Five Benefits of Not Having Money (2008)

From the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist society will have no need for money. This will profoundly affect all aspects of life.

Removing money from the current economic equation would strike most people as impossible, unthinkable, absolutely imponderable. Everything we do, every transaction we make, from a simple cup of tea to sending a space probe to Mars, from birth to death and at every step in between, money has become a necessary part of getting what we require. It has become an accepted, entrenched method of acquiring anything and everything but it wasn’t always so and in a genuine socialist system money will be shown to have been an unnecessary, wasteful and divisive way of ordering world communities.

When initially presented with the notion of a world without money the first imperative is the willingness to contemplate a huge paradigm shift, to put aside all familiar long-held views and preconceived notions and to enter into an adventure of discovery that there is a place for all at the table, that it doesn’t entail regression to the Dark Ages and that the welfare and progress of people doesn’t have to come at cost to the environment.

1. Work

It is well recognised by experts in the health arena that work is one of the most stressful areas of life for reasons such as long hours, extended travelling time to and from place of employment, risk of job loss, lack of security of tenure including competition both within and without, inflexible working practices, difficulty getting release for major personal events such as bereavement, long-term illness of a spouse or partner, or even short-term care of a sick child. Loss of employment can put stress on the whole family, sinking it into debt, causing day-to-day difficulties with the budget and in many cases leading to loss of the home.

When money is not required in exchange for work and when, instead, all contribute their skills, expertise and/or manpower in return for open access to the requirements of life then we can begin to see a different motivation enter the whole concept of the “work” scenario. A moneyless world will free up millions of workers now tied to some very stressful occupations dealing only in (other people’s) money – banking, mortgage brokering, insurance; those occupied in the collection of rates, taxes and utility payments; those in security work such as guards and armoured truck staff engaged only in protecting and moving money and other “valuables” – millions of workers who, when considered logically, currently fulfil no useful function and contribute nothing to society that improves that society.

Right now, worldwide, are millions of would-be workers who are sidelined in one way or another, without employment or scratching on the edges of a black economy and in some of the more “developed” countries we find some termed “scroungers” in current-day parlance.

Within the capitalist system there has to be a pool of workers unable to find work in order to keep the bargaining power in favour of the employers who strive to keep wage levels down, whereas if there is a shortage of suitable labour the bargaining power switches to the employees who try to force wage levels up. The fact that a few “developed” countries have systems which pay a percentage of workers to remain unemployed (receive benefits) is a price the capitalists are prepared to pay to maintain the tensions in society. Encouraging the employed to think that they are the ones subsidising the benefits system maintains one fissure within the working class. Also, allowing a large number of unemployed to be without benefits would cause too many problems for the capitalists with possibilities of mass looting, rioting and damage to their property

2. Increased Leisure Time

With so many extra hands on deck working hours will be able to be considerably reduced which, with the knowledge that one’s work is not tied to the ability to feed and clothe the family, to house them and provide all the other requirements of life, is to remove the stress at a stroke.

Decreased time, but working for the common good rather than increased time working only for personal remuneration. Less working time was the oft-repeated refrain in the early days of the technology era. Workers were to benefit from machine-operated production systems, computers would be able to handle many of the mundane operations previously done manually, the working week would be much reduced, maybe even leading to job-sharing and part-time employment. In fact this state of affairs never materialised and more employees found longer working hours became part of their conditions of employment, earlier agreements having been gradually eroded to the benefit of the employers.

In socialism, with millions released from wage slavery in the then redundant financial sector free to be a part of the production, distribution and services sectors, with the black economy and “illegals” no longer threatening paid workers (pay being redundant) there will be a huge reduction in individual necessary work time. When there is no profit incentive the emphasis will be on the production of quality goods from quality materials and no one need choose an inferior item based on cost. Providers of utilities such as electricity and gas, water and communications will be able to have sufficient workers to install, service, repair and develop their installations more efficiently and effectively. If there is work that no one is prepared to undertake then an alternative will need to be found democratically.

Without the constraints that we have today the workplace will become a different place, one of cooperation not competition, where we work for the benefit of all, not for the profit of a few. The lines between work and leisure may well be much more blurred than in today’s scenario. People will have time, time to be creative, to learn different and multiple skills and to enjoy the time they spend working. Leisure activities seen as hobbies now – vehicle maintenance, gardening, DIY home improvements, baking, the making of all kinds of hand-made items, giving or receiving educational and training courses – could well form part of one’s service to the community, bringing a greater satisfaction and contributing to individual development generally, one of the aims of socialism. With more leisure time available it is also highly likely that more ‘work’ would be created in the leisure area, whether sports complexes, theatrical and music productions and educational courses in the widest sense and with unlimited opportunities for the active participation of those who choose it.

3. Housing

Adequate shelter, a “right” for all enshrined in the United Nations Charter, is still unavailable to millions (billions, probably). There is absolutely no automatic right to housing within the capitalist system. All must pay. To pay, all must work. It is no matter that you work long and hard and that your children work long and hard and don’t go to school. All that matters is that you have enough to buy or rent or build. Maybe you did have enough before the housing market bubble burst and the “worth” of your house went down while the interest rates went up. Well, tough! Look around you. See the empty houses and FOR SALE and foreclosure signs. These people must be living somewhere now. There is always housing stock available – if you can pay the going rate.

This is one very obvious benefit of not having money. The recent economic crisis has focussed many home-owners’ minds. Why should anyone be secure one month and the next find themselves in queer street? Can anybody justify one individual’s multiple home ownership while others live in slums, in cars, in cardboard boxes on the streets? Please! When the majority of us have eventually decided that this scenario is unacceptably obscene we can at last begin to move to a humanitarian way of ordering our societies. Housing for all. Decent housing for all. Materials that are free and belong to all of us. Our architects, builders, plumbers, plasterers, electricians, etc. etc. will all work for free – they also need homes to live in. New housing can be built to the best specifications using appropriate materials, incorporating adequate insulation and services with regard to environmental protection and best use of alternative energy.

Respect for people and respect for the environment. Decisions made democratically as to best use of urban space vacated by the money businesses; by communities wanting to refurbish or upgrade their older stock. The balance between urban and rural will no doubt change. In some parts of the world there will be a mass exodus back to productive farmland, reclaimed for local use and consumption rather than continuing to grow cash crops for export. Decisions will be taken based on the well-being of communities and determined by the requirements of those communities and there will be no constraints or limitations linked to profit for a third party.

4. Health care

As a result of huge stress reduction, no more worrying about salary or wages from the job, no more worrying about keeping up the payments on the house, increased leisure time – all these various factors will surely result in improved relationships all round and, quite soon, a healthier workforce.

At present there are huge variations in standards of health care around the world and also massive discrepancies in availability and monetary cost to the recipients, Universal health care simply dos not exist. Again it is tied in to the ability to pay. Let’s remove this barrier to good health and care of the sick by removing the money element and offer all services, treatments, drugs and medicines free of charge. Hospitals and clinics then will be free of top-heavy budget management and will be able to access resources, whether manpower, equipment or drugs, according to their requirements and not limited by financial constraints. Medical researchers, now mostly tied to global corporations and limited by them in the areas of their research, will be able to concentrate on eradicating disease and providing the best remedies for all comers, not just those with insurance. World diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and polio will soon be a thing of the past when money, too, is history.

Work and training in one of the many varied avenues of health care will be open to those from the pool of post-money redundant sectors. With the shift from a market economy to societies geared to fulfilling human needs there will probably be more priority given to preventive medicine and appropriate information on suitable diet and healthy living, which leads us to consider the topic of food.

5. Food

Currently the growing, processing and distribution of food is largely dominated by transnational corporations solely in the pursuit of profit. The consumer appears to have a huge choice of goods and numerous decisions to make at each aisle of the supermarket but often the choices are superficial, not actually the choices being sought. For instance, notice the difficulty of buying a processed food which doesn’t contain soya. The soya has probably been genetically modified and the labelling could be unhelpful. The choice becomes buy in ignorance or acceptance, or do without.

It’s well known that products are laced with added sugar, salt, monosodium glutamate etc. to create a certain dependency and craving for more. Last year’s problems of melamine-laced pet foods which caused animal deaths in the importing countries were followed this year by melamine-laced milk products causing infant deaths and multiple illnesses in China, spreading fear to importing countries. There can be only one reason for food to be contaminated deliberately (apart from a mass assassination attempt or the desire to spread fear among the population) and that is in the pursuit of greater profit.

Africa, a net exporter of food until the post-colonial days of the 1960s, became a victim again, indebted to the World Bank and IMF. Recipient of highly subsidised dumping of food from rich countries (US and Europe) the result has been that the countries there have to grow cash crops for export in order to pay off some of the growing debt creating food shortages for the domestic population, many of whom had been forced off ancestral lands (for the growing of cash crops) and who were then without the means of subsistence. There have been a number of studies which reveal there is no problem feeding a world population considerably larger than today’s. There is an enormous wastage of food in the rich world. The major problem for the hungry in the poorest countries is lack of cash.

Food, if regarded simply as fuel for the body, should be clean – free from contaminants, chemicals and the like; fresh – the more local the better; and nutritious. Free food for all would come with the bonus of knowing there would no longer be any incentive to adulterate ingredients. The question of “FAIR TRADE” wouldn’t arise as all along the line farmers, producers, pickers, packers and distributors would have the same motivation to provide good clean food knowing they have the same access as the consumers. This has to be a win-win situation. Another winner in this scenario would be the environment.

Janet Surman

Next month, five more benefits from not having to have money.

The Ire Of The Irate Itinerant (2008)

From the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Greasy Pole: Lucky Gordon? (2008)

The Greasy Pole column from the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Gordon Brown’s new Golden Age

Some things are helpful, if not actually essential, to top politicians or to those who are high enough up the greasy pole to feel threatened by a fall. There is, for example, what might loosely be termed luck – an unpredicted change of circumstances which so affects a situation that it puts the politician in an unexpectedly favourable light. But as a son of the manse Gordon Brown has to believe in something rather more ritualistic than luck. He would not dream of gambling, especially where his political fortunes are at stake. All through the nail-biting perils of the past year he has carried stolidly on, diverting criticism and the prospects of a catastrophic electoral defeat with ponderous recitations of what he insists are the historic, enduring achievements of New Labour, particularly of himself at the Treasury. While he did this his poll rating sank lower and lower, he was humiliated at one by-election after another and terrified, sullen rebellion simmered along the benches behind him.

Credit Crunch

And then came the credit crunch and Northern Rock and Lehman and, across the Atlantic, in the financial fortress of 21st century capitalism, the fall of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Suddenly all those precariously mortgaged homes and image-boosting loans ceased to be symbols of comfort; they disintegrated into menace.

There was talk of 21st Century South Seas Bubble. Gordon Brown would not, in public at any rate, have called it luck, and neither would anyone with so much as a glimmering about the chaotic workings of the property based system, but the timing of it for him was – well, lucky. Apparently transformed in personality, he coined the phrase, as the climax of his conference speech, which summed up his hope for survival: “Take it from me, this is no time for a novice”.

This was said in the knowledge that Brown would have no problem, in finding and naming the villains who have fed off the groundless dreams of unsuspecting wage earners until the whole diseased edifice of lies and fraud came crashing down. There were enough of them – the bankers, the financiers, the traders in the City whose ideas of a hard, constructive day’s work has been pushing other people’s money around on paper and betting on the movement, up or down, of share prices. Brown rubbed salt into their wounds when, as part of the package of state investment in the ailing banks, he ensured that certain City favourites were removed from the boardrooms. This was accompanied by Brown calling for “responsible” behaviour by the banks and then Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling calling in their top people to lean on them to pass on the 1.5 percent reduction in the Bank of England lending rate. More recently Brown has used that word again, demanding “a new, responsible approach”: by the credit card companies. “I think”, he said “we have got to bring the credit card industry (yes, they call it an ‘industry’) in to talk (yes, the call it ‘talk’) to them to join with us in establishing clear principles to apply to the costs people face on their existing debts”. And in case any bank should still not have understood Peter (sorry, Lord) Mandelson will be meeting them to draw up a “guide on behaviour” (yes, they call it ‘behaviour’).

There may be some questions about Mandelson’s suitability to instruct others in such a matter. He is, after all, the man who made himself famous by informing the City that New Labour are “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”. Then there was his cosying up to top Tory George Osborne on the yacht of the Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, who did not amass his fortune through considerate reticence towards his rivals. Lord Mayor’s Banquet Mandelson’s boss in Number Ten has a consistent record of sucking up to the overfed parasites of the City, when mellowed by a slap-up

Lord Mayor’s banquet.

There was a time when Brown would make some kind of obscure, ineffective point by refusing to wear the traditional evening suit at this event, turning up in a work-a-day lounge suit. Now that he is Prime Minister he does sartorially as he is told – although he looks far from comfortable in black tie and tails and in any case says roughly the same as before. Here he is in 1998: “London is a city that is creative and responds to change. It has excelled because of the hard work and skills of the workforce and these are the essential British qualities – creativity, adaptability, a belief in hard work, fair play and openness”. In recent times his sycophancy has been more open: in 2005 he blathered “For three centuries … your enterprise as businesses, your unique innovative skills, your courage and steadfastness and your outward looking internationalism have …helped Britain lead the rest of the world”. And last June, as the recession was stirring, quite obviously, into life: “Britain needs more of the vigour, ingenuity and aspiration that you already demonstrate. Thanks to your remarkable achievements we have the huge privilege to live in an era that history will record as the beginning of a new Golden Age”. In fact Brown’s Golden Age was ushering in what is expected to be the widest deepest, most destructive slump since the 1930s. While Brown was bowing and scraping to the City it was at the centre of a veritable culture of mis-selling, over-mortgaging workers’ homes and tempting workers to take on loans which they simply could not afford to repay.

 When the South Sea Bubble burst in 1720 a number of the people who were considered responsible, including Chancellor of the Exchequer John Aisable, were sent to the Tower and part of their estate was taken to help the company back into business. There is no need to go quite so far; there would be no point in punishing Mandelson and Brown and the rest for capitalism’s brutal chaos.

Ivan

Studs Terkel (2008)

From the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Studs Terkel, a prolific American writer and broadcaster over several decades,  died at the end October at the age of 96. His style and approach is well illustrated by the sub-title of his 1975 book Working: People talk about what they do all day and how they feel about what they do. Besides the subject of work, he dealt with leisure, family and education, culture and sub-culture. An article partly based on his writings appeared in the Socialist Standard for August 2003.

Some of Terkel’s nine thousand interviews — especially the broadcast ones — were with celebrities of various kinds. But his books were mainly about the life experiences of everyday men and women. He quoted these graphic words of an assembly-line worker: “I stand in one spot, about two or three feet area all night . . . it don’t stop. It just goes and goes. I bet there’s men who lived and died out there, never seen the end of that line.” Or again: “They give better care to that machine than they will to you . . . If that machine breaks down, there’s somebody out there to fix it right away. If I break down, I’m just pushed over to the other side till another man takes my place. The only thing they have on their mind is to keep that line running.”

Terkel also captured people’s memories of the Depression years and the Second World War. Again and again the themes of solidarity and sharing shine through amidst the destitution and suffering. A woman born in 1911 recalls the ’20s in a mining town in Illinois: “we’d go out picnics, we’d go out fishing, all families. Everything for the picnic. And then when you went to the picnic, there was no money exchanged, no commercial, everything like one big family. They’d cook a pot of mulligan stew and everybody’d share out of that. That was a picnic. Today you go on a picnic, what is it? It’s commercial. You buy your ticket, you buy your popcorn, you buy your beer. If you haven’t got a fistful of money, you haven’t got no picnic.”

As Oliver Sacks once said, “There is no one in the world who can listen like Studs Terkel.” Reading his books provides an unforgettable picture of working-class American life and shows that, contrary to what may sometimes appear, American workers are dissatisfied with their lot and more than prepared to fight for better times.

Blogger's Note:

A version of this article first appeared on the Socialism or Your Money blog in November 2008.

Obituary: Carol Taylor (2008)

Obituary from the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was with sadness that we learned in mid-October of the death of Carol Taylor, and at a relatively young age. Carol will be best remembered for her work on the now popular socialist film Capitalism and Other Kids Stuff, on which she worked as director and editor.

Though no longer formally a member, she had no actual disagreement with the Party case. She was always a fervent defender of the socialist cause and an ardent critic of capitalism, always keen to expose the insanity of the profit system in whatever way she could. On the discussion forum she attached to the initial Socialist TV website she created specifically to promote Kids Stuff she spent hours a day articulately defending the socialist case against our detractors who left messages, and there was a fair few.

Carol can be heard introducing the first ever film we did together here, a short film introducing the Socialist Party and actually put together within an hour.

I worked with her on a few films, including one on the “G8” meeting filmed up in Scotland a few years ago, and we spent a lot of time together collecting stock footage we felt we could use on future socialist films. I fondly remember the many encounters we had with the police who tried to stop us filming around London, often under threat of arrest, particularly the day we tried to get footage of HRH and entourage during the State opening of Parliament and the angry argument Carol gave to the police who came to escort us away from the area and, indeed, the way she cleverly managed to blag us media passes to get on to the press wagon at Teeside Airport when George Bush came for his £1 million fish supper in Tony Blair’s north eastern constituency.

I’m please to have known Carol closely and will remember her as quite a magnanimous person, warm and affectionate, loathing injustice, deceit and fraud and ever ready to speak out against it.

John Bissett

From poverty to power (2008)

Book Review from the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

How Active Citizens and Effective States can Change the World by Duncan Green (Oxfam Publishing 2008)

Duncan Green defines an effective state as one that “can guarantee security and the rule of law,” and has an effective strategy “to ensure inclusive economic growth”. Such a state should be accountable to citizens and able to guarantee their rights. Active citizens are linked to the state by a “combination of rights and obligations”: making use of these rights to improve their conditions.

He argues that it is the combination of poor men and women and their national governments that provide the main actors in the fight against poverty and inequality. Case studies are given to illustrate how even the poorest people have by their organised and persistent actions brought about beneficent change in their circumstances. Like the Chiquitanos people of Bolivia who after 12 years of “unremitting and often frustrating struggle” won legal title to the 1m-hectare indigenous territory of Monteverde.

He is aware that the scales are weighted against the poor in all areas. For example, research is dominated by the private sector: in agriculture 5 large multinational corporations spend $7.3bn per year on agricultural research on high value, high profit products while the staple foods of poor communities are “likely to be overlooked.” In biotechnology the picture is the same with GM crops being genetically engineered to meet the needs of large scale farms. There is no serious investment in the five most important semi-arid and tropical crops.

Half of the world’s population lives in the countryside and the majority of people in absolute poverty live in the rural areas. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) sources are given for the claim that over the past 20 years aid donors and governments have effectively withdrawn from the countryside. Mention is made of the well known ‘structural development programmes’ which imposed a ‘radical free market’ on debtor countries.

Agricultural growth, Green argues, reduces poverty but is most effective when small farmers are able to capture a fair share of the benefits. Local farmers, he says, should be helped to improve the quality of their produce so that for example retail giants like McDonalds and Pizza Hut use local produce instead of importing produce from the USA. Here his ‘active’ citizens would be small farmers “organising their ability to negotiate a fair deal”. However when it comes to buying fertilizer or seeds, or selling produce or their labour, small producers are dominated by the large corporations. Small farmers are “de facto employees”.

In Green’s view efficient states should take the environment and the enhancement of the daily lives of the poor as prime considerations. Global governance (the “web of international institutions, laws regulations, and agreements”) could help, and the 8 main ways he lists include managing the global economy, redistributing wealth through aid or international taxation, averting health threats and avoiding war. However global governance fails to live up to its ideals. “The WTO is frozen, regional trade agreements are proliferating and introducing profoundly unfair trade and investment rules, the G8 is failing to keep its promises on aid…”, then there is the threat of climate change and “a looming financial crisis”.

The book is well sourced with a 24-page bibliography and three further pages listing background papers. There is much useful information covering more areas than can be dealt with in a review. However Duncan Green takes a moral stance whereas under capitalism the prime consideration cannot be the welfare of citizens active or otherwise, but sale and profit; this drives development (forget sustainable) – and can also inhibit it. And the state that in his view is supposed to facilitate change will only do so to the extent that the interests of the owning class are served.

Pat Deutz

Letter: Money must go (2008)

Letter to the Editors from the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Money must go

Dear Editors

The existence of money and property ownership has become a choke point in the further evolution of mankind.

We, in the United Kingdom, as one of the wealthiest nations on this planet, can’t afford to keep our pensioners at a level much above abject poverty, and over the next twenty years this will become more acute. We close down hospital wards because next year’s budget isn’t due yet, despite being able to fill them many times over with people who urgently require treatment. We allow people in the third world to die in the most degrading circumstances, because it is more profitable to cheat them out of their national resources. We stand by and watch helplessly, as the drug barons infect out richest resource, our children. Big business rapes and pollutes the limited resources of our planet and encourages us to keep buying, and wasting, to keep the cash flowing.

It doesn’t make sense.

Fortunately, there is a solution which can wipe out these ills and many more.

The two root causes of most human misery are money and violence, and the existence of money is the catalyst for most violence. By removing money and the individual ownership of any and all of Earth’s resources from existence, we instantly remove the barriers to the further evolution of mankind. An evolution away from war, crime, and inequality. An evolution toward global prosperity, universal peace and understanding.

So how could this be peacefully achieved, and what would be the net effect? All we have to do is to decide, as a species, that at a pre-determined point in time, we will stop using money. From that time on, changes will begin to occur which will positively enhance our existence on this planet. All we have to do is keep working, to produce all the goods and services that we need and want. But instead of producing poor quality goods, we can take the decision to produce the best quality, most up to date goods we can imagine, for everyone.

Constricted only by the paramount rules of ensuring the safe availability of the raw materials we require, the safety of the people producing them and the overriding factor of its minimal impact on our planet.

With expert planning, and the positive will of all the people of the Earth, we can build new communities with safe, efficient, integrated transport, energy, waste management, health and entertainment systems, sited in the most geologically and climatically stable environments on the planet, using fully recyclable materials. For all of us.

We can detoxify areas of our planet which have been previously adulterated by industry. We can grow unadulterated food all year round, using the most fertile and suitable areas of our planet for our crops. We can provide first class training for everyone to carry out their job efficiently and knowledgably. We can make those jobs as safe and pleasant as possible, with hours and holiday entitlements pre-calculated by statisticians, so that we do enough to maintain and improve our environment without it impinging too much on our new found social life.

We can gather the finest minds on the planet, equip them with all the materials and technology and help they require, and stand back in awe as they produce solutions to whatever befalls us. If it is humanly possible, and good for our planet and our species then why not? We, the human species can have all of this, and so much more.

As soon as we realise that we are all intimately related. We are one family, estranged by time, distance, environment and philosophy. And as soon as we realise that here on Earth, we are living in a life support system which is, to our certain knowledge, unique. Because it contains the only species in the known universe with which we can fully communicate, and it is composed of all the raw materials we will (hopefully) ever need.

We already have the world we dream about, we can award ourselves undreamt of fringe benefits. The only questions you really need to ask yourself are – why not…..and when?

Ken Scragg, 

Livingston, West Lothian

 

Reply: 

We of course agree that the production and distribution of wealth could, and should, take place without money, but we don’t think it will as easy to get there as you seem to imply. We will need to organise to struggle politically against those who currently own and control the means for producing wealth and benefit from the money-wages-profits system. There will have to be an (essentially peaceful) democratic social revolution to end their monopoly and make the means of production the common heritage of all, which will make money redundant. This done, the benefits you mention will become possible – Editors.

50 Years Ago: Borstal Boy (2008)

The 50 Years Ago column from the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Brendan Behan at the age of sixteen came from Dublin to Liverpool with an I.R.A. “do it yourself kit,” for the purpose of blowing up Cammell Lairds. He was arrested, and after a stay in Walton Detention Prison, Liverpool, was sent for three years to a Borstal Institution in East Anglia. The book (published by Hutchinson) tells of his experiences in these places. (…)

In spite of all the tumult and violence of the book, it has a monastic quality in that nothing of any significance from the outside world ever seeps in. not even the war which was going on at the time is mentioned, in fact, the author never seems to have really noticed it. There is no serious discussion, not even about Ireland. Behan indulges in rodomontade about Irish politics, religion and history, but never indicates that he has any grasp of the underlying economic and factors of Irish history. (…)

Behan at least went to Borstal wearing a slightly glamorised would-be Martyr’s crown. He came out none the worse, perhaps even a little better for it. But what of the mal-adjusted, the misfits and the unfortunates; what happened to them? That, perhaps, is the most disquieting thing of all, but Behan never mentions it.

He has nothing to say against patriotism or nationalism either of the English, Irish or any other variety. He seems to regard many Englishmen as stiff-necked and arrogant, but sees no reason why they should not be either in their native country or to people who come from other countries. But in a world of conflicting national interests, being pro Irish, English or American, means even at the best of times being negatively anti-something else. In the worst times such feelings take on an active and hostile form.

[From book review by E.W., Socialist Standard, December 1958]

Nationalization—a Professor’s Misconceptions (1973)

From the December 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the problems in expounding Socialism is the persistent myth of “clever” men whose endorsement of other views is impressive to many people. Eminent scientists have followed the zig-zag Communist line; philosophers and mathematicians are found to be Catholics, racists or advocates of capital punishment. The common sentiment is that these opinions are given authority by learned men’s holding them, because someone with all those letters after his name cannot be a fool.

Can he not? In fact the opposite is true remarkably often. To the degree that a person has specialized in some field, his ignorance of others can be so acute as to take away the sense of his specialist knowledge. A classic example is that of Sir James Jeans, the most eminent astronomer of his time, who held religious beliefs so crude as to be comical. The “clever” are not exempt from fear, petulance or prejudice, or the propensity for putting material interests first. Harold Nicolson’s diaries show how a scholarly man’s thoughts may go when he wants a peerage, or under pressure from people round him. The whole idea of learned men who are superiors to the rest of us is a fallacy, a meritocracy-version of “God made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate”.

Higher Authority

In the October issue of The Freethinker, Professor Antony Flew lays down the law about Socialism. To give the background first, the September issue had an article by Professor Flew on the currently-fashionable Karl Popper. This was criticized in a letter by R. W. Morrell, who wrote:

Professor Flew seems to labour under the impression that nationalization has something to do with socialism, and that the criterion by which to judge the political colour of a party is its attitude to the issue. As a self-declared Popperian, he dislikes ‘sweeping’ social change; but is nationalization really ‘social change’, sweeping or other wise?

Professor Flew’s reply is as follows:

Mr. Morrell says: ‘Professor Flew seems to labour under the impression that nationalization has something to do with socialism . . .’ Yes, so I do. So clearly did those who wrote clause IV into the constitution of the British Labour Party. So clearly do all the Communist Parties, who make the implementation of Clause IV a first step after seizing power. So clearly do those who are now dominant in the Labour Party, and who disagree only on precisely how massive an extension of public ownership to propose in their next election programme.

If Mr. Morrell wishes to use the word ‘socialism’ in such a way that nationalization is not a necessary condition of socialism, that, indeed, it has nothing to do with it at all, then the very least he should have done was to indicate what sort of glory he wants to make the word refer to. It is hard to be condemned for not following Mr. Morrell’s eccentric usage when he does not even tell us what it is.

What has to be noted is how the conviction of learned authority works. Every “expert” believes there are other, higher experts — presumably, at the end, a supreme expert before whom nobody may speak. Professor Flew does not consider answering the point. Instead, he refers to the authority of the Labour Party’s Clause IV, the Communist Parties, and “those now dominant in the Labour Party”; to say anything different from them is mere “eccentric usage”. However, there is a much greater eccentricity in his own approach. In the September issue he attacked Marx and “socialism”. Yet Marx’s writings make abundantly clear what Socialism is, and that it is not nationalization. Are we to understand that the learned Professor criticizes what he has not read?

Where's this Better World ?

Professor Flew does speak of concern to “change the world for the better”. It is possible to look at nationalization in that light, without recourse to its economics. People get their definitions of Socialism wrong, but all associate it — however vaguely — with equality, freedom and production for social needs instead of profit. One ought first of all to ask if nationalization achieves any of those things, as a means to judge whether it has “something to do with socialism”.

On that basis, the policies of the Communist Parties can be dismissed immediately. In their model state, Russia, almost all industry is nationalized; personal and political freedom are minimal, the working class has a very poor standard of living and privileged sections have the fat of the land. Some industry was nationalized also in Nazi Germany, and that did not “change the world for the better”.

In this country, the same questions can be asked about the well-established models of nationalization: the Post Office, the railways, the coal industry, the .electricity and gas undertakings. Are workers better-off and more secure in these concerns? On the contrary, all pay poor wages and in recent years have got rid of large numbers of employees. An item in The Guardian on 27th September said:

At a recent Cabinet meeting, according to Field, Ministers were discussing the effects of Stage Three, and the low paid. Somebody asked who exactly were the low paid; nobody round the table knew. Lord Rothschild’s Think Tank was asked to find out, and present a paper on it within two or three days. Among other things that Rothschild came up with was the (fairly well worn) conclusion that it was the Government which was, directly or indirectly, the largest single employer of low paid workers.

Nor is there any benefit to the workers as “consumers”. Each enterprise is bound, as much as it would be in private hands, to compete in the market and try to make a profit. The prices of the commodities produced reflect the general level of prices. Is not Professor Flew ever curious as to why this “socialism” is indistinguishable from capitalism?

Control and Compensation

The purpose of nationalization and the public utility corporations is not to abolish or weaken capitalism but get it to function better as a whole. The last words have to be stressed, because they explain the arguments which take place over any project for State control. Generally, an industry is nationalized when its efficiency is vital to the rest of capitalism, and private groups either are an obstruction in themselves or cannot handle the costs of necessary developments. So far from seeing it as a threat, capitalists are always prepared to consider nationalization so long as their interests — that is, their property incomes — are acceptably arranged-for. What the capitalist loses is control, but not ownership.

Thus, every nationalization scheme includes “compensation”, the exchange of direct shareholdings for State bonds or the securities of whatever corporation is set up. This was done in the post-war Labour government’s nationalizations, and its necessity was reaffirmed in a Labour Party statement Industry and Society in 1957:

It may be that public participation in a private firm can be secured through State investment in it. Where public ownership is extended, full and fair compensation will of course be paid.

Of the present proposals by “those now dominant in the Labour Party”, the Fabian Society has published a pamphlet on housing nationalization called The End of the Private Landlord. The suggested financial arrangements are:

Instead of the standard practice of compensation at market rates, the group proposes the issue of irredeemable but marketable stock whereby landlords would receive the equivalent of a fair rent minus some deduction for management and repairs.

(“Guardian”, 10th September)

This would reproduce what happened in the nationalization of the railways in 1947, where the shareholders were relieved of huge capital expenditures they would have had to make to attain the “fair” level agreed in the compensation terms.

Ownership and Equality

But where do these incomes arise, to be paid to people who — it is said — have ceased to own? They can be provided only from the exploitation of the working class and the production of surplus-value. Nothing, in fact, is altered. The capitalist may have been removed from direct participation in industry and commerce, but he remains the effective owner in that they are conducted as before for profit and interest: which go to him. Professor Flew refers to “those who wrote Clause IV into the constitution of the British Labour Party”. They were more aware of what they were doing than he is. The 1918 statement Labour and the New Social Order spoke of “the progressive elimination from the control of industry of the private capitalist” (our emphasis); nothing about eliminating ownership.

So nationalization has nothing to do with Socialism, but is one form of capitalism. Reformers, attracted by inaccurate phrases like “public ownership”, have seen in it a means of obtaining more equitable distribution under capitalism. How unlucky they have been is shown by facts repeatedly given by Labour spokesmen, when they are in opposition. On 27th September Michael Meacher wrote in The Guardian:

. . . four out of every five households have less than the average income, and only one-fifth have more, largely because in the richest 1 per cent there are some exceedingly rich individuals. If we were as tall as our incomes, they would be 10 miles high whilst most people would be dwarfs.

And in September Lord Shinwell, asked in a television interview what had been achieved in his seventy years as a Labour politician, said: Nothing. There were still the rich and still the poor — just the same.

Socialism, unlike those Professor Flew cites as authorities on it, is concerned first and foremost with ownership, simply because that is the foundation and changing-point of every social system. Capitalism exists on the basis of private or limited ownership of the means of living. From that, all the apparently ineradicable problems of our present world arise. Socialists know, however, that they can be eradicated: by establishing common ownership as the basis of society. The obstruction to it is ignorance — including what a 19th-century essayist called “the ignorance of the learned”.

Robert Barltrop