Proper Gander: Hacked off (2024)

The Proper Gander column from the September 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

For some journalists, the ‘freedom of the press’ has meant the ‘freedom’ to get information for a scoop by any unscrupulous method, especially tapping phones. ITV’s documentary Tabloids On Trial was a reminder that the ‘phone hacking scandal’ is still being played out in the courts, over eighteen years since it first became public. Much of the programme is taken up with ITV News’s Rebecca Barry interviewing people involved, such as ex-journalists and celebrities. Footballer Paul Gascoigne, now looking older than his years, talks about the damage done by newspaper exposés of his personal life and how reporters learned the details. Actor Hugh Grant alleges that The Sun used information about him gathered through microphones in window boxes, medical records ‘blagged’ from the NHS and burglary. Singer Charlotte Church tells of how she was targeted by the press from when she was a teenager, and says they became an ‘inescapable abuser’. Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown says that when his phone was hacked, this risked the leak of state secrets to the press. Even Prince Harry is interviewed, telling us that the surveillance and mistrust it led to ‘sucks’. When he won his civil court case against Mirror Group Newspapers in December 2023, the judge ruled that phone hacking and illegal information gathering was ‘habitual and widespread’ in the company.

The spare heir isn’t the only royal to have been affected. In 2005, the royal family (or their staff) noticed that some of the details in News of the World articles about them could only have come from voicemails, so they contacted the police. A reporter and private investigator were subsequently convicted of phone hacking, and the investigation closed after a few months with the Metropolitan Police claiming there was ‘insufficient evidence’ of any other wrongdoing at the newspaper. As Nick Davies, an investigative journalist who uncovered the scandal, says in the documentary, they ‘very very nearly got away with that’. Then, in 2011, it was revealed that News of the World journalists had also hacked into the phone of murdered teenager Milly Dowler while she was missing. The resulting backlash led to the newspaper closing down.

The Leveson Inquiry began the same year, collating reports from thousands of people who had information about them gained surreptitiously by journalists and contracted private investigators. At the hearings, senior newspaper staff and reporters all denied knowledge of phone hacking, except James Hipwell, who said that it happened daily on The Mirror’s showbiz desk, then overseen by Piers Morgan. Interviewed for the documentary is Paul McMullan, previously of the News of the World, who admits that phone hacking was commonplace and accepted, opining that privacy was something that people may want, but don’t need.

Many of the celebrities and others have won damages in court, and civil cases are ongoing, including that raised by Prince Harry. Cases have been or will be against behemoths Mirror Group Newspapers, News UK Newspapers (part of News Corp, which owns The Sun and now-defunct News of the World) and Associated Newspapers, which includes The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. As pointed out by ex-broadsheet editor Baroness Wheatcroft, considering that this is an industry-wide crime with thousands of victims, there have been few criminal convictions. Only eight journalists or private investigators and one senior figure (News of the World editor Andy Coulson) were found guilty of hacking-related crimes. An explanation for this low number suggested by the documentary is that the police were reluctant to investigate because of their connections with the press, described by ex-newspaper editor Paul Connew as ‘almost a mutual backscratching relationship’. Hugh Grant remarks that the police were ‘as dangerous as the reporters’ because they would tip off journalists. An undercover police officer working at a private investigator firm says that what he reported back to the Met was ignored because their senior staff were friendly with those at The Sun. The Tories dropped the Leveson Inquiry before any links between the police and the papers were investigated. The documentary is careful not to go too far here, raising more questions about how close those links between parts of the establishment have been.

The suggestion that phone hacking is part of a bigger issue in a more fundamental way is made by Prince Harry, of all people, in calling the claimants including himself the ‘Davids’ to the Goliath of the ‘vast media enterprise’. He seemingly recognises that even his own status and wealth is dwarfed by the clout of the media industry, with its central role in the capitalist economy. The phone hacking scandal is notable in that it has wronged some of those at the top of capitalism’s hierarchy, also including Gordon Brown. The capitalist class and its representatives benefit from how the system – including the media industry – exploits people, but because they are newsworthy, they’re subject to being exploited by the media themselves. And it appears to be only the very richest victims – like the prince and the ex-PM – who can afford what’s called justice. Even Hugh Grant hasn’t got the money to cover the £10 million in legal fees which a victory in court would cost him, hence him agreeing an out-of-court settlement with The Sun.

Of all those interviewed for the documentary, investigative journalist Nick Davies has the widest and clearest view of the scandal. As he explains, the ‘ruthless determination’ for profits has driven tactics such as phone hacking, ‘blagging’ and stealing, regardless of the welfare of their targets. If these tactics provide information for salacious stories which sell more newspapers, creating more profit, then those tactics will be used. As Paul McMullan states, the illegality of phone hacking didn’t prevent journalists using it as ‘almost an industry standard technique’. Now that this practice has been exposed, the backlash against it has made it no longer feasible, and therefore no longer profitable.

The media industry has changed since the years when phone hacking was widespread. Then, printed newspapers weren’t as seriously threatened by the proliferation of online news providers as they are now. Changes in how we consume news have eroded the prominence which newspapers once had, and the disgrace of the phone hacking scandal has helped speed up their decline. What hasn’t changed, though, is the ‘ruthless determination’ for profits which drives the media industry and those who work within.

Mike Foster

Cooking the Books: Another reform stops working (2024)

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

The front page of the weekend edition of the i paper (3/4 August) read:

'Thousands of ‘affordable’ homes stand empty despite housing crisis.

• New homes built under Britain’s ‘affordable housing’ rules remain empty because housing associations do not have funds to buy them under ‘crazy’ system, i is told
• Entire developments are also delayed as potential buyers pull out due to budget squeeze, with major housebuilders unable to find purchasers for 1,000 homes each
• Properties earmarked for homeless families among many vacant for up to three years.’

So-called affordable housing is not necessarily affordable to all of those who need housing. What it is, is inferior housing produced so that it can be let at a lower than average rent. It is provided for under Section 106 of a housing reform — the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — which empowers local authorities, when granting planning permission, to make an agreement with a speculative housebuilding company under which the company offsets some of the side-effects of its housing development. One such offsetting measure can be to provide a certain amount of ‘affordable housing’. Local authorities can’t require too much of this, which costs the company money (as they could otherwise build and sell higher quality housing), or the company will walk away and no extra housing at all will be built. But that’s not the problem here.

Section 106 housing is not allowed to be sold to individuals and is normally bought by housing associations and local councils to let to tenants at a lower than average rent (reflecting its lower than average quality). According to the paper’s report, housing associations have not been buying these houses as much as they once did as they are short of money, and housebuilding companies have stopped some housing developments because they are losing money on unsold ‘affordable’ housing.

When socialists say that capitalism cannot be reformed we mean that it cannot be made to work in a way different from how it does — as a profit-making system in the interest of those who own and control the means for producing what society needs to survive. It cannot be reconfigured so as to work in the interest of the majority of the population who are excluded from ownership of productive resources.

This does not mean that within the framework of class ownership and production for profit measures can’t be introduced aimed at dealing with problems that the system continuously generates, for the owning few as for the excluded many. In fact, one of the remits of a government is to introduce measures aimed at solving a problem for the few or at mitigating one for the many. Governments are proposing and implementing such ‘reforms’ all the time.

As far as the excluded many are concerned, the word ‘mitigate’ is appropriate since the problems they face can never be solved within the capitalist system; all that can be done is to soften the impact to some extent. But even this doesn’t always last. If it involves the government spending money, this tends to get reduced in an economic downturn.

Some reforms work for a while but then give rise to another problem. The scandal exposed by the i paper is an example. A reform enacted to help lower paid workers access housing that they can afford is not working as intended. A further reform is required to try to mitigate this new problem. It’s like whack-a-mole. You mitigate one problem and another pops up.

Houses intended for the lower paid standing empty while people need them is indeed crazy, not to say outrageous, but is not simply due to a reform not working as intended. It’s the sort of thing that will keep reoccurring in one form or another when, as under capitalism, houses are built to be sold at a profit rather than just to be lived in.

Introducing the Socialist Standard (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Because of new distribution arrangements we hope that many people will be reading the Socialist Standard for the first time this month. This is to tell them more about it.

The Standard has been published continuously for seventy-three years. The front page of the first issue, in September 1904, said: “In the Socialist Party of Great Britain we are all members of the working class, and cannot hope that our articles will always be finely phrased, but we shall at least endeavour to lay before you on every occasion a sane and sound pronouncement on all matters affecting the welfare of the working class. What we lack in refinement we shall make good by the depth of our sincerity and by the truth of our principles . . . In dealing with all questions affecting the welfare of the working class our standpoint will be frankly revolutionary.”

That standpoint has never altered. That first issue told its readers that the Labour Representation Committee, forerunner of the Labour Party, was “not based upon Socialist principles and should not receive the adhesion of working men”. A few years later the Standard voiced the Socialist Party’s uncompromising opposition to the first world war, which was repeated in 1939. It was censored and its distribution restricted—but it still carried on. When the Russian Revolution came, the Standard published a series of analyses of what was happening and showed what “experts” discovered forty years later; that the Revolution was to turn Russia not to Socialism but into a massive capitalist state.

After the second world war the cure-alls of nationalization and Keynesian governmental economics were “taken apart” and the reasons for their inevitable failure shown by us. We opposed racism long before it became a fashionable issue. Many other unique analyses have been made down the years, and are still being made, in the Socialist Standard. It is not written by academics or paid journalists. The contributors and editors are working men and women who give their spare time to it. It has no advertizing, and is supported from the funds of the Socialist Party whose journal it is. From time to time we produce special issues on important questions; some of these are still available from our literature department, as are other back numbers (and bound volumes).

If you like the Socialist Standard, place a regular order or take out a subscription. Tell other people about it. If you have questions or criticisms, write to us or go to a meeting in your area. Our aim is simple: to put the case for Socialism before as large a public as possible, to build support for the Socialist movement.

Lewisham and free speech (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The nineteen thirties were resurrected on 13th August, when the fascist National Front held a march through Lewisham in south London. This area was selected by them because it has a high proportion of black people. The march was claimed to be a protest against mugging, and carried placards which said: “80 per cent of muggers are black, 85 per cent of victims are white”. Implication obvious.

Opposition to the march was organized by the Socialist Workers’ Party, and the result was an afternoon of violence with 214 arrests and 110 people taken to hospital. There was further violence in Birmingham, where the National Front had a candidate in a by-election, and several indiscriminate attacks in London. The SPGB was among the objects of it. Though we oppose both the National Front and the Socialist Workers’ Party and condemn everything which happened in Lewisham, the front window of our premises was smashed by a brick on 16th August.

The question raised is of democracy. Should the National Front be tolerated when they are preaching intolerance? Why cede free speech to them when everything known about them indicates that their aim is to suppress free speech? In the same terms, is there any justification for the Socialist Workers’ Party trying to prevent forcibly the expression of views they object to? The word “fascist” is both definite and indefinite; in the early ’thirties the Communist Party used “social fascist” as a self-granted licence to break up any opponent party’s meetings, and the SWP and its predecessor International Socialists have done the same.

The SWP produced two curious arguments. First, Paul Foot was quoted in The Times (15th August) as saying 98 per cent. of his party are against violence. Since the SWP now claim 4,500 members, this means only 90 support violence and 4.400 are against it. In a democratically-run party a minority accepts the view of the majority. Why are not these 90 expelled from the party? Second, Duncan Hallas said on TV (18th August) the National Front is outside the rules because “it is not a political party”. That is absurd. A political party is a group which aims to win or participate in control of the state machine, and that is the nature of the NF.

The SPGB’s attitude is quite clear. We are against violence as a political means because it denies democracy; we are for the expression of views, however pernicious they are considered to be. The way to defeat the National Front is to expose its policies fully (most of its supporters either do not know or do not understand them). The SWP and others play into its hands by seeking to make superior force the issue. It is not a matter of “should be allowed”. That means, again, some forcibly superior body — in this case the government — deciding what views may or may not be expressed. Most people take it as a question of “right” and “wrong”, but governments do not act on ethics.

The legal “rights” of free speech, publication, assembly and voting are permissions given by the state for historically or immediately practical reasons. They can be withdrawn, as has happened many times and is suggested now; The Times had an editorial on 15th August saying the citizens should not mind losing “these nebulous rights” in the interests of public order. Socialists understand the value of these facilities which capitalism has to allow, and at the same time see them in perspective. We link democracy with Socialism, as an essential of the means for a democratic society to be established.

Democracy depends on knowledge, and that is why we are for all views being expressed, questioned and debated. We do not, however, join with non-Socialists to demand legal rights for them as a stepping-stone to run capitalism. Under existing conditions it is always possible for the bully or would-be tyrant to use democratic procedures which he wants to stamp out. Why should we help them? The application of democracy in the true sense, as part of the demand for Socialism, is the only realistic way to deal with fascism—and all the other evils produced by capitalism.

A related matter is the myth which has grown up round the “Battle of Cable Street” in 1936. Here, the Communist Party and other groups organized opposition to a march by the British Union of Fascists; the street was barricaded, there was fighting, and the BUF leader Mosley agreed to divert his march. This has led to the legend that the fascists were defeated, and the SWP today are trying to emulate it. In fact the fascists marched again in East London, and continued their activity and contested elections until the outbreak of war in 1939. According to Martin Walker in The National Front they gained about 2,000 members in the East End in the two months after the battle of Cable Street.

Finally, it should be noted where the National Front gets its support. Its policies apart from racism are a miserable ragbag which would not in themselves elicit votes on any useful scale. But, like the Nazis and other fascist parties which have won political power, in a depression it attracts workers who are discontented and misdirect their resentment — and, in particular, think parliamentary democracy has been no good to them. The rise of fascism since the first World War is due above all to the failure of the social-democratic parties who consciously rejected Socialism. The policies and activities of the SWP do nothing to alter that.

Robert Barltrop

Socialism—What it is, and how to get it (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The other political parties, who claim to stand for Socialism or Communism (identical terms), never trouble to define either. Most of these parties regard it as unnecessary. The SPGB has always been careful in defining Socialism. Our object, containing our definition of the new society that will one day replace capitalism, is prominently reproduced in all our literature. Likewise the method of obtaining Socialism—this too appears on all our literature in our Declaration of Principles.

Socialism is like capitalism in that it is a system of society where human beings cooperate to produce things that people require. There the resemblance ends. Socialism means that everything in society is owned by everyone and available for use to everyone. There will be no ownership of wealth in any form; the concept will become meaningless to humanity. As Marx put it: “From the standpoint of a higher form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another.” Capital Volume 3, p. 776, Lawrence & Wishart edn.)

Production will take place by people voluntarily applying their energies to satisfy the needs of themselves and others; material and mental needs. All wealth that is produced will be available to all, to take according to their own judged requirements. The only reason for production will be to satisfy that need. As there will be no private ownership, there will be nothing to prevent people using the resources of the world in their own interests. Likewise there will be nothing to stop people taking from the resources of the world.

World Society

This society must be a world society. It is quite meaningless to think of capitalism existing in the UK as distinct from the rest of the world capitalist scene. The system of society that is to replace capitalism will also be a system of society for the whole world. World resources must be freely available for Socialism to work.

People in Socialist society will have to produce things they need. It is a precondition to society itself that men cooperate to satisfy their requirements as living creatures. But the purpose of production will be completely different from that under all forms of property society. The object of production, looked at as a social whole, will be to increase the wealth of society itself, not of one class. If that is not the outcome then, unless there are some very special reasons, that particular line of production will be suspended.

So that whereas under capitalism the wealth of society is increased by the production of arms, or bombs, or useless luxuries, or pointless (to the majority of people) office blocks etc., in Socialist society there will be no question of producing anything other than something that fulfills the requirements of people. It won’t be possible to sell anything, so all that is produced will be produced for use. And in a world- harmonious system, no one will have any use for armaments. In this form of society people will democratically decide what is required in the interests of all. There is an argument for saying that in the first few years after the revolution, production will concentrate on building up the immediate pressing requirements, such as food and shelter, which capitalist society has kept in short supply. Once that temporary problem is overcome (if it actually proves to be a problem) society will produce everything required to the best of the technological possibilities available at the time.

Distribution will be a simple process under Socialism; once the absurd complications of capitalist social relations have been removed, there is no reason for it to be otherwise.

Free Access

Access to everything that is produced will be free and unrestricted. There will be no limitations on individual consumption, augmented by laws, backed by armies and police forces. The only restraint on consumption will therefore be social, that is, society will not produce what society cannot afford. Today’s society produces much that most people cannot afford. “Supposing everyone in Socialist society wanted a Rolls Royce? and their own Buckingham Palace and thirty-seven meals a day?” says the absurd questioner at Hyde Park almost every Sunday. “How would Socialist society cope with that?” The answer is simple—so far as we can tell, with current technological possibilities, it wouldn’t!

There is no reason to suppose that such absurdities will exist in a free society. Why should they? What the questioner fails to realize is that he is imagining that Socialist society will be the same as capitalist society, where the ownership of Rolls Royce, or a house like Buckingham Palace, actually means something. Such ownership concepts will have vanished once the revolution takes place. Besides, in a Socialist society, where distribution is organized, the number of things like cars actually required by society will probably be far fewer. What’s the point in having a car standing outside your front door all week, if you have no use for it until next week, when you will be able to take one for as long as you need it? When ownership is social, it will also be efficient.

Socialist society will not have class ownership of wealth. As it will be a voluntary non-coercive society, with no limits on individual consumption, it follows that there will be no compulsion on anyone to produce anything. A human being as a part of society will not be compelled to make his whole existence dependent on producing more for somebody else. So why should people work? There are many answers. Perhaps the most important for people emerging from capitalism is this; just as Socialism is a voluntary society when established, so also is its actual establishment. It will have been established by the majority in the interests of all. As it is absolutely necessary for man to produce (without that there is no survival) then it seems reasonable to suppose that people who have taken the trouble to set up this (system of society will do all that is necessary to ensure that it thrives. In fact the objection to Socialism “no-one will work” illustrates that the person that is making the objection has not understood the nature of Socialism and what is required to establish it. Society must produce: and this applies to a voluntary society. If people do not accept that proposition, i.e. that it will be necessary for each person to “do his bit for the common good” then Socialism cannot be established yet.

Human ‘Nature’

In fact, once Socialist society has been established, more fundamental reasons will emerge making sure that society does not commit social suicide by failing to produce. Without wishing to sound puritanical, man must work. First, without work, man is not man. One characteristic that distinguishes man from all other forms of life is that he consciously acts on nature; animals can only unconsciously react to it. If there is such a thing as “human nature” then its first feature is the desire to use energies to satisfy the needs of oneself and others. Second, work will be a pleasure; it will not be a “job”. A job today is something unpleasant, to be avoided (as the capitalist class avoids it) because it is made so unpleasant by the requirements of society. The worker cannot avoid a job, and consequently he has to work in order to live, instead of wanting co live to be able to work, i.e. use up energies in a fulfilling way. Not only are the majority of jobs performed by the working class today unnecessary (except in terms of capitalists’ profit-making), they are usually terrifyingly boring.

The most satisfying moment of any creative activity (having a useful end-result) is by definition, denied to the worker. The product of his joint labour with others when completed is automatically taken from him. It belongs to another class — the capitalist class—to whose interests, the worker, is diametrically opposed. In Socialist society, people will do things that are pleasurable because they want to do them, and because they have the satisfaction of doing something useful. In time, the distorted distinction between work and play will vanish. To the people who grow up in Socialist society working for themselves and others will seem natural, satisfying and an absolute requirement of “the good life”.

There are two obstacles to be overcome before this type of society can be established. First, it must be technically possible to produce sufficient of the requirements of life, to enable all to live without fear of want or deprivation. This requirement was satisfied a hundred years ago. It is certainly not an obstacle today. Second there has to be a substantial majority determined to establish this new form of running human affairs. Understanding has not been necessary for the establishment and running of capitalism (and other forms of property society) since the majority are compelled in one form or another to cooperate. In capitalist society, the workers are forced to sell their labour-power. Capitalism functions if a minority understand the total workings of society, so long as the majority understand how to produce. Socialism will require the substantial majority to cooperate in its establishment. To do that, the working class needs to understand how society works and why Socialism is in their interests. There are two irresistible forces at work doing just that. The first is capitalist society itself— its operation shows to the workers that it cannot function in their interest. The second force is the world Socialist movement.

Ronnie Warrington

Capitalism—the real enemy: The case of Germany (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Fascism is not an alternative to the capitalist
 system, but a way of running it”

The word “fascism” is one of the most loosely used terms in the political vocabulary. To call every other opponent a fascist, as the more hysterical elements of the left often do, is to reduce a term of political description to the level of political insult. Socialists do not oppose fascist parties, like the National Front, specially because they are fascist. We oppose them for their support of capitalism.

Fascism is not an alternative to the capitalist system, but a way of running it. When it seems inexpedient for the working class to have whatever exists in freedom of speech, assembly, press, and trades unions, and if the working class can be persuaded to support a regime which withdraws these rights (which a non-Socialist working class can), then capitalism is run along fascist rather than liberal lines. The working class can only positively defend democracy by organizing for Socialism.

That fascism is a part of capitalism, governed by the profit system as much as “bourgeois democracy” is can be seen by the events which took place in Germany under the Nazis. Like most groups which see themselves as being revolutionary the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party did not stand on an original platform. Indeed, at the outset they hardly stood for any programme at all, but for the negative policy of anti-semitism and the revival of Prussian greatness.

The dissatisfaction exploited by the Nazis related to the particular post-war problems of German capitalism. It was a non-competitive, highly concentrated, high-priced industrial economy; the political influence of the rural landowners was disproportionate to their size; there had been a high birthrate before 1914 with the resulting problem of an expanding working class demanding more and more from the developing German industries; and there was a large “middle class” of small businessmen with no political expression. The crisis produced by the first World War made matters even worse. The monarchy collapsed in 1918, leaving political instability; demobilized soldiers returned from the war feeling bitter and angry; a flood of east European refugees entered the country, many of them Jews; the liquidation of war credits meant that millions who had previously seen themselves as members of the “middle class” were thrown into extreme poverty; there was the additional frustration of an imbalance between the numbers of men and women. These problems are not new to capitalism in a crisis, and crises are an integral part of the capitalist system.

The Nazis were able to direct their political propaganda towards certain sections of the working class. Small shopkeepers, for instance, were easily attracted. Between 1882 and 1907 the number of small shopkeepers grew, but after 1907 they faced fierce competition from new department stores, some of which were owned by Jewish immigrants. The Nazis, because of their anti-semitism (and, to some extent, a leftist opposition to “big business”) exploited this discontent. White-collar workers, small farmers, and students were further groups to which the Nazis had a special appeal. Then, as now, the fascists realised that they would get nowhere without the support of the working class. The Nazis won it; the modern fascists may not.

Two things must be remembered about the rise to power of the Nazis. One is that without the support of the majority of workers it could not have happened. Capitalist government, be it fascist or liberal, could not be imposed upon a working class which does not want capitalism. Had the German workers been united for Socialism, then nothing could possibly have stood in their way. The second is that the Nazis had the support of important sections of the capitalist class.

When they came to power, what was more significant than the atrocities committed by the new tyrants (which are of interest to historians who like to see the past in terms of a battle between “goodies” and “baddies”) was their inability to offer the working class anything new.

They had promised to create a strong central authority to safeguard law and order (a cry of the British Tories). The Nazis succeeded in strengthening the rule of the state by uniting the party with the government: Hitler became not only total leader of the National Socialists, but complete leader of all Germany. The Enabling Act of March 1933 made the Reichstag powerless and invested full political power in the Chancellor. Adolf Hitler. A law of July 1933 outlawed all other political parties, and a law of January 1934 enabled the Nazis to change the Weimar constitution at will. The German army was taken over by the party, which was clearly satisfactory for the military as fascism meant a growing arms budget, evident diplomatic strength, popular support for militarism, compulsory conscription and, of course, a greater political role for the military.

Economically, the Nazi policies were consistent with the needs of the strongest section of the capitalist class. This was to cause division within the party. The business interests had financed the Nazis as an alternative to the power of the unions or, worse still, Bolshevism. On the other hand, there was a powerful left wing of the National Socialist Party, led by Strasser and Muchow, which preferred to stress the “socialism” of the Nazi Party, by which they meant nationalization.

For all their talk about destroying “big business” the Nazis failed to change the face of German capitalism, even refusing to close down Jewish department stores because they needed the taxes they were receiving from them. Income distribution did not alter under the Nazis and wages fell between 1934 and 1940, while the average net income of the better-off sections who paid tax rose by 46 per cent. As usual under capitalism the rich got richer while the poor stayed poor.

Essentially, fascism created no major changes in German society except, of course, for certain minorities, such as the Jews, the Catholics, and the dissidents. But these were a minority. For the majority it was work as usual; exploitation as usual. As Schoenbaum states:

In 1939 the cities were larger, not smaller; the concentration of capital greater than before; the rural population reduced, not increased; women not at the fireside but in the office and the factory; the inequality of property and income distribution more, not less conspicuous; industry’s share of the gross national product up and agriculture down, while agricultural labour had it relatively good and small business increasingly bad.

In September 1934 at Nuremberg Hitler declared:

The revolution has achieved without exception all that was expected of it . . . in the next thousand years there will be no new revolution in Germany.

Hitler was speaking of a change in the circumstances of German capitalism, not a social revolution. The former happens all the time—leaders come and they go—but the latter means a fundamental change in social relationships. The Socialist Standard of June 1939 clearly explained the Socialist attitude to fascism and democracy:

Democracy for the working class can only be consolidated and extended to the extent that the working class adopts a socialist standpoint. To renounce Socialism so that democracy may be defended means ultimately the renunciation of both Socialism and democracy. It cannot be emphasised too much that the struggle for democracy is bound up with the struggle for Socialism and not the struggle for Socialism bound up with the struggle for democracy.

Steve Coleman