Hunger and plenty (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

"If the nations of the world were really to attack the problem of food, it would prevent them attacking each other. A plan now before the sixty Governments of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation opens the way to a beginning by dealing with one aspect—the fear of slumps, which has always kept the world production far below world needs.

Half of the people of the world have never had enough to eat. That figure is given in a United Nations calculation of how the world fared in 1939.

A couple of years ago it was estimated that 462,000 children were seriously short of food and in Europe itself 60,000,000 were on the danger list.

Yet everyone old enough will remember how in various countries during the 1930s vast stocks of food were destroyed and farmers were brought to bankruptcy because they had produced more than people could buy.

Bonfires were made of many millions of pounds worth of grain and coffee, to keep the prices up. Milk was poured down drains. The U.S. Government once ordered the slaughter of 3,000,000 young pigs because there was ‘ too much bacon.’ Denmark and Holland did similar things.

In a world where millions were starving, all sorts of arrangements were made to keep down the production of food.”

(Daily Mirror (26/9/49) Editorial column).

The correspondent then goes on to say that what we need is a United Nations plan to set up a clearing house for surpluses, which would enable countries to buy in their own currencies if they were short of dollars for instance. First of all there is a contradiction in that statement. In the opening remarks he states that because people were unable to buy back what they had produced, there arose a surplus.

He goes on to say, however, that these clearing houses would get over the difficulty of countries needing the food because if they were short, say, of dollars they could pay in their own currencies.

If you notice, their first remarks were referring to 1939 and the years before that. Was there a dollar shortage then? No. It is therefore obvious that whether there is a dollar shortage or not the position remains the same. Like many others, they make the mistake of thinking that in some way or other Capitalism can be made to work in the interest of humanity. What they fail to see is that so long as goods are produced for a market with a view to profit, this insane situation where vast stocks of food are destroyed because workers have produced more than they can buy back, will once again loom on the not so far distant horizon.

Slumps, booms, war and unemployment are.part and parcel of the capitalist system, and so long as workers support various reforms. United Nations plans and the like, which only tinker around with Capitalism and do not solve these problems, so long will they have to put up with the evils which go with that system.

Workers—don’t bury your heads in the sand. Get to grips with the capitalist system and understand how it works, and then, only then, can you overthrow that system and establish Socialism in which goods will be produced solely in order to satisfy human needs.

J.P.

As the election approaches (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

"As the election approaches—and no one yet knows how near it may be—domestic politics and party rivalries will be intensified and magnified. And obviously it is the duty of a responsible citizen to give careful thought to the party programmes and speeches, so that when he comes to vote he will do so with understanding of the issues involved. But he should not allow himself to be unduly impressed by extravagant party claims and battle-cries. For the differences between the parties are not nearly so wide and radical as the party champions will try to make out.

“One reason is that on many aspects of social policy all parties are broadly agreed. They all support the social services; no party is prepared to advocate drastic cuts in food subsidies; all parties declare that every effort must be made to raise exports, to make our industries more efficient, and to hold inflation in check.

“A further reason is that the country’s economic situation imposes its hard rule on all parties; it leaves them little room for independent manoeuvre. Whatever Government takes office after the election, it will be forced to pursue an economic policy not very different, in fundamentals, from the Labour Government’s policy now.”—(Observer, Sunday, October 9th 1949.)

So remarks the editorial of the Observer. Conservative and Labour Party supporters, please note.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain endorses all the Observer says, but with one exception. The remarks don’t apply to the Socialist Party of Great Britain. All other parties, whether avowedly capitalist or allegedly labour, accept Capitalism. Accepting Capitalism they accept crises and war. Capitalism just rolls on from crisis to crisis, war to war, and the permanent feature of it all is the poverty and misery of the working class. In times of prosperity—prosperity for the capitalist class—the workers are asked to restrict their wage demands so that the capitalists can meet their foreign competitors. During the slump, the workers, still at work, are forced to accept lower wages. They are told that this is the remedy for the problem of starting the wheels of production. During prosperity or slump, whether the country is a creditor or a debtor nation, whether successful or defeated in war, the position of the working class is the same, that of a propertyless class, forced to sell their capacity for work to eke out a bare existence. This is the economic situation you accept if you accept Capitalism.

We would insist that the worker follow the advice given by the Observer and “give careful thought to the party programmes and speeches,” and to be very careful he doesn't omit the principles and policy of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

All other parties accept Capitalism; the Socialist Party of Great Britain stands for its abolition and the establishment of Socialism—the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production— and expend all their energies in the furtherance of this object which, at present, means the spreading of socialist knowledge throughout the ranks of the working class. Read their literature. Listen to their speakers. Study Socialism,

J. T.

Truth will out (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Socialist Party of Great Britain enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist.”

Under the present social system wealth takes the form of articles produced for sale; markets must be found for these goods and sources of raw materials for their manufacture.

The State exists to preserve this social set-up; abroad, government policy must protect trade routes, extend markets and find sources of raw materials; at home, the policies pursued must rationalise industry, strive to lower costs to allow the national capitalist class to compete with the capitalists abroad and maintain a high enough rate of profit to attract investors. The party holding the reins of government must pursue these policies if capitalism is to function.

The minor disagreements separating the various parties of capitalism centre around the extent the State should intervene in industry and which section of the capitalist class should bear the greatest burden of taxation. These are questions of interest to the capitalist class. It is not worth while for the working class to waste their time with them.

But the capitalist parties must seek the support of the working class, so the parties out of power blame the party in power for the existing conditions. They say the economic conditions are the result of the government's policy. But as has been shown the policies are the result of the economic conditions of capitalism. Adherents of these parties use all forms of abuse to discredit their opponents, but sometimes they let the cat out of the bag, like the editorial of the Observer, writing of the need to dispel certain beliefs held by American critics of aid to Britain:—

“The first belief—and for political reasons this has been given great prominence in our own press—is that all Britain’s economic ills are the result of misconceived and ill-timed Socialist policies. Conservative speakers here often make this charge—thus providing our critics in America with useful ammunition—but there is little substance in it.

“So far, the Government's only legislative acts which can be regarded as distinctively Socialist are its experiments in nationalisation. These may not have been conspicuously successful, but it is nonsense to suggest that they have had any marked effect on the country’s dollar earning capacity. Indeed, if the coal industry, for example, had not been nationalised, the country might well be in an even worse plight. The plan for nationalising the steel industry is, we believe, mistaken, and if it is put into practice it may do great harm. But at present it is only a plan; the steel industry is thriving under private enterprise.

“The rest of the Government’s policies, right or wrong, have not been distinctively Socialist. The Welfare State is supported by all parties; and the Conservatives are indeed promising, rather rashly, to extend its benefits in certain respects if they are returned to power after the election.”—(August 21st, 1949.)

The writer is confusing Socialism with nationalisation, but the implication is that whichever party had power similar policies would be maintained. The party in power must, like the crew of a sailing boat which fixes its sails according to the wind, adjust its policies to the economic need of capitalism.

Capitalism can only function in the interests of the capitalistic class, the interests of the working class lie in its abolition. The only alternative is Socialism, and there can be only one Socialist party in one country. Other so-called "Socialist" parties say their object is the same but their method of achieving it different, but you can't separate the means from the end; the means cannot be separated from the end. Their aim is not Socialism at all.

J. T.

You Too Can Help (1949)

Party News from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The task of the Socialist Party of Great Britain calls for continuous effort on the part of the members. Demands are made upon their time, their energies and their pockets. They respond in different ways and in varying degrees, but whatever their contribution, there is no let-up in the demand for more and more.

Recently an appeal has been sent out to every member suggesting a donation of £1 from each to build our Parliamentary Fund. We are committed to the task of contesting two constituencies at the next General Election. We need an appreciable increase in our income at once. For the majority of our members a donation of £1 means a heavy sacrifice, but we are confident that most of them will make it and be proud to have done so.

This short note is addressed to readers of the Socialist Standard who are in agreement with us but who, for reasons of their own, are not members of our Party. We know that there are many of you who find it inadvisable or impracticable to enter our ranks. But the fact that you are not members of the Socialist Party does not prevent you from making a contribution to the task of building for Socialism. Now is a splendid opportunity to help us. You will want to do your share. The best way to help us is to send us a donation. Our Parliamentary Fund stands at £219. We need £1,000, at least. Send your donation, indicating that it is for the “S.P.G.B. Parliamentary Fund,” to E. Lake, S.P.G.B., Rugby Chambers, 2, Rugby Street, London, W.C.l. Postal Orders, Cheques, etc., should be crossed and made payable to the S.P.G.B.

Parliamentary Committee.

SPGB Meetings (1949)

Party News from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Life and Times: 4-Wheel Drive Toyota Tundra (2024)

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

It’s Bolton Central Library on an evening in late November 1984. The large meeting room is full for a debate between myself representing the Socialist Party and the local Tory MP, Tom Sackville. The subject is ‘Is socialism compatible with freedom?’ and a well-known local cleric is in the chair. We both have 20 minutes to put our respective cases and another 10 minutes to respond. We do that, and then it’s thrown open to the floor. The hands go up for questions and observations and we both respond. I’m gratified that a lot of the discussion focuses on the definition and description of socialism I’ve tried to communicate – a democratically run society of voluntary cooperation, a moneyless, wageless, stateless world of free access to all goods and services based on the principle of from each according to ability to each according to need.

I was worried that we might get bogged down in discussing the old 57 varieties of ‘socialism’ (Russia, China, Cuba, Scandinavia, social reform, etc.), so I did my best to dismiss all that quickly at the beginning. And it seems to have worked, since hardly anyone – not even my Tory opponent – is trying to tar socialism with any of those brushes. I’m pleased too that it’s all calm, civil and good-natured, since those are always the best conditions for rational argument and useful exchange of ideas. At the end it probably can’t be said that anyone is the winner, but importantly, from my point of view, the socialist case has been aired clearly and unambiguously in front of a large audience. As an enthusiastic member of the Party’s local branch says to me afterwards: ‘I’ve never been to a meeting of this kind where the constant focus was on our view of socialism.’

That was a long time ago. Yet we’ve not stopped debating, since debating is our life blood as socialists. We’ve been doing it for the whole 120 years of our existence. But, apart from hustings at election times, face-to-face debate has become more and more difficult to organise in recent years, as discussion of all kinds increasingly takes place online. But though this lacks the immediacy (and often the politeness) of face-to-face exchange, it does not prevent discussion from continuing and, in fact, can reach far wider and more faraway audiences than is possible in a debating hall. The Socialist Party has adapted to this by having its own website and Facebook page and its members often participate in discussion and debate taking place on other sites organised by groups in various parts of the world with similar or closely allied ideas.

One of these is Moneyless Society, whose aim is ‘obsoleting money’, so sharing a key element of the society we are looking to see established. To give an example, a recent discussion on the Moneyless Society site involved a range of people, including SPGB members, debating with a distinctly non-socialist contributor. Casey began by quoting approvingly words from early 20th century free-market theorist, Ludwig von Mises, and then argued that we should be pleased with the market economy because it ‘puts the common man in the driving seat’ and ‘we average Joes get to enjoy luxuries not even conceived of 100 years ago thanks to the innovation capitalism breeds’. He added that he’d ‘like to hear from socialists in this bunch what’s wrong with this statement’. So not just an echo chamber, and a provocative start which sparked quick responses. The first one in fact was from me, stating: ‘The main thing to be said about the “average Joe” is that, far from being “in the driving seat”, he spends most of his life hanging on to the job he’s got (if he’s got one) and hoping and praying that the market system he lives in doesn’t determine he’ll lose it.’ Casey’s not ill-considered response was: ‘So society should allow Joe to continue working an obsolete job that no longer serves a purpose?’ At this point someone called David intervened to comment on how technology, both before and during the capitalist era, has made it possible to produce more with less work. And then it got a little tetchy when Casey mentioned, as evidence of the success of the market system, that he has a ’four-wheel drive Toyota Tundra with tons of features’ and so ‘capitalism for the win’. David’s sarcastic reply was: ‘I humbly suggest that we disband this list. After all, Casey says he drives a Toyota Tundra. What possible argument in favor of socialism could ever top that?’

But then it became more serious with Casey putting the argument that modern-day vehicles have many features that previous ones didn’t have and that make them more appealing. This has been achieved by competition, and so, ‘because of that we all benefit’. A further contributor, Michael, then intervened to dispute Casey’s earlier assertion that ‘capitalism breeds innovation’, arguing that ‘collective ownership’ can innovate just as well as ‘private ownership’. At this point it wasn’t clear whether for Michael ‘collective ownership’ meant state ownership (ie nationalisation) or socialism in our terms (ie, a common ownership and free access society). But Casey seized on this anyway to bring up the Soviet bogeyman and suggested a comparison between ‘the US and the USSR and the advancement of everyday life for everyday citizens’, together with a story about Boris Yeltsin being amazed as he toured a grocery store in Houston.

At this stage I felt obliged to jump in again myself and say: ‘What on earth has Yeltsin got to do with socialism? Absolutely nothing.’ The closing ‘speeches’ had Casey stating that ‘we are all better off for Bill Gates becoming a billionaire, not the other way round’, and two late contributors weighing in, the first one, Paul, saying that, in capitalism, ‘people are forced to buy not what they want but what they can afford, even if it’s cheap and nasty, out of what it’s profitable for companies to produce’, The second, Steven, on a slightly different tack: ’Less than 100 […] people in the world today own the equivalent of that owned by the poorest 50% – that’s 4 billion people. If that doesn’t tell you something is wrong, what will it take?’

All this is a far cry from Bolton Central Library in 1984. But what it shows is that debate still goes on, argument still goes back and forth and, if anything, now that most of it is online, it has a potentially bigger, more receptive and geographically wide audience than in the pre-internet days of outdoor platforms in town centres or parks or draughty meeting rooms in libraries or halls.

Howard Moss

Pathfinders: Nobel efforts (2024)

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

The Nobel Prize awards have been no stranger to controversy over the years, both for awards they should have given but didn’t, like most famous writers and virtually all women, and awards they shouldn’t have given but did. These included the 1949 Medicine prize for the prefrontal lobotomy, the 2019 Literature prize to a Bosnian genocide denialist and Slobodan Milošević fanboy, and most famously, the 1973 Peace prize to Kissinger, the carpet-bomber of Cambodia, which caused two Nobel Committee members to resign in disgust and prompted the equally famous retort from musician Tom Lehrer that satire had become obsolete.

Media pundits were quick to spot certain oddities about last month’s Nobel awards. Feathers had been ruffled earlier when the head of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute pointed out that ‘We have now over 50 armed conflicts around the world’ and suggested that perhaps nobody deserved the Peace prize this year (tinyurl.com/4c84a9zp). In the event they gave it to Hiroshima survivors, a clear stand-by choice.

The Physics prize went not to physicists but to two computer scientists for their early work in AI and neural networks. Reasonable enough, one might say, given that computer science didn’t exist in 1896 when Alfred Nobel established the prize topics. A mathematics Nobel might have been nearer the ballpark, but there isn’t one of those either, a fact emphatically not due to the popular gossip that it was revenge for Mrs Nobel having an affair with a mathematician (Alf was never married). In fact, Nobel also ignored dozens of other valid research disciplines, which reflects the deep capitalist truth that the rich always get to dictate to the rest of us what is important, just like today’s vainglorious and increasingly deluded ‘effective altruist’ billionaires.

As for the winning computer scientists, you may remember one of them, Geoffrey Hinton, as a well-known poacher-turned-gamekeeper who resigned from Google in 2023 to renounce AI and warn the world that it was about to kill us all. Given that the prize is awarded to those who, in Alf’s own words, ‘conferred the greatest benefit to humankind’, one might have expect a noble prizewinner to refuse to accept the medal and the money, however Geoff appears untroubled by such qualms.

Still, there must be a lot of physicists out there doing vital Nobel-worthy work, surely? Not according to the popular YouTube doyenne of theoretical physics and clunky jokes, Sabine Hossenfelder, who claims (no joke) that ‘physics is dying’ because it’s become an unfalsifiable pseudoscience whose only purpose is to chunter out meaningless papers in support of funding bids to prop up the physics community’s wage bill (tinyurl.com/5n93hdmb). It might be true that they have a vested interest in stringing us along with string theory, loop quantum gravity, multiverses and endless made-up particles, but perhaps Sabine would say that, as she thinks the idea of an elegant Theory of Everything is a romantic mirage, and besides, popular YouTubers also have a certain vested interest in being controversial, don’t they?

AI had a more direct role in clinching the Chemistry prize, through Google DeepMind and its groundbreaking work on protein folding. Proteins do everything that matters in your body, but there are 100,000 of them and nobody understands how they work. Their exact function depends on what shape they fold into, and working this out for just one protein used to be a 3-year PhD in itself. The DeepMind AlphaFold2 programme can now do it in seconds, triggering a revolution in potential new treatments.

The Medicine prize meanwhile was for work in newly discovered microRNA, which is how genes, when sending messenger-RNA ‘photocopies’ to cells with template instructions for building proteins, effectively Tippex out certain instructions and not others.

What’s called the Economics Nobel is really an ersatz 1968 add-on by a Swedish bank and denounced as a ‘false Nobel prize’ by modern relative Peter Nobel, on the grounds that he considers economics a pseudoscience, a conclusion which will not raise socialist eyebrows. This year’s ‘Economics’ prize was for interesting empirical research into the question why some countries are so much richer than others. ‘Culture’ and geography have been mooted, but these researchers, observing that many poor countries were formerly European colonies, opted to look at ‘settler mortality’ statistics. They concluded that where mortality was low, and Europeans were able to settle and farm (Australia, North America), they also imported their existing social, economic and political institutions, giving the colony a massive head-start. Where mortality was high due to malaria and yellow fever (West Africa, Haiti, etc), they instead kept their distance and imposed vicious, extractive regimes including the slave trade. In sum, liberal democratic institutions are enablers of prosperity, not the other way round. Hooray for liberal capitalism then, which has obviously not resulted in a billionaire elite, global poverty, war and climate change.

Honourable mention ought this year to go to an Ig Nobel prize winner who, instead of discovering something silly about mammals breathing through their anuses, actually found out something useful about centenarians living in so-called ‘blue zones’ of super-longevity, which is that the blue zones don’t exist, neither do most of the centenarians, and the ‘data’ is almost entirely the result of poor, faked or lost records, and pension fraud by relatives (tinyurl.com/4hzna4ka). Many rich capitalists are obsessed with cheating death and living forever. This finding pisses on their chips and allows hard-pressed workers to enjoy some schadenfreude for once.

Would there be Nobel prizes in socialism? Probably not ones named after someone who got rich by blowing things up, including his own brother. And certainly not cash prizes, of course (there wouldn’t be any money). The concept of ‘prize’ is so integral to the fabric of competitive capitalism (prize and price are the same word in several languages) that some will find it hard to imagine a culture that doesn’t need such incentives in order to do worthwhile research. But socialists, who understand the value of intrinsic motivation, won’t have a problem.

Paddy Shannon