Letter: The dirty work under socialism. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

The dirty work under socialism.

Hunts.,

September 22nd, 1933.

The Editor,

Socialist Standard,

42, Gt. Dover Street,

S.E.l.

Sir,

As a reader of the Socialist Standard, I should be interested to read some observations on the probable method of procedure of a Socialist Administration once it gained power, because it seems to me that certain difficulties would arise which would need very careful consideration. To-day, men work at jobs requiring more or less skill, incurring greater or less danger or pleasure; for example, one man goes down into a coal mine, among the dirt and danger, to perform hard labour, while another spends his time pleasantly, designing handsome buildings in an architect’s studio. And quite possibly the coal-miner might have made a better architect than the other, if he had had the opportunity for training, etc. It is plain that, under Socialism, as under Capitalism, the “ real ” work would still have to be done. But why should this man be compelled to risk his life in a coal mine while that one works on a design for a house; or this man again be compelled to clean out drains while that man performs the cleaner job of tuning pianos. In short, how would Socialism share out the pleasant and intellectually satisfying work and the unpleasant and laborious work?

Yours truly,

Ralph Sewell.

Reply.

In general, when we are asked what methods will be used under Socialism to solve the various economic and social problems that will arise then, we can give no other answer than that we do not know, for we do not know in what form the problems will arise nor what means will be available to solve them. Our correspondent’s letter serves as an example of the difficulties in which Socialists would place themselves if they accepted the rôle of prophets. How does our correspondent know that coal-mining will be dirty and dangerous in ten, twenty or thirty years' time ? How does he know that an architect's work will at that time be relatively pleasant? Indeed, how does he know that there will be any coal miners or piano tuners or architects ? They may all have gone the way of the coal tubs that were hauled by women and boys 100 years ago.

It is worth recalling that before the War the question used to take the form: “Who will sweep the crossings under Socialism?" Nowadays, the relatively much better paid and pleasanter occupation of driving a motor sweeper has driven most of the crossing sweepers into oblivion.

We do not wish to give the impression that there will be no problems to solve once Socialism is established, for, of course, there will be problems. What we do say is that these are questions which would be of small importance to us now, even if we could profitably attempt to answer them. We are not telling the workers that they ought to support Socialism because it has a beautiful cut and dried scheme and an answer to every problem. What we urge is that there is one problem existing now—the poverty problem—which is of such fundamental importance that it overshadows every other problem. The only solution is the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production and distribution. Once Socialism is achieved then society will have a new and entirely different foundation on which to work. In keeping with that different foundation the problems which will present themselves will be different. Some will be new, while old ones will have taken on a greater or less importance than now. Most important of all they will be solved by Socialists working with greater freedom and with greater means at their disposal than society can utilise now.

Of course, every effort will be made to eliminate dirt, danger and laboriousness from all occupations as far as possible.

More than that we cannot say.

It may be added that the end achieved will colour the view of each individual on the question of dirt and discomfort. Wealthy men and women put up with considerable dirt and discomfort when hunting, etc., and hikers accustomed to refined surroundings will live exceedingly "roughly” while pursuing their pleasures.

Ed. Comm.

Thousand Shilling Fund (1933)

Party News from the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1933)

Party News from the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Running Commentary: Free speech (1985)

The Running Commentary Column from the December 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Free speech

The ruling class in South Africa has imposed new censorship laws preventing foreign journalists reporting the current unrest and violence. The editor of the liberal (by South African standards) Cape Times, Anthony Heard, is to be prosecuted for publishing an interview with the banned leader of the African National Congress, Oliver Tambo, under a section of the Internal Security Act which prohibits the printing, publishing or dissemination without government permission of "any speech, utterance, writing or statement'' of a "banned'' person. Heard did not seek permission to publish the interview since he considered the public have a "right" to be informed about matters of importance. What he will discover is that in capitalism workers do not have "rights" except those legal rights granted by their political masters. Such legal rights are neither absolute nor inalienable. If the capitalist class feels that its interests are threatened by such "rights" as freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of movement or freedom to demonstrate then they will be suspended through Emergency Powers legislation, internal security measures or in the interests of "national security".

The white ruling class clearly feels itself under threat from the black nationalist movement, hence the tightening of the screw. But does it really believe it can conceal for long the contradictions inherent in the apartheid system, and the cruelty, poverty and inhumanity perpetrated in the name of white supremacy?

Race laws

Twenty years ago, in 1965, the first legislation was passed which attempted to outlaw racial discrimination in Britain, since when a number of other Acts have extended the scope of race relations law. So what is the position of blacks in Britain today?

As is well known, and as the Policy Studies Institute confirmed in its report Black and White in Britain, blacks are still relatively disadvantaged: they tend to live in worse housing than white workers, receive lower pay, get the worst jobs and are more likely to be unemployed. Increasingly they have been the victims of racial attacks and violence.

Various reasons have been given for this failure to improve the state of race relations but none has even begun to address the real problem. That is that it is impossible to legislate to change people's attitudes. They are shaped by the conditions of society in which we live. In capitalism conflict and competition between workers is inherent: competition for jobs, houses and other "scarce" resources. It is not surprising therefore that those who lose out in that competition frequently give vent to their frustration in the form of hostility towards blacks as an identifiable group.

No amount of legislation can change such feelings. What is needed is the recognition amongst all workers, men and women, black and white, that we do have interests in common, that transcend racial, cultural or gender divisions, but those interests will never be fully realised so long as capitalism continues. What we don't need is another piece of legislation outlawing racial discrimination; what we do need is democratic, political organisation to abolish the root cause of racism—capitalism.

Queen’s speech

Although the next general election is probably another two years away, it looks as if the government's campaign has begun in earnest. Its programme for the new session of Parliament, outlined in the Queen's speech, includes a Bill to deal with Public Order (likely to be a big vote-catcher given the hysteria whipped up over events on miners' picket lines and in inner cities); more privatisation to raise money for tax cuts; further "de-regulation", including the removal of restrictions on Sunday shopping, a limitation on the activities of Wages Councils so that workers under 21 will no longer have their pay protected, more private management of council housing estates; and changes in social security benefits.

What will this programme of legislation mean to workers? Is there anything to persuade us that the government is indeed acting in our interests?

Sunday shopping

Although some people might think that unrestricted opening hours are in workers' interests. we should remember that the shop-workers' union. USDAW, at least, is opposed to such a change. They fear that it will lead to their already badly paid members working much longer hours without the benefit of overtime rates. It becomes clear whose interests the proposed change is designed to serve when "Open Shop", the pressure group in favour of Sunday trading, lists among its members such giant retailers as Asda. MFI. Habitat/Mothercare, W.H. Smith and Woolworth.

Social security

The review of the Social Security system was intended to look for ways in which benefits could be "targetted" on those most in need, or at least that's the story we were given. The changes are likely to affect pensions. supplementary benefit, support for the low paid and housing benefit. A report published recently by the Policy Studies Institute (The Examination of Social Security) states that if the government s plans go ahead, some of the neediest and most disabled claimants will actually lose money.

Privatisation

The government expects to realise £10 billion from its sale of British Gas. It also plans to sell off shares in airports owned by the British Airports Authority and introduce "commercial management" into the naval dockyards. All this, it is hoped, will not only provide some spare cash for tax cuts, but also give people the opportunity to buy shares in companies presently legally owned by the state. If the workers weren't conned by the Labour trick of nationalisation. then maybe they can be duped into believing that they can have a real stake in the capitalist system of society by buying a few shares. The truth is very different. It makes no difference to the working class whether the means of production are privately owned or state owned; whether or not we own a few shares, workers will never have access to the wealth that we, as a class, collectively produce. Plans to give tenants some say in the management of council estates are part of an attempt to create the same illusion. Who wants to be part of a "property owning democracy" when the only property we own is a tower block slum?

Public order

The proposed changes to the law relating to Public Order will give the police greater powers to restrict marches and demonstrations. and to decide how many people should stand where on a picket line. A new offence of "disorderly conduct" will be created and the old common law offences of riot and affray will be tightened up (no doubt because of recent failures to secure prosecutions of people charged with these offences). These changes will mean that the legal rights of workers to protest, demonstrate and picket will be curtailed.

So the Queen's speech seems to have left out one important statement. It should have read as follows: "My government will continue to support absolutely the capitalist system of society which concentrates ownership and wealth in the hands of the minority capitalist class, at the expense of the working class who produce all wealth through their labour. My government will continue to support the police force and the other coercive machinery of state, which acts to protect the interests of parasites like myself against any perceived threat by the workers".

Janie Percy-Smith

The waiting game (1985)

From the December 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Millions of people, young and old. are waiting with baited breath. In October, we had the annual farce of the party conferences, where the rhetoric of failure was spouted from various seaside resorts. Now it is the turn of the great politician in the sky. With Christmas and the New Year almost upon us once again, the Christian god will no doubt be looking towards his (or her) 1.986th successive term of unelected office (this makes Thatcher s ambition pale into insignificance). What might this "god" have in store for us in the coming twelve months? A few more tens of millions of people starving to death as in previous years, because their need is not visible as cash demand in the market? A bit of nuclear conflict, perhaps, to sort out which gang of bosses are world champions?

Of course, it is only fair to point out that this "god" is far less powerful than many of his most prized creations down below. Millions of people persist in keeping well away from church every Sunday. They are not struck down by lightning as a result; they just have a bit longer in bed. But if one of those people decides to stay in bed on a Monday morning as well, they would soon feel the consequences. As a direct outcome of this intimidation by our fellow mortals, thousands of infidels can be seen flocking without fail every Monday morning towards the altars of profit, which have been erected to honour the names and the bank accounts of our earthly bosses.

Once a year, however, things are different. We enter the season of good will. Overcome by an irresistible wave of generosity towards their wage-slaves, employers sometimes even lose all touch with reality and buy their class enemy a meal! And that is the season we all wait for. the time of year when strangers kiss each other in Trafalgar Square (as long as they have drunk themselves into a stupor first).

People will be wrapping up presents, cooking cakes and organising parties. Desperate efforts will be made to over-eat and drink in order to make up for the rest of the year. And then, after weeks of waiting, and with the hang-over still throbbing, it occurs to you that there are just 364 days left . . . till the end of 1986. In the meantime, we can look forward to the Spring and Summer. Having got back from a "package" holiday which seems designed to encourage us to want to get back to work again, we can tell ourselves that it wasn't half bad. and start to look forward to Christmas time again.

This pattern of constantly "looking forward" to a time which will be an improvement on the present moment has its counterpart in looking back on the "good old days", and is deeply ingrained in present- day society. At school, the whole day is made up of waiting for the next bell to ring, bringing 4 o'clock a bit closer. Each time 4 o'clock comes, it brings the end of term one day nearer. This applies as much to most teachers as it does to most school children. And the discipline of school is intended, of course, as a preparation for the regimentation of employment. The cliché is quite right: only outside of the work-place can you say that "your time is your own".

Take, for example, a couple of conversations I overheard recently. Firstly, a woman who had been chatting to a "check-out” assistant (that is. a person forced into the socially pointless task of being an appendage to a cash-register) left the shop with the friendly comment. "Hope your day goes quickly!" Is it not a profound condemnation of what capitalism has done to work that this is the best we can wish for one of our fellow workers?

Then, as we were surfacing slowly from the depths of the Angel tube station in Islington, the lift-attendant whose job is to escort passengers up and down all day, like day-trips to hell which the damned even have to buy tickets for, bewildered the passengers by actually saying something. (They thought he was only supposed to push buttons and throw away their tickets for them.) Looking at his watch, he sighed: "That's another day gone. Maybe one day money will fall from the sky". After a moment's embarrassed silence somebody rather stupidly told the attendant who had made this remark that he would do the same job even if he won the pools, as it was quite interesting by the look of it. Imagine what it would be like to have to stay in one of those lifts after each successive batch of people has rapidly exited, and you will see in what bad taste this joke was made.

The point, however, had once again been made: our daily conditions of work make the majority dread the start and yearn for the end of every day. and likewise of every year. Of course, if there were a genuine community of interests and work were organised democratically, its conditions being arranged by those doing it. then many of the tasks which are today regarded as menial and unpleasant could become a positive pleasure in themselves. Guiding people around stores where they could have access to food and so on (without the hated cash registers existing to ration that access) would become a pleasant task, as would the operation of good transport facilities, including lifts. At the moment, however, the majority are cut off from ownership of industry, agriculture, transport and communications, so that we have little or no say in how our working lives are organised. We are the tools of production rather than its masters, and the only consolation we can seek is to wait for the evening, the weekend, for Christmas . . .

The child who has the honesty to ask why it can't be Christmas all the year round deserves an honest answer. The answer is that if Christmas means a brief rest from the strain and stress, the tensions and pressures which are inflicted on the working class by the rest of the capitalist calendar, then it could indeed be Christmas all the year round.

In the words of the 1911 Socialist Party pamphlet on Socialism and Religion, religion is the "paralysing hand of the dead past upon the living present". Socialism, on the other hand, means the working-class majority taking history into our hands for the first time, and re-organising society on the basis of production to satisfy human needs directly and freely, rather than production to serve the needs of the market, for the profit of a minority. On this basis, and by democratic political action, we can create a real community of interests world-wide, which will show up such ideas as the "public" good expressed through the state to have been mere con-tricks to mask the vicious self-interest of a propertied few.

If we as workers are going to liberate ourselves from the system in which a privileged class own and control the means of human survival, the productive machinery (as well as the means of human destruction), we must first throw off the trammels of religious thought. Religion has always preached submission in one form or another, as it emerged historically at a primitive stage in humanity's mental evolution. Sometimes. sandwiched between Morecambe and Wise and The Poseidon Adventure on Christmas day, Thora Hird suddenly pops up out of nowhere and tells us to remember what it's all in aid of. At first, you get confused and think that she's standing in for Bob Geldof. But let's take up her suggestion, and glance at some of the offensive and authoritarian nonsense which it is all in aid of.

First, we must get out the sack-cloth and ashes, or whatever other perversion takes your fancy, in order to "be clothed with humility" (1 Peter, 5:5). Women in particular must, of course, bear in mind, that as far as the Bible and Christianity are concerned, they are intrinsically inferior beings. The Old Testament pulls no punches either: Exodus 22.18 states that "You shall not permit a sorceress to live". This one statement alone has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent women during the Middle Ages, to say nothing of the thousands tortured to death over questions of interpretation. (Don't forget, this is all part of "god's plan".) Above all. however, consider the key clause in the Christian "Declaration of Principles": 

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

(Romans 13: 1.2)

This is a clear blue-print and defence of every murderous dictatorship which has stalked the earth in past and present, and yet there are still those absurd enough to refer to themselves as "Christian socialists" as if this incompatibility between social democracy and the ultimate defence of dictatorship were a minor quibble.

Finally, it seems that the "divinely-inspired" authors of the Bible were not great fans of the pop-charity business. Jesus Christ is supposed to have had a far simpler approach than Geldof to mopping up the poverty and suffering which property has generated for those who do not possess it. His answer to the starving? "Go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. and when you open its mouth you will find a silver coin." (Matthew, 17:27). Very handy.

And what is it that we are actually supposed to be celebrating on the 25th? According to Matthew 1:20. a bloke called Joseph got married to a woman called Mary, and found that she had become pregnant, even though her marriage to him personally had not been consummated. He "resolved to divorce her quietly", which would be quite understandable under the circumstances. "But," the story continues, "as he considered this, behold, an angel of the lord appeared to him in a dream . . In other words, in a fit of jealous despair he allowed wishful thinking to convince him that whoever had got his wife pregnant so soon after their wedding was obviously no ordinary guy. in fact he was called "the Holy Spirit" and had a bit of a reputation in the local, so that was that.

It is fitting that the whole Christian religion is based on a dream. This time round, whilst waiting for the Queen's Speech (certainly the highlight of Christmas TV entertainment). why not think about giving up all of these dreams? In fact, we need to get rid of a social system which makes us want to dream the whole time. After all. if we need to dream so much about what things could be like, or were like, or will be like, what does that tell us about what things are like?

Clifford Slapper

It’s a crazy world (1985)

From the December 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is society barmy or am I? Reading the newspapers it is hard to tell whether the reader is failing to appreciate the subtle beneficence of the system or whether, as seems strikingly obvious, the entire social order is an ill- disguised mad-house.

At the end of September BBC radio announced that a dangerous criminal was on the loose. He had already murdered his sister and had phoned his brother with a promise that he was next to be killed. The "dangerous criminal" in question was described as "deranged", which is not a bad word for a character who goes around killing people. Oddly enough, the BBC reporter was at pains to tell us that the criminal in question was a "Falklands War Veteran". Only a few years ago this now deranged criminal had been doing his bit for Queen and Country. Now. "doing his bit" is not a bad word to describe what happens when a soldier puts on a uniform and. with the government patting him on the back, engages in indiscriminate killing of workers he has never met. Which might sound like the behaviour of a dangerous criminal. But we would be wrong: our friend, the veteran. was a glorious hero when he was killing the hirelings of his master's enemy. He whose deranged criminality we are urged to condemn today was given a medal when he had acted under orders.

If the killer who couldn't break the habit when the war ended is caught he will be sent to a psychiatrist who will tell him, in pseudo-scientific jargon, that he is a sinner. (Shrinks are only the exorcists of a world which pretends to be modern.) If two psychiatrists consider that he is a danger to himself or other people he can be locked away without his consent — just as during war-time conscription, if a doctor says you are fit you can be ordered to become a killer without your consent. But if those who are a danger to themselves and others can be incarcerated, according to the terms of the Mental Health Act. why haven't they got Michael Heseltine yet or the military generals or the rest of the legalised murder establishment?

Talking of mind-doctors, if you ever go to a psychiatrist and complain that you are being watched by someone who is out to destroy you, there is every chance you will be suspected of paranoia. When capitalist nations think that potential destroyers are watching them it is called a "spy scandal". And workers are urged to get cross because those Red bastards are out to discover our secrets. It is hard, just for the moment, for most workers to think of a secret which the Russian spies will be out to get from us. Do they really send spies over to Britain to find out that Mr. Smart of 44 Acacia Avenue has a pile of porno magazines tucked under his mattress and Miss Squint, the regular Church-goer, is having a non-platonic relationship with six choirboys? Workers have no secrets worth stealing; the secrets which the KGB comes to get are as much secret from us as they are from them.

While "spy scandals" go on and phone-in pundits declare war on "the Soviets" (not realising that they were destroyed by the Bolsheviks well before 1921). the ruling class of Britain and Russia do not allow such trivia to get in the way of trade. SPY EXPULSIONS FAIL TO ROCK TRADE BOAT was the Sunday Times Business News headline in the week of the so-called scandal:

Britain's trade with Russia is set to rise above the spy dramas of the past fortnight. A major Anglo-Soviet commercial treaty could be signed by the end of next month and British companies are strong contenders for two £1 billion petrochemical plant contracts (22 September).

British exports to the Russian Empire rose by 65 per cent last year, but Paul Channon. Tory Trade Minister, is not happy that "our" exports are far less than those from West Germany. France and Italy. He is anxious to point out that "British companies should be in a strong position to help improve the Soviet Union's backward agricultural and food processing industries". And we thought they were enemies! Or could the Minister of Trade be a KGB agent?

On 28 September the Guardian's Brussels correspondent informed us of a plan to dispose of the EEC butter mountain by feeding it to the cattle:

The idea is to mix elderly butter from the one million tonne mountain with more conventional feedstuffs for calves. This, says farm commissioner Frans Andriessen. will have a "positive effect" on veal.

Well, it’s nice to think that butter will have a positive effect on veal; the elderly and unemployed workers who can afford neither veal nor butter will be delighted to read about such positive effects. Alas, like all great schemes dreamed up by attendants of the asylum.' the Andriessen plan has a weakness: there is currently a 785,000 tonne beef and veal mountain in the EEC. So. if the butter helps to increase veal production that will simply be shifting one surplus to another place. There is. of course, the idea of letting people eat the butter and the veal, but. . . well, let's stick to "serious" ideas, shall we?

Steve Coleman

Your good health (1985)

From the December 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

How healthy are you? Good health and fitness have recently become a very popular pursuit and stylised in fashionable culture and music. We are progressively bombarded with adverts for commodities to improve our bodies with "one calorie per can. nutrasweet drinks, jams with "40 per cent less sugar", low-fat spreads and vitamin-fortified. high fibre cereals. The wholemeal market has expanded from the odd loaf to a wide range of breads, pastas and even snack bars. What were once fringe groups like the advocates of Ginseng or jogging are now part of a much larger social group seeking improved health. Sports wear, including hi-tech trainers, track suits and designer-label tennis shirts, has become a theme in contemporary fashion. Good health and fitness are. of course, desirable objectives but the problem is that so many aspects of our lives today militate against their attainment.

For the privileged minority of men and women in capitalism the achievement of good health, if desired, is no problem. The consumption of first rate cuisine, a hygienic and comfortable environment, plenty of exercise in pools and on sunny beaches and a stress-free existence are conducive of putting you in good shape. For the majority of us, however, things are a lot more difficult. With careful planning and dedication a certain number of workers do become quite fit; people with a passion for active sport for instance. But generally workers cannot enjoy a life fit as a fiddle. Pursuing a clean bill of health in capitalism is like trying to swim against the flow of a river. How, then, is your health damaged by the society in which you live?

Medical health

In a society where money speaks louder than need it is not surprising that the provision of medical care for the majority is in such a sick state. If you can afford the £1,000 a day charged by private hospitals such as Harley Street's London Clinic there is no real cause for alarm. But the majority of people are not in this situation. Hospital services for the wealth-producers are being cut because of the economic recession: 

Guy's hospital has agreed to axe 300 jobs and close 63 beds by the autumn to cope with the financial crisis. . . General Medicine and surgery units will suffer most. Their outpatients will be cut by 30 per cent and they will lose 42 beds, including some in the chest and infectious disease wards., (Guardian, 1 July 1985)

Department of Health figures issued in March 1983 showed that more than 2.000 medical doctors had been rendered socially useless, suffering from the economic illness of unemployment. To aggravate the problem still further, many medical brains have been bribed by the military services to help them improve the techniques of bacteriological and bio-chemical warfare, which in turn has drawn away many more medical brains from treating patients to research and compose reports about the predictable effects of a nuclear war. One such report, issued after "nearly two years' hard work", was produced by a team of highly skilled consultants. general practitioners and professors. Its findings are not relaxing to read:

Delay in treatment would result in a high incidence of wound infection. Ruptured drainage and sewage systems together with the presence of decaying corpses and animal carcasses would increase enormously the hazards of infection. Major radioactivity would add the problems of radiation sickness to those already wounded. . . The psychogenic effects of such a disaster can only be conjectured. . . It is apparent that any schemes in existence would be completely inadequate to deal effectively with such a situation. (The Report of the British Medical Association Board of Science and Education Inquiry into the Medical Effects of Nuclear War)

In the relentless quest for profit, medical drug companies have often been found guilty of gross negligence or rank unscrupulousness. The leading Swiss company Ciba-Geigy has admitted that it placed unprotected Egyptian children in a field so that a crop-spraying airplane could douse them with the insecticide Galecron. The object was to test the children's urine for toxic levels of the liquid, which was subsequently linked with cancer. The biggest chemical conglomerate in Britain. ICI, has also admitted that it promoted an expensive and dangerous anabolic steroid as a wonder cure for malnourished children in Bangladesh. And these are probably no more the only culprits of such malpractice than Richard Nixon and Profumo are the only dishonest politicians of our time.

The environment

The commercial profit system operates worldwide and. because it puts a priority on the making of a profit for the few, all other interests — including those of the majority of people and our environment — are subordinated to this end. If it is cheaper, and therefore more profitable, to pollute the atmosphere rather than to safely dispose of toxic waste, then the atmosphere gets polluted. The National Wildlife Federation in America reported recently on the increasing problem of acid rain. Sulphur-dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants are damaging forests, fouling lakes and streams; in some parts of California fog is 2,000 times as acidic as natural fog and capable of burning the eyes and throat. More than 26 million tons of sulphur are emitted in the USA every year and the amount is increasing. Mr Kirk Willison, a spokesman for the Edison Electrical Institute, has opposed moves to ban such practices "because of the costs that pollution control would involve" (Daily Telegraph, 11 May 1984). Dangerous pesticides are often marketed with high pressure campaigns. with all sorts of dire results. DDT was withdrawn from the market last year but. as two investigators from Friends of the Earth recently discovered (posing as farmers). it is still possible to get this damaging substance from certain agrochemical suppliers. Chris Rose. FOE's countryside campaigner was reported in Farmers' Weekly as saying:

This was a question of cash on the counter and no questions asked. . . Allowing the sale of DDT is almost unbelievable negligence . . . obviously the company is keen on making a quick buck by flogging poisons even if they are banned.

Malnutrition

Not only do millions of people die from malnutrition each year (Oxfam has estimated the number of malnourishment-related deaths annually at 30,000.000) but millions more just "go hungry" or suffer the effects of an unhealthy diet. According to the United Nations International Emergency Children's Fund over 1,700 children die every sixty minutes (one every 2 seconds) from disease, malnutrition and war-caused disruption. This sort of sacrifice on the altar of profit also happens closer to home. Take one recent case. In August twin sisters aged 2½. died of malnutrition in Essex while their unemployed father was away from home, perhaps taking Norman Tebbit's advice, looking for work. The tragic twist to this particular story was the expertise of the unemployed father — he was a cook (Guardian, 3 August 1985). The social madness of such suffering is that, not only could we produce enough food for every human being to lead a healthy life (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that using current farming methods the world could produce enough food for 33.000,000.000 people — seven times the world population) but that even today so much food and drink is produced but left to rot or be re-cycled because it cannot be sold at a profit.

Millions of litres of surplus Common Market wine, equivalent in its present distilled form to the contents of 16.000 Olympic swimming pools, should be converted into boiler fuel according to a House of Lords select committee report. (Guardian. 25 July 1985)

The Common Market's butter mountain recently reached a record level of 600,000 tonnes, adding to the gastronomic scenery of milk lakes and beef mountains. Despite the enormity of suffering from malnutrition it is still conventional wisdom for the "experts" and their journalistic echoes to refer to such food and drink as "surplus stock". The measuring rod of need in capitalism is. necessarily, not what people need but rather what the market can absorb. The Live Aid concerts earlier this year highlighted the unnecessary suffering of so many people but. clearly, the occasional well-intentioned handouts to the starving cannot solve a problem which is endemic in a society which dances to the tune of the cash register.

Employment

Employment is a euphemism for exploitation. Selling your energies to someone else or a company for your whole vital life, so that the hirer can get wealthy from your efforts, is not the formula for a healthy existence. When people work at home for their families or friends it is usually rewarding and pleasurable. But being constantly alienated from what your efforts produce for your employer is a depressing experience. In the context of employment work becomes nothing more than the reluctantly performed grind necessary to earn a living. Wherever you work — office, factory, school, hospital or mine — the conditions are usually less than extravagant, aimed at maximum productivity rather than your best health and safety. Every aspect of most working environments, including lighting, heating and cleanliness, are not what they could be. Over 1,500 people die every year as a result of their work and courts are always hearing cases of industrial accidents which could have been avoided but for unsafe but cost-saving conditions at work. The independent Office of Health Economics has reported how fear of losing their jobs is forcing more sick workers to work.

Unemployment

Enforced idleness and social uselessness takes an obvious toll, not only on its direct victims but also on their dependants. A government report at the beginning of this decade showed how unemployment leads to increased ill-health, psychological disturbance and alcoholism. Symptoms detailed in the report include depression accompanied by "insomnia, loss or gain of weight, suicidal thoughts, impulsive or violent outbursts and an increased use of alcohol or tobacco". Among physical symptoms are asthma, skin lesions, backaches and headaches. Perhaps not surprisingly, this report was not made universally accessible — only 200 copies were printed and put on sale at £6 each.

Drug abuse

In all sorts of ways the profit system offers bleak prospects for most workers. Either the routine drudge of boring work or the frustration and hopelessness of life on the dole. The pressures become the more unendurable during a deep recession, especially for the millions of young people with so much potential creativity and energy. In this sort of setting the escapism afforded by mood-altering drugs is likely to become more popular. with all the misery that is its consequence. The proliferation of the use of heroin and of solvent-abuse over the last few years is a measure of the deep dissatisfaction an increasing number of people are feeling about the sort of society they live in. The suicide rate is dramatic enough — there are on average about 12 suicide attempts every day — but for many others the regular use of these drugs means life that is almost like suicide. The statistics are not very reliable but a figure of 50,000 heroin addicts in Britain is sometimes quoted. Addressing the drug dealers, Thatcher has warned "We are after you” and Edward Gardner, chairman of a recent House of Commons all-party committee. advocated that drug dealers should be hung (while army recruitment officers have medals put around their necks). But this sort of policy cannot be successful because it seeks to tamper with the symptom of a social malady rather than its cause.

War

Wars are the extension of the economic quarrels of governments over new markets to exploit, new territories rich in mineral deposits. trade routes and strategic locations on the trade map. It is not "human nature" which impels young men (and now, in many armies, young women) to go out and murder complete strangers; it is usually conscription or the fomenting of hysterical jingoistic fervour against "the enemy", as was seen during the Falklands war. From Belfast to Beirut to Baghdad and in a score of other current wars people are being killed and maimed every day, with all the grief and despair for so many others that this leaves in its wake. It has been estimated that "The number of people around the world who are involved in wars of the old-fashioned, death producing kind comes, at a rough count, to about 701,600,000 . . . (Sunday Times, 21 March 1982). The emergency children's fund, Unicef, working in 112 countries, has a total annual income equivalent to about 4 hours of world spending on the war machines. Capitalism is not about caring for people and therefore cannot put a priority on health. One army general is paid more than five state enrolled nurses.

Getting healthy

Socialists cannot object to workers trying to get as fit and healthy as they can. but it cannot be denied that the sort of society we live in makes this a very difficult task. Class-divided society, the rat-race, is a squalid struggle for most people and only with its abolition can we seriously begin to take pleasure in individually and socially enjoying robust good health. If music is the food of love, knowledge is the food of desirable social change. The socialist case contains no artificial flavourings or election promises, just wholesome food for thought. Bon appetit.

Gary Jay

Capitalism’s road to riches (1985)

From the December 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Question: How do capitalists go about the business of making all that money — the legitimate' capitalists, that is? One answer takes into account the fact that they invest their capital, either in direct ownership of production plants or merchandise emporiums; or indirectly through building portfolios in the stock exchanges. In either case the process revolves around commodity ownership. Anything that can be extracted or captured from land, waters, or skies that is potentially saleable at a profit is processed and manufactured with that in mind — commodity production and distribution.

In other words, the only way potential profits and riches can be created is by manufacturing or processing items of wealth through the application of human labour power to natural raw materials. But how is that profit finally obtained? After all, what capitalists have immediately on conclusion of the manufacturing process are warehouses bulging with merchandise — products for which they have no personal need. How do they convert those wares into money and profits?

If we go to conventional wisdom we learn that the costs of production are totalled, to which a percentage is added which will constitute their profit. The merchandise will then be shipped to wholesalers, dealers, jobbers, retailers, or whoever, and each individual entrepreneur involved with the sale of the commodities will, in turn, add a percentage of hoped-for profit, thus raising the cost of the commodity to the ultimate consumer in a purely arbitrary way.

There is, too, an added emphasis that clever merchandising talent helps to separate the men from the boys, to enable those with the good business heads get the better of the rest through wheeling-and-dealing. Also, it must be admitted, is the acknowledgement of an element of luck — being in the right venture and the right place at the right time. But the bottom line on how one is supposed to earn profits is: add a percentage to one's costs.

To be sure, capital invested in production is involved in the business of increasing commodity value through the manufacturing process. And such capitalists, in fixing their selling prices, must add to the costs of the commodities that they need to purchase from other production capitalists. They add those expenditures to the other costs in their production process, and then tack on a figure representing the average profit in their industry to arrive at what Marx termed their ' price of production".

But the merchandising capitalists, who are concerned only with the marketing of finished commodities, would have no reason to jack up the cost of the item since marketing adds nothing to its value. True, they do appear to be doing just this and that is exactly how it shows up in standard bookkeeping. But it is all mere semblance of reality; the merchandisers get their profit by sharing in the surplus value that has been added during the manufacturing process.

To whom do they sell?

The population of industrial and trading nations are made up, generally, of two major elements: capitalists, or employers of labour; and the working class. While there are members of the population that seemingly fit neither category professionals who work on their own for fees, artists, insignificantly tiny business people who hire no help — but their totals are minuscule as against those of the main segments and their income aggregates would be more in the category of working-class levels than capitalist.

Looking at the working class as customers for commodities, the maximum they can afford to consume would have to amount to the total of their wage/salary income. They can hardly spend more without getting into deep trouble which, to be sure, a noticeable percentage of them manage to do from time to time, egged on by the flood of huckstering in the press and over the broadcast media. But there is one outstanding flaw in the argument that profits arise from sales to the wage and salaried section of the population. If that were so, would it not seem practical for the employers of labour to force frequent pay raises in order that the workers might have more to spend on profit-generating merchandise? It should be apparent that the driving rationale of capitalist production is to produce more cheaply in order that commodities can be sold for less with similar, or greater, profit. So the working class, whose labour power applied to raw materials is the source of all wealth, is forever being forced to modify their wage increases while increasing productivity — which is equivalent to accepting a wage cut, even if indirectly. That is the bottom line for the employer.

Profiting from one another?

Now what about that capitalist market? It goes without saying that the capitalist class is the consuming class, although not because of the total values of the necessaries and the luxuries that they buy for themselves whether for simple, personal use or for purposes of conspicuous consumption. The bulk of capitalist purchasing is in production goods needed to operate the industries that turn out and distribute commodities. There are tons of ore and metals of all sorts extracted from ore; there are forests and timber and lumber, crude and refined oil. coal and gas. So individual capitalists indeed seem to get rich from selling to one another.

But we run into another problem when we dig below the surface of what is happening in all that commercial activity. Certainly capitalists do get richer when marketing is enjoying boom times but do those riches arise directly from the sales? The trouble with that theory is simply that it is not possible to sell without also buying. Even a manufacturer of men's trousers must buy buttons or zippers and thread and equipment and machinery of all sorts. So what the wily sales staff would gain for the trousers capitalist would be lost when the equally shrewd people from the firms that supply the accessories and equipment go to work.

There is no question about capitalists needing markets in order to make money. But the profits do not emanate from sales. All that is happening in the area of marketing is a re-distribution of profits that have already been produced. That fact was noted a long time ago by the American author and scientist Benjamin Franklin who wrote: 

Trade in general being nothing else but the exchange of labour for labour, the value of all things is . . . most justly measured by labour.

(The Works of B. Franklin &c. edited by Sparks. Boston. 1836. VoI.ll. p.267.) (Quoted in Capital, Vol I. p.59 footnote. Kerr).

In other words Franklin, like others before him, anticipated Marx in observing that value arises from labour not exchange. Marx, like all scientists, took hold of something already known and added to it, in this case, exposing the legalised swindle of surplus value and wage slavery.

The source of the profit

Actually, it should not take too much reflection to understand why it seems to be so difficult to detect the fallacy in the theory that profits arise from the sale of the commodity. In a society based on production for profit it is even perplexing to most that the question need be raised. From the time we are old enough to comprehend, the proposition that profit is made by adding a percentage to cost, at the selling stage, is seen as self-evident and is taught in the institutions of learning from primary grades on up through university level. Even that common assertion, especially by discount merchandisers, that they buy for less and consequently are enabled to sell for less than their competition, does not alter the fact that their profit is supposed to be traced to their mark-up from cost.

And yet, on dose examination, the concept breaks down. Try asking yourself this question, for example: would you be willing to pay £7,000 or more for a shiny new car at a showroom if you were told that a part of that value was added in the dealer's business office simply by putting pencil to paper or fingering the keys of a calculator? The truth is that every penny of value had been added to that car when it had been inspected at the factory for shipment to the dealer.

Every penny of profit that is garnered by the various entrepreneurs involved with the sale of the car comes from the surplus value that had been extracted from the workers engaged in its production. The production capitalists cannot gobble up all the profit that is left after the expenses associated with plant operation have been subtracted.

To leave nothing for commercial capitalists they would be compelled to market the commodity themselves, thus tying up capital that would be better earmarked for production. It makes more economic sense for industrial capitalists to share the loot with merchant capitalists. This they do by selling their commodities to the merchandising capitalists below their full "price of production"; the merchant's mark-up brings the final selling price which the consumer pays up to a level representing costs plus the average rate of profit in full. But this profit has been created in the manufacturing process as surplus value. When the commodity in which it is embodied is sold this surplus value already created by the labour of the working class is converted into a monetary form: profit. Profits are made in the process of production and only realised on the market.

Harry Morrison

(World Socialist Party of the United States)