of violence his bombs were causing. In fact, he kept detailed diaries where he showed no regret in targetting students, shopkeepers, or receptionists but was only upset that his bombs were failing to kill anyone.

The majority of letter bombs won’t reach their target but instead kill postal workers or secretaries, with very few making it beyond the sorting office. So, aside from the discussion of violence as a tactic, the infernal machine is objectively not a very effective way of killing people. In the 1980s and 90s, there seemed to be a shift to postal explosives deliberately made not to kill but designed as a scare tactic. However, this too has become redundant as the media no longer picks up stories about such campaigns because the use of improvised devices has become so common in the United States that their impact is no longer of interest.

These arguments are redundant for us socialists as we oppose terrorist tactics. However, much like the many types of men (they are mostly men) documented in this book, the world’s poorest are being stretched to their limits. This book serves as a handy device to show that this path has been trodden and the means didn’t justify the ends. A compelling read, well-researched, and, despite the grim subject, humorous in places.

A. T.

The poison of development aid (1986)

From the Summer 1986 issue of the World Socialist

The following article has been translated from the Internationales Freies Wort, journal of the Bund Demokratischer Sozialisten, the section of the World Socialist Movement in Austria.

The poison gas catastrophe in Bhopal in India with its large number of dead plus many more blinded and injured shook world opinion. The American multinational chemical corporation Union Carbide, to whom the Indian poison laboratory belonged, was quick to point out in the media that its production of protection for plants (pesticides) aided India towards self-sufficiency in food and thereby saved many people from dying of hunger. So, after deducting the thousands who were poisoned Union Carbide still comes out as positive!

But the truth is that India doesn't need any poisonous material for pesticides. The poverty-stricken small farmers lack the most basic implements such as spades and hoes as well as pumps for irrigation, etc. But there's no business in this for big industry in the Western countries. So the underdeveloped countries get pushed the products which the industrialised countries want to sell, all in the name of development aid. In other words, "we are helping ourselves, not the underdeveloped countries" as no less than President Nixon openly declared when development aid was under attack in America.

So the Indians, happy with their unordered poison which of course the poverty-stricken small farmers could not buy, were forced to migrate to the towns as they couldn't make a living from agriculture, where they settled in front of the gates of the chemical factory and died "like flies" when the poison gas leak came.

World opinion, prevented from a correct insight into the problems of the underdeveloped countries by all the manoeuvres that go on over loans and exchange rates, was taken unawares by this catastrophe. But not anyone who had taken the trouble to inform themselves of the facts. Some years ago the American writer Susan George published her How The Other Half Dies in which she attacked established myths and exposed the businesses of the industrialised countries as responsible for the poverty of the underdeveloped countries.

Such statements are not approved of by the establishment of the industrialised countries — but the latter's failings make their investigation of the problem worthless. This is also the case with the "Independent Commission for Development Questions", a committee under the chairmanship of Willy Brandt (SPD), the majority of whose members are "representatives" of the underdeveloped countries themselves but they are all from the capital-benefiting elite-strata of these countries. The consequence is that the first report (1980) carefully avoids everything that could go against the capital interests of the industrialised countries and so ignores all the real problems and can show no way towards solving them.

The second report (1983) is just the same. In the foreword Brandt points out that events have regrettably confirmed the worst apprehensions of the first report. In which case the Brandt Commission was useless. Of the 94 proposals in the first report not one had been implemented. Of course something else will happen — more recommendations and more pious wishes.

Development to what?

In reality everything resolves around the preservation of the existing economic institutions of the industrialised countries. The assumption is that the underdeveloped countries should be lifted to the splendid heights of the developed countries. But people in the developing countries are less and less enchanted with this. It has been noticed that all the aid has not reduced the gap between living standards in the South and those in the North — on the contrary the backward countries have fallen even further behind. It has also been noticed that the industrialised countries are not a paradise for all their inhabitants. The introduction of industry into the underdeveloped countries has led to more disadvantages than advantages — the uprooting of traditional ways of living and working, the cut-back in home production in favour of the products of the multinational corporations, the growing impoverishment through the ever-increasing dispossession of those who are insolvent, ending in the disasters like Bhopal.

If the practice of industrial development is so unsatisfactory this is above all because its theory, the basic concept of raising the underdeveloped countries to the level of the developed countries, is nonsense from the beginning. When the whole world is "developed" and busies itself with profitable stock exchange transactions where would the raw materials and foodstuffs at present imported from the underdeveloped countries come from?

But this leads to the view that real aid for the underdeveloped countries demands fundamental changes in the developed countries — and that the establishment does not want to hear. It wants to push forward normal business to an ever greater extent, to exploit the population of the underdeveloped countries as underpaid producers of raw materials and, beyond this, also to make them low-wage industrial workers and customers for the products of the multinationals. In this effort large factories have been set up in the underdeveloped countries, to the detriment of existing industries in the developed countries. Their financing has mainly come from credit.

International debts

High finance, which likes to go on about being thrifty, once again didn't follow its own advice. The big banks queued up to lend credits to the underdeveloped countries. Now they are faced with the international debt problem, the consequences of which are borne by the underdeveloped countries. Over-burdened with debts these have growing interest payments and an increasing dollar exchange rate to worry about too. The much-ballyhooed recovery of the American economy which Reagan boasts about has taken place mainly to the detriment of other countries. Tax reductions for the rich and unlimited increasing arms spending has led to an enormous deficit in the American budget with no noticeable inflation — at home. The inflation was in fact exported through the increased interest rates which attracted international capital to the US and made it a debtor country, but pushed up the exchange rate of the dollar.

The underdeveloped countries are now faced with a mountain of debts expressed in expensive dollars, borrowed at ever-increasing rates of interest. On top of this the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which the second Brandt report still hoped would increase its support for these countries, forced devaluations on the debtors, further increasing the burden of their dollar debt. In 1985 the interest payments alone were 50 per cent of the borrowed amount for Argentina and Brazil and 40 per cent in the case of Mexico. These are the so-called "threshold countries" who stand on the threshold of industrialisation and so should be "somewhat better" than the ordinary underdeveloped countries!

The Debtors

Brazil was the first country to break the hundred billion dollar debt level. In Sao Paulo 34 per cent of those available for work are unemployed. They don't known that they each owe 14,000 Schillings (about $750) to the international bankers, and, even if they did know, it wouldn't worry them. The debts were contracted under the military regime to use on numerous large projects which were in part profitable, but which in many cases became unprofitable through mismanagement and the downturn in the economy. Home-produced cars fill the streets, but have no petrol and run on alcohol which is produced from raw sugar. The cultivation of this together with that of soya beans for export means that the cultivation of foodstuffs has fallen by 12 per cent, and this in a country of chronic undernourishment! The really pressing problem of increasing the production of home-grown foodstuffs has been forgotten in the industrialisation-illusion.

The Pinochet regime in Chile, supported by international finance capital, came to power through the murder of the democratically-elected President Allende and has since practised a murderous reign of terror. But this has not meant that there have been no business swindles under it. The five big banks which Pinochet had privatised could only be saved from bankruptcy by being renationalised. And a number of bankers and two Ministers have been found guilty of fraud by the Courts.

In this respect there is no essential change if a military government is replaced by a civilian one, as has happened in Argentina and now also in Brazil, so long as the civilian government continues to obey international capital and its bailiff, the IMF. In the rest of South America and in Africa and Asia things are similar: foreign credit is mainly used for projects which ignore the needs of the population because these only very sporadically correspond to the valorisation requirements of capital.

The spectre

There is a saying that if you owe the bank $1000 you have problems but that if you owe the bank $1,000,000 the bank has problems. And the underdeveloped countries have debts of billions of dollars! Hence the spectre of a debtor's cartel: if all the developing countries were to stop their payments at the same time then all the big banks in the industrialised countries would go bankrupt and there would be an economic earthquake. At present it hasn't happened as the governments in these backward countries are in the hands of wealthy capital-benefiting minorities and have openly gone into the (well paid) service of the foreign exploiters. But in the last analysis they have to understand that an explosion threatens them if they exact further sacrifices from the population.

The creditors can no longer seriously hope to ever recover their capital. It is now only a case for the creditor-banks of not having to cancel the uncollected debts and thereby admit their faulty credit position. The debtors are given a delay for repayment and are lent yet more money so that they can pay the interest. In theory the debtors receive the new money but they never see it; it remains in New York, London, etc in the hands of the banks who are thus enabled to achieve considerable profits.

The truth is that these countries can only settle these new debts inadequately. Among the many proposed solutions there is the tried solution which always emerges when the capitalists are in difficulty: let the much-suffering state pay! This would save the banks, before or after, from their bankruptcy - naturally at the expense of the majority of the population of the industrialised countries who thereby see established a forced solidarity with the inhabitants of the underdeveloped countries.

We can't help thanking them. Financial pressures have produced more than enough harm — they have poisoned not only the thousands in Bhopal but the whole economy of the underdeveloped countries. And the economy of the industrialised countries is in no better state: they suffer from stagnation and unemployment and so have unused resources that could be used to produce the things the underdeveloped countries really need.

But this is opposed to the basic principles of the profit economy: only what yields or at least promises a profit is produced. Here is the real problem and any attempt to find a solution must start from here. The removal of the profit system is the watchword. That the Brandt Commission and the other aid schemes are chained to the profit system is the real reason for their failure.

South Africa: metals before morals (1986)

From the Summer 1986 issue of the World Socialist

In July of last year at Helsinki there was a meeting of various foreign ministers called to discuss economic sanctions against South Africa. Delivered to the meeting room was a single sheet of paper from the South African government which carried a list of the metals it exports to the rest of the world. The message was crystal clear, and to gentlemen who deal in conniving it needed no explanation: they knew that sanctions against South Africa might provoke the government in Pretoria into cutting vital metal exports and that any pressure contributing to the downfall of the racist government could bring civil disturbances that would disrupt mineral supplies for the Western and other economies.

How desperately do the Western economies need South African metals and what would be the result of a ban in supplies?

Strategic stockpiles

Western Europe and Japan are the most heavily reliant on South African minerals. In most metals, world reliance is not particularly great because other production sources or mineral substitutes are available; but in two metals, chromium and platinum, a disruption of supplies would be grave. The only country to plan for a shortage of metals is the US. Its $38 billion (US) stockpile contains a 3-year supply of "strategic metals" defined as those coming mainly from unstable countries and at the same time being vital to industry and the military. Until recently stockpile planners made no allowance for South African instability, with the result that, in some important metals, stocks are inadequate. The US stockpile, for instance, is badly deficient in platinum.

There are five metals which South Africa produces enough of to seriously matter if output were disrupted: platinum, vanadium, gold, chromium and manganese.

Vandium, normally included in stockpiles, is a strong metal mainly used in steel for pipelines, bridges and high-rise buildings. According to Peter Robbins, director of the International Metal Trade, Unicoal Metals Ltd, a cut in South African vanadium supplies, "would not be an insoluble problem. Other metals such as molybdenum, can be substituted for vanadium. With the decline in pipeline building, there is lots of both metals around at the moment. China is also a big producer. So if there was a disruption of months rather than years in South Africa, it probably wouldn't affect the market at all" (Toronto Globe and Mail, October 1, 1985).

Similarly with manganese which is in glut and available elsewhere. Used in dry-cell batteries and as one of the main ingredients in alloy steel, it is a cheap metal; the quantities added to steel are small. Having to pay higher prices to alternative producers would not be crippling. Neither would there be drastic problems if South African gold production were hit, though gold prices would rise, according to Antony Murray of the Commodities Research Unit, one of the largest international minerals consulting firms:

More than 90 percent of all gold ever mined is still around on the gold markets. Known world gold stocks are more than 20,000 tonnes — equal to more than 30 years of South African production. In uranium, where there is over-supply, it would be a relief if South Africa stopped production. Diamonds are also an embarrassment. Industry need not worry about the diamond supply (Toronto Star, September 30, 1985).

But what about platinum?

The West seems able to cope with any South African disruption except chromium and platinum:

Chrome consumers who use the metal in making high quality steel for aerospace, petroleum and chemical industries, have already persuaded South African producers to store extra supplies abroad, and West German users are turning to the Philippines as an alternative supplier. Even with this added to government stockpiles, disruption would hurt badly, particularly in Western Europe. Though South Africa produces 30 percent of the world's chrome supplies, Britain, for example, depends on it for 60 percent of its consumption. The British government over the years, could, but didn't, find other suppliers such as Albania, which sells its chrome through an agent in Milan (Leslie Plommer, Toronto Globe and Mail, October 1, 1985).

The West could, perhaps, cope with a partial reduction in chromium supplies by substituting other metals where possible. One problem they would have is that the Soviet Union might withhold its chromium from the West, in its attempts to damage their economies. On the other hand, it might sell. During the Vietnam war, Russia sold nickel to the US (when there was a nickel-miners strike), knowing it was being used for production in the war against the North-Vietnamese, who they were backing. Commodities, including raw materials, are made (or mined) for sale at a profit on the market and one market is as good as another.

To what extent a cut-back in chromium supplies would affect Western economies, would be dependant on how long it would last. A one or two-month disruption would be no major problem, though it would force prices up. However, a 6-month break would create major difficulties.

Equally crucial are the expensive platinum group metals (PMG) of which the most important are platinum, palladium and rhodium. Their uses include catalysts for the petro-chemical industry and for reducing toxic-emissions from cars. Platinum is currently in good supply with prices low and palladium is in glut. Rhodium, however, is in short supply as Japanese and US car production has increased. Its price has quadrupled in a year. Demand for the platinum group is soon to increase further as the European community phases in new exhaust regulations for auto-makers starting in 1987. It could be that a disruption in South African supplies might force suspension of laws on auto-emissions in the US and Japan and a delay of the European measures. Rising prices could also induce jewellery owners - who absorb about 10 percent of world production — to sell their bangles for industrial use. At present no country keeps a stockpile of platinum and at the moment there is only a 3-month world supply in stock. Canada, the only significant Western source, produces one-tenth the volume mined by South Africa. With other metals, it may be possible to find ways of getting around shortages, but with platinum it's not possible. There would be a major industrial disruption, causing technology and industry to be redesigned completely.

Fear of losing supplies

Keith Shaw, senior mining analyst for Laing and Cruickshank, one of London's largest stockbrokers, believes Western dependence on South African supplies across a range of minerals is underestimated. "No country is indespensible", he said, "but, if the US gets tucked into Star Wars, there will be a big increase in the importance of South African metals. In an increasingly high-tech world, South Africa is a sensible supplier of these things" (Toronto Globe and Mail, October 2, 1985).

Experts point to another possibility. South Africa has the power to block mineral exports from Zambia, Zaire, and Zimbabwe. These countries, along the African mineral spine, which stretches from the Congo to the Cape, are huge producers of many of the same metals as South Africa and to export them they are dependant on South Africa for locomotives, sea access and port facilities. Any move against them by South Africa would not only ruin their economies, but increase world reliance on South Africa, even more than at present.

Given the profit-oriented nature of capitalism, there are a few basic points we can be sure of. Governments, elected or otherwise, exist primarily to administer the affairs of capitalism. Since capitalism's very death blood is the profit-motive it logically follows that major government decisions, like major business decisions, are with view to profit, both long term as well as short term. To keep business, hence profits, moving smoothly (or as smooth as possible in the anarchy that is capitalism) they must have the necessary raw materials.

No government gives a damn about ethical and moral considerations, not because they are composed of nasty people and not because many of them weren't concerned before they came to power, but because once in power, they quickly find out there is only one thing they can do — run the affairs of capitalism. The dog wags the tail, not the tail the dog. Whatever politicians say and whatever minor steps are taken against South Africa, there will be no major course of action against it for fear of losing needed supplies. Breaking off diplomatic relations can hardly be considered a major course of action if one still buys from them; that's like not having a chat with your butcher when you buy his meat. Nor would economic sanctions solve anything.

History has proven that racial prejudice cannot be eradicated within capitalism, a system which, by its very class divisions and the competitiveness these create, divides worker against worker. Only by recognizing that socialism (as defined below) alone is the answer to the major social problems and that political organization is the way to achieve it, can people really start to remove apartheid, racism and economic sanctions as well as all forms of economic blackmail.

Ray Rawlings

(Canada)

What socialism is (1986)

From the Summer 1986 issue of the World Socialist

Socialism is not the state capitalism that is oppressing the workers in the USSR, China, Yugoslavia, Poland or any other country that claims to be socialist. Socialism also is not the nationalization of industries that Sweden, Great Britain and others have set up. In fact, socialism has never been truly tried anywhere on the face of the earth.

A socialist society is a stateless, moneyless, classless society based on production to satisfy human needs. A socialist society has collective ownership by all of the railroads, factories, mines and other means of production. These means of production will be controlled through a democratically elected administration. The persons in this administration will be subject to removal at any time by the people who elected them.

The only way the above society can become a reality is if the working class organizes into a political party of socialism and through democratic elections captures the state. Socialism cannot be established by a vanguard party. Socialism must be established through a majority of persons wishing it so. In places where there are no electoral ways of taking power other democratic means may have to be taken. But, in such places as the US, Great Britain and Canada where workers have access to the ballot, peaceful electoral methods should be used.

Rich Foland

(United States)

The tyranny of the wages system (1985-6)

From the Winter 1985-6 issue of the World Socialist

In any form of society wealth is created by the application of human labour-power to nature-given materials. In capitalist society, whether 'private' or state varieties, this fact is concealed by the need to procure capital to furnish machinery and equipment and to pay wages — thus the capitalist apologia that capital and labour are complementary. The relationship is one created by capitalism and, whereas the skills and energies of workers can, if allowed access to natural resources, produce all the goods and services required by human beings, a train-load of money, left over an area where seismographic tests have indicated, say, the presence of oil, will not succeed even in breaking the soil.

Capital, in the form of money, is simply congealed labour, an exchange equivalent of commodities already produced by wage labour. In its constant form (raw materials, buildings, machinery, etc.) it is, similarly, a representation of accumulated labour. It is labour-power that produces all wealth and it is in our role as wealth-producers obliged to sell ourselves on the labour market for a wage or salary that the working class is exploited. We are not, as a class, exploited as consumers or as taxpayers but as producers.

Capitalism's exploitive mechanism is the wages system. We live in a society where the means of life such as food, clothing and shelter have to be purchased with money. For the great majority of people, that money is derived from a wage packet or a salary cheque which they receive from their employer for the sale of their labour-power, their mental or physical ability to contribute to the production of wealth. It is this necessity to sell its labour-power that divides the working class from the minority of capitalists who — whether they choose to work or not — are able to live by profit or by rent or interest. Thus capitalism divides the human family into two distinct and conflicting classes: the capitalist class, which buys labour-power, and the working class, which sells labour-power. Inevitably, as in all transactions between buyer and seller, there is a conflict of interest between these two classes with one trying to sell its labour-power for as much as possible and the other trying to buy it as cheaply as possible.

The source of all wealth, as we have observed, is human labour-power applied to nature-given materials. But the wealth produced, which, under capitalism takes the form of a great aggregation of commodities, does not belong to the class that produces it but, instead, to the class whose claim to ownership of the natural resources and the means of production (themselves the product of past expenditure of labour-power) are enshrined in law and enforced, if necessary, by the coercive power of the state.

The unassailable fact that all wealth is produced by the working class demonstrates that the source of capital accumulation and of the profit, rent and interest that underwrites the affluence, power and privilege of the capitalist class is the surplus of wealth produced over and above what the working class is paid for its labours. This is in accordance with the economic laws of a market economy for though the workers do receive the value of the commodity they sell, their labour-power, nevertheless their exploitation is through the wages system.

What we get for the sale of our labour-power to our employers is a wage or salary that equates to the price currently being paid for our particular type of labour-power. Our ability to work, in capitalist society, is a commodity the price of which is determined by the same factors as govern the price of other commodities. When a particular commodity is in short supply its price tends to rise and, when it is plentiful, its price tends to fall. To say this, however, begs the question: above what does it rise and fall? The answer is its value and that value is determined by its labour cost of production or, in other words, by the amount of socially-necessary labour time required under average conditions of production to produce it from start to finish. It is value that determines the point above and below which prices fluctuate in line with supply and demand.

Since our labour-power is sold on the labour market as a commodity, its value is determined in the same way as any other commodity. In other words, the value of labour-power is determined by the amount of socially-necessary labour required to maintain us as useful, functioning units of production and enable us to provide for the next generation of wage slaves. The value of particular types of labour-power varies, then, in accordance with the amount of training or education that is required to equip workers with certain skills and these greater values are reflected in the inequality of wages.

But labour-power has a unique property: it can create value of greater quantity than the value required in its own production. It is this capacity to create surplus value that lies at the heart of the workers' exploitation and the capitalists' profit. In any given period labour-power can produce wealth greater than the equivalent of the socially-necessary labour required in its own production. Let us say that workers in a particular industry produce a value amounting to double that of the value of their own labour-power. In half of each day they would produce a value equal to the value represented by their wages for a full day. For the second half of each day they would produce a surplus over and above the value they received in the form of wages or salary. This surplus value belongs to their employer and represents his profit, after payment of rent or Interest if the employer has such obligations.

The ratio of labour-power paid for by an employer to that spent by the worker in creating surplus value determines the rate of exploitation of the worker or, as Marx called it, the rate of surplus value. "The rate of surplus value, all other circumstances remaining the same, will depend in the proportion between that part of the working day necessary to reproduce the value of the labouring power and the surplus time performed for the capitalists" (Value, Price and Profit).

This, then, is the seat of capitalist exploitation of the working class. Other conditions, such as the state of the market, the degree of working class organisation in trade unions and, even, the form of capitalist organisation, may affect or influence the rate of exploitation of the worker at particular times but such influences can themselves be cancelled out by market forces. It is the tyranny of the wages system that itself imposes on the working class their slave status. Where the wages-system exists, irrespective of what party holds political power or whether ownership of the wealth-producing machinery is vested in the state or is in private hands, capitalism exists. That is why Marx refused to support the nonsensical slogan of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work" and urged workers to inscribe instead on their banner "ABOLITION OF THE WAGES SYSTEM".

That is why the World Socialist Movement defines Socialism as a wageless, moneyless and classless society of common ownership and production for use.

Richard Montague

(Ireland)