Who wants to be rich? (1990)

From the November 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

If I were a car I would fail the MOT. Those magazine questionnaires designed to determine your susceptibility to a heart attack usually have me as a prime candidate for a coronary. Still, you have to be fit to be as unfit as I am.

This particular day my normally low blood pressure was pushing a maximum darts score, one hundred and eighty. What reason could there be? What stress was there in meeting with some other members of the working class who were going to decide my suitability as a prospective fellow wage slave? Being a materialist, superstition holds no sway with me. Therefore, the good luck wishes from my workmates prior to my departure for the interview were, I felt, unlikely to influence its outcome. However, as I approached the meeting place the omens took a decidedly dodgy turn.

In my part of the world there exists a myth that local government officials and councillors work in surroundings that surpass the opulence of Louis XVI's Palace of Versailles. The envy of the local populace extends to what is believed to be the high rewards of a council sinecure, coupled with a workload found generally only within the capitalist class. Get a job with the council, it is said, and you're set for life. Which is, of course, what I was trying to do.

Security guard

The offices failed to live up to lotus-eater expectations. Local folk-lore had definitely got it wrong. As I manoeuvred my car around the crowded bombsite passing itself off as a car park, I was, I decided, taking part in some clandestine initiative test. If at first you don't succeed, give up. Exiting from the vehicle assault course, I spotted, through the bucketing rain, a space! What sort of world is it where human happiness is finding an empty car park space? Nemesis was at hand in the form of a middle-aged, Scottish security guard. ‘You can't park there ", he said, “it's private property”.

I was now faced with a real dilemma. I could either plead with him to let me leave my car where it was, or I could stay and explain to this fellow member of the working class why it was a waste of his life to be protecting fifty square foot of this planet for someone who probably spent more on one suit than the Scotsman earned in a month. My interview was now ten minutes away. What would you have done? It was Hobson's choice. After all. we live in a capitalist society where most of the wealth is owned by a small minority. But that wealth is produced for them by the majority, you and I, who receive less back in wages and salaries than the value we produce. So if you don't own a factory or an oil company, or if your daddy's not a newspaper magnate, you have to go out and sell your labour power, get a job, in order to live. Even Socialists have to eat, so with a guilty conscience I pleaded with the guard to let me stay. Of course, he wouldn't have been doing what he was paid to if he had let me, so it was off again in search of another space. I reckon it would have been easier to have found a socialist in the Labour Party.

Selling his labour power is not a problem that the Master of Lovat, the Honourable Simon Augustine Fraser is ever likely to have. Earlier in the year he put up for sale an 11-mile stretch of the Beauly river, along with surrounding 30,000-acre deer forest, hunting lodge and two other houses. If you had fancied a bit of huntin' and fishin' you would have needed between twelve and fifteen million pounds in order to become one of the propertied class. The Hon. Simon, described by the agent handling the sale as an “entrepreneur with worldwide interests", was handed the estate by his father, the 17th Baron Lovat, 20 years ago. The river had been in the Fraser family for 700 years. Local people, whose opinion counts for nowt. expressed unhappiness at the sale. They believed that it would be sold to a Middle East sheikh, since they were the only people able to afford those kind of prices.

Although the reason given for the sale was that Fraser was “now aware of what it is worth and feels that now is probably the best time to cash in", it was probably the cost of all those Scottish security guards needed to guard the property that was the real reason.

Loads of money

We. the working class, should really be grateful that we don't have the sort of problems that beset the land-owning members of the capitalist class. Our problems, paying the rent; feeding the children; keeping on the right side of the boss and fighting for a pay rise, pale into insignificance when compared to theirs. Imagine the angst that a local viscount suffered recently following his decision to sack two workers with 27 years service between them. As he rightly said, farming on the urban fringe of the Black Country had become a total nightmare. He explained that trespass and vandalism were becoming interminable in this part of the world. Barns were being burned down, machinery damaged and stock let out. How much more sensible, therefore, to let 600 acres lie fallow in return for eighty pounds a year an acre under the Ministry of Agriculture's “set aside" scheme. The scheme's aim is to reduce food production and preserve farmland. Still, Lord C has another 1000 acres with which to provide employment for the labouring class. Where would the working class be without their "betters" to provide for them?

"Who wants to be a millionaire?", asked Frank Sinatra in the film High Society. Well, Grace Kelly for a start. Underneath all that wealth, the big houses, the cars, the yachts, the rich are just like you and me. the film says. Except they have loads more money and the social power which being a member of the capitalist class confers. Who wants to be rich and miserable, when you can be poor and miserable? Aren't you chuffed that as a member of the working class you have an opportunity denied to the rich?

As the newspaper piece says, local people are being given a unique opportunity to drive £l million monorail trains! A £24 million computerised monorail system soon to open at a massive local shopping complex is in urgent need of drivers and security officers. The security head of the complex says. "These most unusual jobs will provide a unique opportunity to drive or guard monorail trains". I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't inundated with requests from Middle East sheikhs who can't wait to guard monorail trains. There it is again. The need for security guards. Perhaps this is where I should be seeking employment. I believe that some companies pay as much as £2.50 an hour, for only 60 hours a week.

Offered for sale

There's no doubt about it. Capitalism provides the working class with loads of opportunities that socialism couldn't. Capitalism provides the opportunity to live m a cardboard box: starve in both the First World and the Third World; live with the threat of chemical and nuclear war; have polluted rivers and seas; and turn rainforests into deserts. But whilst the things seen on television or read in newspapers may raise a momentary tut of sympathy, the demands of day-to-day survival in capitalism manifest themselves as a hundred minor irritations every day.

We live, as we are constantly being reminded, in a free market economy. Commodities are produced, not because there is a need for them, but because they will make a profit for the owner of the means of production of that commodity when it is sold on the market. In the same way that you buy a gallon of petrol, a pair of shoes or a loaf of bread, the employer buys your labour power—your ability to work—for an hour, a week or a month. The only ones who aren't paid weekly are those who derive their wealth from the surplus value which the working class as a whole produces. So, do you enjoy your work because you really like it or because you have no choice? Do you like offering yourself for sale like a used car? Do you like suffering the indignity of explaining every action of your life to some smug interviewer? Do you like the indignity of the umpteenth refusal because you don't quite measure up to what they're looking for? Do you like being made to feel rejected, inadequate and a failure? Or do you like to have your success as a human being measured solely in monetary terms?

Your problem—and mine—isn't lack of money. It's capitalism. It isn’t the working class which is inadequate and a failure, it's capitalism. In a society where work is a four-letter word, the effort involved in supporting a society that makes wage slaves of most of us could be directed at achieving socialism—where work becomes a pleasure, not a drudge, and where the planet belongs to us all.

Dave Coggan

Letter: Holier than thou? (1990)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

Holier than thou?

The following report of the same meeting appeared in the October 1990 issue of "World Revolution".

On 11 September the Socialist Party of Great Britain held a public meeting on the Gulf crisis. This meeting was called on a working class terrain, since the SP denounces both sides in the conflict as equally obnoxious from the standpoint of the workers.

The ICC comrades present at this meeting affirmed our agreement with this basic class position. Or rather, attempted to affirm it, because our efforts to do so were drowned in a cascade of objections from the praesidium. Normally at SPGB meetings we are not obstructed from putting forward our positions. We can only assume that this sea-change occurred because this was a big meeting with the ‘gentlemen of the press' present, and the SPGB wanted to present itself nationally as the only force in British (parliamentary) politics to be taking a stand against the war. The SPGB was clearly embarrassed that the 'Leninists' of the ICC, who they like to lump in with leftist groups like the SWP, were taking an even more intransigent stand than they were. This sectarian attitude, which is based on the idea that the SP alone in the entire world defends the interests of the working class, is moreover rooted at the very heart of the SP's politics.

However, all the provisions made by the praesidium to run a tight ship at the meeting did not prevent them from clashing against the rocks when the simple and obvious question was posed to them by a member of the audience: what should workers do about the situation?’

The point is not that this is an easy question to answer in a detailed fashion, but that the SP cannot answer it even in principle. They had no answer in the First World War, nor in the Second, and they still don't have an answer today.

This is because they have no conception of the working class as an active force in history. They are completely lost in a fantasy in which the working class comes to power through the mechanisms of bourgeois democracy, through elections and such-like. Therefore, they cannot answer the question of how the mass of the working class can act to avert war.

And the only ’answer' they could give to the questioner was to tell her, essentially, to join the SP—and hope that this would be as individually fulfilling for her as it was for them!

Reply:
We are heartened that we are not alone in taking up the position that the threatening war in the Middle East is a capitalist conflict over oil and trade, routes-and that no issue is at stake, on either side, justifying the sacrifice of the life of a single member of the working class.

What to do? When war threatens or breaks out, all that Socialists can do is to denounce this as yet another manifestation of the barbarity of capitalism and to reaffirm that the workers of the world have a common interest in uniting to end capitalism and establish socialism as a world community without frontiers based on the common ownership and democratic control of the world's natural and industrial resources.

Readers interested in (if they have not already guessed) our views on the ICC and their admiration for Lenin are referred to an article in the August 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard (available from our Head Office for the price of a stamped addressed envelope). Those who want to verify that the meeting was conducted in our habitual democratic manner can purchase the tape-recording of the meeting—as, indeed, we urge all those interested in the socialist position on the Gulf crisis to do.

Editors.

Blogger's Note:

Longstanding correspondent to the Socialist Standard, George Pearson, also had a letter on this meeting in the November 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard.

There is an audio recording of the September 11th, 1990 meeting at Conway Hall on the SPGB's website:

THE GULF CRISIS – ANOTHER WAR FOR OIL 

Venue: Conway Hall, London

Date: 11th September 1990

Panel – Steve Coleman, Richard Headicar, Kerima Mohideen

50 Years Ago: Reflections on wartime (1990)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

Doubtless there are some adherents to Socialism who, seeing the appalling state of the world to-day and suffering the nightmare of the beleaguered city, are inclined to despair of the future and feel that the prospect for Socialism is wearing thin. It is understandable that such ideas should take root as it is so difficult to tear one’s mind away from the maelstrom in which we are living and take a dispassionate view of events.

Yet in this miserable hour the future is by no means as dark as it may appear. The movement for Socialism is of necessity only a trickle for a long lime, and this partly deludes people into the belief that little progress is made when in reality great progress has and is being made. The mass of people move as a mass. That is to say their political knowledge grows slowly but steadily at an even pace and it is in a mass and not by ones and twos that the great body of the workers will come to the conviction that in Socialism lies their social salvation. In fact the progress is more real than apparent.

[From the article 'Reflections in War Time' by Gilbert McClatchie, Socialist Standard, November 1940.]

SPGB Meetings (1990)

Party News from the November 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Christopher Hampton's 'The Ideology of the Text' was reviewed in the May 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard.

You and The Rent Act (1957)

From the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

October 6th is a significant date in landlord’s diaries, for on that day the first instalment of rent increases under the new Rent Act become payable. Even if the reader of this article has not the dubious advantage of living in a rent-controlled property, it is highly probable that he or she has already faced a substantial rise in the cost-of-living due to rate-increases or to the withdrawal of housing subsidies.

Rents

So much misleading and contradictory information and speculation has been provided about the provisions of the 1957 Rent Act that it may be advisable to outline its main effects. Firstly, dwelling-houses with a rateable value of over £40 in London or over £30 in the provinces are to be decontrolled which means that some 800,000 tenants and their families are to lose all security of tenure under the Rent Restriction Acts, although they have the doubtful benefit of a fifteen-months’ waiting period. The next main provision provides for a substantial increase in the rents of practically all rent-controlled property, permitting an increase to bring the annual rent up to twice the gross value of the dwelling- house; or, if the landlord elects to be responsible for interior repairs, up to seven-thirds of the gross value. Even slum property, in poor condition will be liable for such increases, unless the property happens to be scheduled for slum clearance, or unless the tenant can obtain a “Certificate of Disrepair” from the local authority.

With regard to the question of houses in a bad state of repair, the landlord is still in a strong position, for the tenant, in order to obtain a certificate, must prove to the satisfaction of the local authority that the property is in disrepair, “having regard to the age, character and locality of the dwelling.” In simple language all this means that a small house, built, say, in 1850, would suffer an increase from perhaps 22/6 per week to about £2 5s. per week, or even more if the landlord carried out internal repairs. The overall picture seems to be that the rents of rent-controlled property will rise by an average of fifty to sixty per cent. but with properties that are decontrolled by the Act of course, by law the sky’s the limit so far as rents are concerned (after the fifteen months' standstill period).

Other Provisions

The Act legalises the charging of premiums for tenancies (except that no premiums can be charged for a period of three years in respect of properties decontrolled by the Act), so landlords will shortly be back to the happy days of "key money.” Furnished tenancies, too, within the decontrolled categories of rateable values will be decontrolled, and the Rent Tribunals will no longer have jurisdiction over them. These are the main provisions of the Act, although there are a host of other minor provisions, re-enactments and repeals of sections of earlier Acts.

Rates

The substantial increases in the rates on living accommodation now being put into operation by practically all local authorities are mainly caused by the Government decision to de-rate business premises by a quarter. This is, in effect, a calculated swindle, for when the new valuation list was published last April, it was solemnly declared that the rate payable on dwelling-houses would increase little if at all. Now one finds that business premises which stood the greatest increase under the new valuation, have been relieved of this burden, which has been passed over to residential property.

Council Tenants

Council tenants, too, are affected by the increases in rates, but in addition to this, the withdrawal of housing subsidies and the increased interest on loans obtained by load authorities have resulted in a considerable rise in the rents payable by council and corporation tenants. The average increase in London is about 3/6 per week for a single-bedroom flat, 5/- for a double-bedroom flat, and proportionally more for larger fiats, but some London boroughs are increasing rents by as much as 10/- or 12/6 per week. This has brought about a certain amount of unrest, and demonstrations have been held in many boroughs, although with little result, and even less understanding on the part of the demonstrators.

While one uses the term “Council tenant,” this is really a misnomer in the meaning of the Acts, as in fact the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts do not apply to the occupants of Council flats, and they are not even "tenants” in the correct sense of the term. They are merely licensees who have no security of tenure, and their rents are fixed at any figure that the Council considers reasonable.

What are the motives?

What, then, is the reason behind the Government’s action, which on the face of it appears to guarantee their defeat in an election, and provides the likelihood of further industrial unrest?

The economics of the matter have been fully dealt with in these pages, so it is unnecessary to repeat the arguments. With regard to the loss of votes, the Tories, after the Suez debacle, were hardly at the height of their popularity, and their proposed measures over rents, although unpopular, are unlikely to make much difference one way or the other, especially in view of the fact that they can now expect some support over these measures from those people who will now be able to obtain accommodation, albeit at very high rents. In any case, the Tories know perfectly well that the election issues of today will not be the issues of two years' time, when their term of office runs out. One might also speculate as to whether the Tories are over-anxious to win the next election anyway, having regard to the precarious economic circumstances of Britain.

Then one must look at the post-war background of rent-restriction. Since 1945 we have been passing through a period of expansion and full employment, when, by all the rules, workers are in a favourable position to press for wage increases. Due to inflation, the wage freeze, the T.U.C-Labour Party alliance, and other factors, very few real gains were made by workers up to 1954. It seems likely, though, that if Rent Restriction had been abolished before then, wage claims would have come fast and furious, and employers, with full order books and an acute shortage of manpower would have been hard put to it to refuse them. Seemingly the present Government is now prepared to face this.

Lastly, economists have for years been telling the politicians that a disastrously excessive amount of capital investment has been taking place in housing, which formed the largest single item of British capital expenditure. The Tories tried curtailing this expenditure by withdrawing housing subsidies, squeezing the Building Societies and Banks, and raising interest rates. Apparently this did not go far enough, and so the Rent Act provides the answer.

The Opportunists

It can be seen, then, that this is the time, from the Tories' point of view, to start to dispose of Rent Restriction, which was designed as a wartime measure and has now outlived its usefulness. The new Act is, in effect, an attempt to return to pre-war "normalcy,” with few workers being able to buy houses, and the majority of workers forced to put up with overcrowded conditions in order to economise on rents. (One might remember that this “normalcy” included a million and a half unemployed.)

From all this, one hopes that workers will realise (in case they hadn’t realised it before) just how hollow was Mr. Butler’s assertion that the standard of living would be doubled in twenty-five years, and just how empty were the election promises to solve the housing problem. Of one thing workers can be sure—that this Act will not get more houses built, and will not in the slightest degree solve the problem of overcrowding and bad housing. One might add also that the Labour Party’s proposals to nationalise rent-controlled property and put up the rents will do just as little to solve them. The solution to the problem is fairly obvious—that is, for building workers to build decent homes for people to live in, without landlords, without investment, and without rent-control or rents. The trouble is that Capitalism does not permit of simple solutions of this kind, and so we go on, eternally arguing about what are no more than the effects of an irrational, crazy social system, instead of doing the obvious thing—to replace that system by a sane and reasonable one.

Albert Ivimey

A Socialist Principle Re-examined (1957)

From the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

At each general election the Tory Party tells the electors that it intends to make changes in the law or in the administration of the law. Among the changes promised in 1955 were lower taxes, smaller classes in schools, legislation to safeguard the employment of children, changes in the rating system, more Scotsmen for Scottish affairs, reform of the House of Lords, and encouragement of the Welsh language in Welsh schools. In addition to definite promises, there were expressions of “anxiety," "sympathy." and so on, about other problems. The Labour Party had a similar list; it included action against monopolies (the Tories' only undertook to be anxious about this); smaller classes (like the Tories, but using the phrase “more teachers"); respect for the national culture of Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland, and "full employment" in the first two, but only the promise of “new industries" for the third. The main purpose of these promised "reforms" is transparently clear—they are to attract the votes of interested people, the Welsh and the Scots, parents of young children, small traders afraid of monopolies, and so on. The politicians and business men who control the Tory Party are not trying to persuade the electors to make great changes in present social arrangements; their purpose is just the opposite. They like the arrangement that makes 10 per cent. of the population the owners of 90 per cent. of the accumulated wealth of the country, and they want to be elected and control the government so that they can keep it that way. They promise to make small changes in order to have power to prevent big ones. At the 1955 election they were the most successful of the “reformers." They and their associates got 49.8 per cent of the votes cast while the Labour Party got only 46.3 per cent The Liberals and the Communists and the I.LP. were also there before the electors, trying, though with much less success, to get votes on a list of promised reforms.

Socialists fight the Reformist Parties

The Socialist Party of Great Britain on principle has no list of reforms, either between elections or at elections. We do not seek the votes of people who want reforms of the present social system. The only votes we seek and receive are for the purpose of getting rid of the present social system and replacing it by Socialism. We do not support campaigns for reforms or associate with reformist organisations. The S.P.G.B. was formed in revolt against the uselessness of reformism, and to fight the reformist organisations, including such bodies as the Labour Party. The Socialists who founded the S.P.G.B. had had long experience of that sort of thing in the Social Democratic Federation, from which they broke away. The reformist organisations are the enemies of Socialism. 

The Socialists who, back in the times of the S.D.F., thought they could be reformists as well as Socialists, had a neat theory to justify themselves. They were, at first, comparatively clear about what Socialism is and what its attainment involves. They knew, for example, that it meant dispossessing the capitalist class and transferring the means of production and distribution to society. They knew that h involved ending property incomes and the production of articles for sale and profit. But it was. they said, impossible to make headway with the clear-cut object of Socialism because the workers were too stupid to understand and accept it: they dubbed the S.P.G.B. the “Impossibilists. ” They said they knew a better way. They would keep Socialism as their ultimate aim, but in the meantime they would unite the workers on programmes of reform and lead them on to Socialism, they refused to believe our contention that fighting for reforms leads to confusion, builds up a purely reformist organisation, and ends by burying and forgetting the Socialist aim that was supposed to be the only justification for Socialist activity. Now the S.D.F. is dead, but the evil that it and the I.L.P. did lives on in the Labour Party, and everything that the S.P.G.B. foretold has come to pass.

Immediate demands

The S.D.F. had a long list of “palliatives” or “immediate demands”; items to rally the workers and be brought at once into operation while we were waiting for Socialism. In the list exactly 50 years ago were such trifles as abolition of the House of Lords, abolition of the monarchy, and repudiation of the national debt. Of course, none of these demands has been carried, and hardly anyone in Labour Party circles now even wants them.

If someone had the temerity to propose them today at the T.U.C. or Labour Party, the delegates would be dazed with astonishment. What, abolish the dear old Lords, where superannuated Labour M.P.s can now go and draw their three guineas a day? No more medals and honours from the Queen, and no more garden parties at Buckingham Palace? Repudiate the national debt, where millions of pounds of trade union funds are invested? The only monarch abolished in these 50 years was Edward VIII, forced to abdicate by a Tory government, and the monarchy now has no more fervent supporters than the Labour Party. Of course, there were many other immediate demands in the list that have been carried, but without the slightest effect in alleviating or palliating the condition of the workers. One of these was the. demand that M.P.s should be paid. Free, gratis and for nothing we offer to any enterprising vote-catcher the idea of fighting an election on a demand that M.P.s should be deprived of the increase of pay they recently voted themselves while the Prime Minister was chiding the workers for their ill-advised wage claims: he would be certain of quite a lot of votes from the envious citizenry.

The Independent Labour Party also had a list of  reforms, described as “means” to Socialism. It was a less ambitious list than the one used by the S.D.F. and, therefore, more of its valueless demands have been achieved, but widows, orphans and the sick and disabled are still whistling for the “adequate provision” and “state pensions for every person over 50 ” that the I.L.P. had in its programme at the beginning of the century.

Restricted Rents and Restricted Wages

The S.D.F. fifty years ago had an "immediate demand” on housing. It was for the "compulsory construction of healthy dwellings for the people, and such dwellings to be let at rents to cover the cost of maintenance and construction only.” It will be noticed that it had two aims, low rents and the abolition of slums. The Tory Party and the Labour Party have both introduced much legislation on these questions, though the Tories have the distinction of first having introduced rent restriction and now being well on the way to abolishing it entirely.

The reformist demand for restricted rents is part of the myth that the workers’ problems would be solved by low prices. In the 19th century it was the Liberal Party, representing the manufacturers, who wanted low prices and low rents, and it was they who secured the abolition of the Corn Laws so that cheap food imports would lower the cost of living—and wages. The Tory landlords lost, and the Liberal manufacturers gained, but not the workers. The same thing happened in 1915 when rent restriction hit the landlords and kept wages low, to help the manufacturers. Now, by a curious reversal of roles, it is the Labour Party that speaks for the export manufacturers and points out that higher rents will mean higher wages and hamper exports. The manufacturing capitalist’s interest in low rents and low wages is understandable, but from the workers’ standpoint it forgets that we live under capitalism in which the workers’ living depends on what wages they can get. The Tories did not introduce rent control in 1915 in order to give the workers the benefit of low rents with high wages, but as part of a campaign to prevent wages from rising. And the Labour Government carried it on with precisely the same aim. While they were in office from 1945 to 1951 they used every effort to keep wages down, in spite of a rising cost of living. Official information on wage rates and the cost of living proves this, and it was admitted again by Mr. Harold Wilson, M.P., in the House of Commons on 25th July, 1957. Speaking officially for the Labour Party, he said:—

"I believe that the Unions have shown great restraint since the war. In a seller’s market they could have made and exacted much bigger claims for their members than they have done." (Hansard, 25th July, Col. 637.)

To put the matter in perspective, we may take the figure given by the Labour Party spokesmen in the Rent Control debate on 21st November, 1956. They said that the new Rent Act would add about £100 million a year to the workers’ rent bill. This may be compared with the Labour Government’s policies which added thirty per cent. to the workers’ cost of living between 1945 and 1951. That thirty per cent. rise added, not £100 million a year to the workers’ cost of living, but at least £1,000 million a year, and probably very much more. Against the opposition of the Labour Government, with its “wage restraint” policy, the workers had to fight continuously for higher wages, and fell far short of catching up, though by a more aggressive policy since the Tories came in they have now succeeded.

No Care for Slums

The second part of the old reform demand was “healthy dwellings’’—the abolition of slums. Every government has promised to deal with slums, but the problem is greater now than at any time in half a century, and the number of slums is growing fast. This fact is the Tories’ excuse for abolishing rent control on the ground that with restricted rents old houses are not kept in repair and are falling into slumdom by the hundred thousand. The Labour Party does not deny this; that is why they are not prepared to re-introduce the old restrictions if they get back into power. In the Labour Party pamphlet, “Homes of the Future” (1956, page 49), appears the statement:—

"Rent control has been quoted as the main reason for the deterioration in the condition of rented property since 1920. That it is one of the reasons cannot be denied, but it is by no means the only one.”

In the same pamphlet is the admission that the Labour Party policy of having rented houses taken over by the local authority and put in good repair will also mean higher rents, described as “a moderate increase in rent." (p. 13). In short, the reformers cut their own throats. They wanted capitalism to give them low rents and also the abolition of slums, and the one destroyed the other. They thought they were being “practical,” not impossible, like the S.P.G.B. They thought of everything except the one thing that matters, that we are living under capitalism.

According to the original band of “socialists” who wanted to work through reforms, it was all supposed to be a quick way of achieving the objective of Socialism. And after fifty years of it capitalism is as firmly entrenched as ever, and if a Labour Government comes in again its position will actually be reinforced, for the latest nostrum of these “socialists” who have no time for Socialism, is that the Labour Government will buy shares in big companies! Muddle-headed as the S.D.F. and I.L.P forerunners of the Labour Party were, this would make Hyndman and Keir Hardie turn in their graves. 

Edgar Hardcastle

Labour's Tombstone: The New Policy on Nationalisation (1957)

Pamphlet Review from the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party has produced a pamphlet with the title “Industry and Society,” and a sub-title “Labour’s Policy on Future Public Ownership.” This pamphlet sets forth a change in the Labour policy which has been coming on gradually for a long time. The excuse for this change is that:—

“The structure of industry is rapidly changing. If we could accurately describe the private sector of 1918 it would certainly present a very different picture from the private sector of today." (Page 11.)

Is this so?. Let the pampbet answer the question:

"Nevertheless, the shareholders still retain the legal rights of ownership, and the financial rewards that accompany them. These are of major importance, for the capital gains arising in the large firm sector account for something like 80 per cent. of the total capital gains and a large share of the total company dividends arising in British industry. What is more, these gains accrue to a very small section of the population." (Page 56.)

In the earlier years State ownership—or nationalisation—was the central plank in the Labour Party’s policy. It was to be the means to achieve for the worker “the full product of his labour.” As J. R. Clynes put it, in his presidential address to the Labour Party Conference at Portsmouth in 1909:—

"The Trade Unionist asks for but a share of the wealth he creates, the Socialist tells him to claim the full product of his labour and call upon all who are able to do so to give their share of service for their share of wealth." (New Age, 4th February, 1909.)

In the Socialist Review for February 1908 Ramsay MacDonald wrote:—

"A Labour Party in the House of Commons can do as much for Socialism as a Socialist Party can do, because the former can use to the maximum every Socialist tendency of the present day." (Page 15.)

How does the present policy shape up to these two complementary statements? First of all “State Ownership” and "Nationalisation” have been exchanged for another phrase, "Public Ownership,” because it allows of a much wider interpretation that practically blots out the early interpretation. As they put it, after setting forth certain objectives:—

"The achievement of these aims was expected to be assisted by the extension of public ownership generally. As aims, however, they did not point to any particular form of organisation which public ownership should take, nor any particular order of priorities which should be followed. On these matters the Labour Patty has always been flexible." (Page 8.)

The aim of those who formed the Labour Party did point to a particular form of organisation. It was State Ownership, of the form represented by the Post Office, and Land Nationalisation. When they wanted to change their policy they discovered, in the words of Attlee, that the Post Office was "the outstanding example of collective capitalism.”

But let us quote again from Ramsay MacDonald's article:—

"Thus, the duty of the Socialist now is to select from the complexity of social movements those tending towards collective organisation and to marshall them for political' purposes; and this duty becomes more and more imperative and pressing as the propaganda of the Socialist idea becomes more and more successful."

Now turn to the pamphlet and compare what it says with the views of Clynes and Macdonald:—

"The Labour Party recognises that, under increasingly professional managements, large firms are, as a whole, serving the nation well. Moreover, we recognise that no organisation, public or private, can operate effectively if it is subjected to persistent and detailed interventions from above. We have, therefore, no intention of intervening in the management of any firm which is doing a good job. (Page 48.)

In fact so satisfied are they with the conduct of the large firms that they have decided to change their approach to "public ownership” or, as they put it, "adopt the forms of public ownership to meet the particular problems involved.” Thus:—

"There are a number of ways by which the community may become the owner of industrial shares. It can do so as a consequence of our National Superannuation proposals through which a fund is to be set up under the control of independent trustees, to take up the surplus of contributions over pension payments which will gradually build up. We have emphasised in our proposals that these trustees should be able to invest in whatever manner they consider will best safeguard die interests of contributors. They will not be precluded, any more than private insurance companies, from investing part of their funds in equity shares. At the same time, investments of the fund should be a powerful influence in helping to strengthen the gilt-edged market.

"There are also other matters and other agencies through which State participation in share ownership is possible. We would emphasise, however, that it is not our intention that the Government should indulge in a wildly inflationary scramble for shares; both the timing and occasion for acquiring shares will need careful consideration." (Page 40.)

Lest anybody thinks that the effect of all this will be the boasted “more equitable distribution of wealth,” we would call attention to the following:—

"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." (Page 47.)

In other words, the former shareholders, like those of the railways, mines and banks, will receive bonds that will ensure them and their successors a secure and labour free life indefinitely. This is the abolition of private ownership by perpetuation!

The pamphlet contains many arguments to show that the Labour policy has produced valuable results. But then we are told that opposite policies have produced the same results!

For example. On page 21 we are told that a considerable amount of self-financing during the 1949-1953 period can to some extent “be attributed to the political and fiscal barriers which the Labour Government erected between profits and dividend distribution.” The next paragraph has this to say:—

"Government policy, however, is not the only influence at work. In the United States, where no restraints have been placed upon dividends, the postwar picture of company finance is broadly similar to our own."

Again, on page 8, we are told:—

."At the same time [during the Labour Government] the nationalisation programme was designed to make a real contribution to the broader aims of Socialism—to social justice, economic security and a new spirit in industry. These expectations, as the developments separately reviewed in the policy statement Public Enterprise show, have been substantially realised." (Page 8.)

How "substantially” they have been realised we are told later in the pamphlet. For example:—

"Indeed, the slow progress of tax policies—both progressive taxation and death duties—in reducing significantly inequalities in private wealth, must in large part be attributed to the special character of equity shares and their ownership by the rich. Increases in industrial production will sooner or later in a private enterprise system be reflected in higher equity values. The quicker the pace of industrial expansion (and the pace has quickened under full employment), the faster share values are likely to rise. It follows, therefore, that egalitarian policies which rely on high progressive taxation and high progressive death duties can be in part or in whole counteracted by private capital gains." (Page 33.)

"In an era of unprecedented high taxation, the waiting lists of our Public Schools are longer than ever before and conspicuous consumption continues unchecked." (Page 51.)

A great deal of the pamphlet is taken up with the argument that the capitalist no longer owns or controls the principal industrial units; that, as shareholders, they have no power in the huge companies. On page 28 they quote Berle’s statement as a neat summary of the position:—

“The capital is there and so is Capitalism,

The waning factor is the Capitalist."

They follow it with this gem:—

"All that remains is the claim of the capitalist, as legal owner, on the income and wealth which these great corporations continue to generate."

Yes, that’s all!! Poor old Ellerman, Wolfson, Onassis, Nuffield, Clore, and Fraser. Lest anybody has an exaggerated idea of the total number of shareholders in the country and the distribution of shares, the pamphlet points out:—

“If the distribution of share ownership in the U.K. is similar to that in the U.S.A., then something like 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of total capital gains will accrue to the wealthiest 5 per cent. of shareholders. Since shareholders themselves account for no more than 6 per cent. of the adult population, roughly 0.3 per cent. of the population will enjoy at least 50 per cent. of the capital gains. (Page 34.) 

That, in their own words, is the result of over 50 years of Labourism, during which the Labour Party has three times held office; the last time for five years.

They put forward more proposals, but very tentative ones, for controls and the taxation of capital gains, but kill the ideas with such statements as:—

“It is therefore clear that the purpose of controls is both to prevent and to encourage economic activity, according to the nation's requirements. Negative controls are, it is true, easier to operate. Controls which aim to encourage rather than to impede action are necessarily more uncertain." (Page 44.)

"Although much useful spade work has been done many of the facts upon which judgment must be based are simply not available to an Opposition Party; and an additional complication in a period of great Industrial development—the facts themselves can rapidly change." (Page 46.) 

Before concluding, we must call attention to another change in the Labour Party's outlook. It used to boost the Co-operative movement as a valuable partner in the stealthily evolutionary movement that would gradually abolish the private ownership of the means of production. Now they tell us:—

“But in spite of its past success, the share of total capital resources controlled by the Co-operative Movement is in fact small. Taking full account of its future possibilities, the Co-operative Movement cannot be expected by itself to make an adequate contribution to the diffusion of private wealth." (Page 35.)

On the whole, this pamphlet clearly illustrates how bankrupt the Labour Party is on every ground except one —the defence of the capitalist social system. 

Gilmac.

How well is the "Welfare State"? (1957)

From the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Continued from August Socialist Standard).

The reader of the previous articles under this title will have seen that all is not well in the “Welfare State.” It is, besides, significant that more often than not, the term is applied sarcastically, as a joke. If the writer quoted the pattern of Austria, this is only because of his first-hand information on a country with a reputation for, and boasting of, its social welfare schemes, even though equally frequent criticisms of its social evils flatly contradict the praise.

Thus a recent Vienna daily paper wrote: “We still have a fearful housing problem, with all the social evils and misery resulting therefrom. No long queues of automobiles, no fine facades, and no richly stocked and brilliantly illuminated shop windows should deceive us about the ugly pictures behind. Despite the enormous economic progress of the last few years, Austria is not yet among the well-to-do of this earth ” . . . "Let us carry the wave of readiness to help which we showed towards the Hungarian refugees, into our own land. Let us, when the appalling need of the neighbour has been alleviated, clear away our own misery! ” What? Misery in the Welfare State, of which the "socialist” Sozial-minister Proksch says: "The Welfare State brings welfare to everybody and therewith guarantees well-being to every citizen.”

Money for the Salzburg Festival

When the “socialist” Vice-chancellor was touring the country in a campaign to get himself elected as federal president, he discovered to what he called his "astonishment” that in addition to the large depressed areas of Lower Austria and the Burgenland, there are “depressed areas” also in Carinthia and in the province of Salzburg which had not directly suffered from Russian depredations and loot. In winter one-third of all insured persons are without work there. The burgomasters who had come to listen to the candidate, told him of their cares and their troubles. "When I am in Salzburg,” said one of them, "I see work proceeding on the Festival Playhouse; it is very nice, but when I come home and see the cows standing knee deep in water, because of the lack of protective river embankments against floods, which turn roads into an impassable quagmire, I ask myself whether there really is no money for us. Every day tractors have to haul out autos stuck in the mire.” (Millions throughout the world might ask themselves similar questions when they read of the astronomical sums spent on armaments, and that a small clique of parasites can live in luxury and idleness in the fine resorts of the world while the people everywhere are grappling with terrible housing problems and sink daily deeper into the quagmire of their misery). Similar conditions obtain in other countries, regardless of whether they are kingdoms, republics, democratic or totalitarian, whether they falsely style themselves Socialist or Communist, or what you will. The ruler of all of them is King Capital, with his retinue of privileged drawers of rent, interest and profit, and leaving to the mass of the people the residue, of poverty and misery. To those who want a distinction to be made between this and the other side of the iron curtain, here is what it amounts to:—

Two Sides of the Iron Curtain

Economically, the iron heel of capitalism treads and exploits the workers in the West as in the East, differences of standards of living notwithstanding. Whether private owners of property and bond-holders of nationalised industries use their wealth for the purpose of living on rent, interest and profit (the surplus-value wrung from the workers), as in the West, or whether all the surplus-value is exclusively collected, controlled and disposed of by a clique of usurpers of power, ruling by means of their secret police and the armed forces, as in the East, makes little, if any, difference to the exploited—the working class. The latter are without property anyway on either side of the iron curtain, and have to exist on the sale of their labour-power to the employers. And on BOTH sides the State disposes, as it thinks fit, of the wealth and the surplus value (exacted either direct from the industries or by taxation), a huge amount of it going, of course, to the maintenance of its coercive machinery: the judiciary, the police, and the armed forces.

Politically, the iron heel of capitalism crushes the critic and the opponent of the powers that be in the East by deportation to forced labour camps, prison or death; to the West by sacking him from his job, and so exposing him to pauperism.

King Capital still rules

Labour leaders and “communists” may prattle of past "proletarian revolutions," of “Declarations of the rights of man," of “social justice." The much boasted “Rise of the working class" finds the workers still on their knees before their master: Capital. He looks down upon them and only smiles a superior smile at assertions that he is supposed to be dead and done. And when last year in Hungary some of his infuriated victims attacked and felled to the ground a monument to one of King Capital’s particularly brutal and obnoxious defenders, thunder and lightning struck the earth, and the world still reverberates from the impact. 200,000 had to flee for their lives and others paid and are still paying, the penalty for their foolhardy desecration and blasphemy, and for their illusions.

No, the “Rise of the working-class" (which should more appropriately be called “the rise of the labour leader") and the socialism of the “Socialist International" has not affected the rule of capital and money. Kings, ex-kings and queens, dukes and duchesses, princes and princesses, Indian and Arabian potentates, big land-owners, shipowners, and other millionaire industrialists and magnates, bishops and popes still live in their sumptuous castles and palaces, leading lives of luxury and idleness. They need not fear for their property and privileges as long as the working-class vote for the Gaitskells and the Bevans, as they did for the Attlees and Ramsay MacDonalds, and their colleagues on the Continent, the Guy Mollets, the Spaaks, the Ollenhauers, the Neeuis, the Schaerfs, and the rest of the lackeys of capital. Labour leaders now contribute their plans and suggestions to the so-called “Disarmament" talks in London and thereby demonstrate to the capitalist class that they are at least equal to, or claim to do better than the other statesmen in an effort to save the big Powers' talks from final breakdown. Like all the other statesmen, the “International Socialists" assembled in Vienna to July did not even mention the Cause of the multitude of problems confronting the world, but tendered advice to the Powers. They “viewed with deep concern the continued tension among the big Powers. A glance at the centres of tension in Europe, North Africa, in the Middle and Far East, confirms in a shocking manner the uninterrupted threat to, and violation of, the principles of self-determination of the peoples, the danger to the holy and unassailable rights of the personality, of freedom and social justice." (Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung, 7/7/1957). We will save the reader from more of the platitudes and claptrap of the Resolution agreed to by this “International Socialist Congress," but what Mr. Gaitskell said in the discussion on the international situation bears repeating and remembering. He called “for a separate agreement not tied to a general disarmament pact, to stop atomic and hydrogen bomb explosions." “It would be wrong," he said, “to make the suspension of tests dependent on a ban on nuclear weapons, although Socialists wanted this too."

So today it is disarmament and atom-control, tomorrow it will probably be a crusade against, or for. Colonialism (with the French “socialist" Guy Mollet for, and the Austrian “Marxist," Dr. Benedikt Kautsky, against), or any other problem facing the capitalist class. Kautsky describes England and France as the “sick men of Europe," and advocates the eradication of the last trace of colonialism, if the “unification of Europe" is to be achieved. Now Germany was unified before the war, America achieved its unification long ago, but has this solved the social problem? Is it really too much to ask of a “Marxist" to try advocating the eradication of capitalism for the solution of its problems?

It is a pity that Kautsky cannot persuade his comrade Mollet to write off the (French) colonial empire, as Holland has done, according to Kautsky, with such conspicuous success that it is “one of the economically healthiest states on the Continent." Millions of natives in the liberated colonies will probably still be looking for the benefits of having exchanged one clique of exploiters (the foreigner) for another set (the native).

Nonsense about India, Japan, etc.

Under the slogan: “ Like Renner, like Korner," the “Socialist Party of Austria" have been boosting one of their leaders. Dr. Adolf Schärf, for the job of Austrian President, and indeed, if these leaders emulate their predecessors in one thing more than in another, it is in betraying their ignorance of Socialism; or, if they do understand it, in betraying the great cause. If the late Dr. Renner asserted that “two of the greatest empires are already being controlled by the working-class," the S.P. of Austria’s vice-chancellor, back from a world tour, reported to the Party conference that:

“In India Socialism had become a matter of course. Gandhi had made the fundamental ideas of democratic Socialism the common ideal of the Indian people.”

“The Congress Party’s programme can be considered as almost socialistic. Even those who do not want to be Socialists, can no longer do without its ideas.”

Dr. Schärf found “big socialist movements in Nepal and in Pakistan"; to Ceylon the Prime Minister is a “socialist." In Burma the government is under “socialist leadership." In Indonesia one million “socialist" votes were polled at the last election.

Japan was also reported to have its tremendous “socialist" movement. One town—Kioto—with 1½ million inhabitants, has a “socialist" administration— like red Vienna.

Israel has its “socialist" Prime Minister, Ben-Gurion, whose party is the “strongest in the land." Emulating the British Labour Party, which brought in the A-bomb, the Israel “socialist" government is now said to be contemplating its introduction also. Although the Austrian “socialist" Vice-Chancellor was one of the chief promoters of the new Austrian army, there has been no suggestion yet of emulating the big brother across the Channel in the matter of A-bombs. They are apparently content with “conventional weapons"—for the time being, at any rate.

Concluding his report, Dr. Schärf said: “In the wide territories of which I have spoken. Socialism is so strong that even classes whose interests are not represented by Socialism acknowledge its superiority, and endeavour to benefit as much as possible by its ideas."

Ignorant of Socialism

The fact that prominent leaders like those quoted see millions of Socialists throughout the world and Socialism having already become a world power, proves that the misrepresentation of Socialism and the theft of Socialist symbols is either so deeply ingrained as to have made those leaders quite unconscious of their fraud, or that they have never at all understood the implications of the great cause. The dilemma which America presents to these pseudo-Socialists would seem to well bear out the point. Here is a country reputedly not only with a standard of living higher than in any “socialist" or "Welfare State” but also with social services on the European pattern, though denying that these things have anything whatever to do with Socialism. It is a policy of mere self-preservation for capitalism, nothing else. So, with a sneer at those "pundits” who would "represent America as purely capitalistic,” Dr. Scharf attributes it all to Socialist influence, although he has to admit that there is no big Socialist party in America.

Socialists could wish nothing better than that the statements that there are already millions of Socialists throughout the world were true, because the end of capitalism and war would then be within sight; but unfortunately it is not so.

A question that invariably crops up at “International Socialist” and “Communist” Party Conferences is the framing of a declaration of principles. A difficult job indeed for parties without principles, and operating with nothing but capitalist reform programmes fraudulently clothed in vague and distorted Socialist language. So the committees appointed to work out a new party programme usually shelve the task and no more is heard about it

Even when these leaders on occasion vaguely declare their aim to be the “liberation of the peoples and man from their dependency on a minority which owns and controls the means of production,” their actual policy is in direct contradiction to any such aim. The real implications of Socialism are completely ignored, so much so that most workers, when told that under Socialism there could, of course, be no buying and selling, will say that they never heard of it, and call it a Utopia. Yet if Socialism does not mean the end of these things, the word would be meaningless. The writer cannot do better than quote here from the leaflet “Introducing the SOCIALIST PARTY of Great Britain,” which says:—

“The aim of the S.P.G.B. is to replace Capitalism by a world-wide social system in which the means of production and distribution would cease to be privately owned and would pass to the whole community. This would bring to an end the present competition for markets and sources of raw materials between the different countries that causes international rivalries and leads to war. Under Socialism goods would not be produced for sale and profit but would be produced solely for the use of mankind. All forms of income derived from property (profits, rents and interest) would disappear. The economic problem to be tackled by a Socialist society would be the problem of organising the able-bodied population to cooperate in producing food, clothing, houses, and all the other articles and services needed for the full life of human beings. All persons would have free access to the things they needed, production and distribution being in accordance with the Socialist principle:—'From each according to ability; to each according to need'.”

"Socialism cannot be brought about inside the Capitalist social system. One social system must be replaced by the other and Socialism is necessarily international.”

Rudolf Frank

(To be continued).

Instructions for M A.'s (Miracle Agents) (1957)

From the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Schoolmaster and Woman Teachers' Chronicle, journal of the National Union of Teachers, can never be accused of harbouring anything that could be labelled “revolutionary” or “seditious” thought; on the contrary, it has always, despite “differences” from time to time with this or that Minister of Education, been the champion of the British way of life; i.e., it supports the system of Capitalism whilst grumbling at the rewards. In supporting Capitalism it often goes to strange lengths. An example of this is afforded in the current issues. There we find a series of articles entitled “Religious Education in the Primary School.” At the time of writing we have reached episode X, entitled “Teaching about the Miracles.”

When we realise that the depository of the Christian religion—the Church—is today, apart from a hard core of “Fundamentalists,” composed largely of “Apologists” of various degrees, one can indeed be curious as to how the question of Miracles can be explained in this day and age so that they do not lose their value in telling. It is the business of the author to do just this. The Rev. writer rushes to the aid of the teacher, to the harassed believer grappling with a situation which is getting increasingly difficult and also to those who have abandoned the struggle as far as Miracles are concerned, merely relating just those Biblical stories in which human virtues are displayed, like sharing one’s raiment with the more unfortunate, or the bravery of little David standing up to a giant

One reads the article painfully. One sees that the idea is to “catch ’em young" (hence the emphasis on the Primary School). Religious belief being, as we are so often told, a matter of faith rather than knowledge, the teacher is expected to abandon his or her true vocation in order to mould the malleable minds of children in such a manner as to fit them into the estate it has “chosen God to place them” (and at the same time make them suitable material for Capitalist Society.)

Consider the grand attack against Unbelief. In true apologetic manner part X of the series defines the word “miracle” as “a wonder,” “something contrary to the laws of nature,” but qualifies this by quoting St. Augustine’s definition as “contrary to what is known.” It then goes on to discuss Old Testament miracles, and actually dismisses them as “pious legends.” One cannot expect the Church to retreat all the time, and so we find that there are first and second class miracles; i.e., those of the Old Testament, done by ordinary men, and those of the New Testament, performed by Christ himself. We feel sure that the poor teacher now feels on safer ground, especially when we read (in connection with miracles first class): “Belief in God is not to be made dependent upon belief in every event attributed to Him.” (We can now hear the teacher breathe a sigh of relief at being able to choose his miracles). We are next told that “a miracle is not so much an inexplicable event as an occurrence which brings an overwhelming sense of the presence of God.” Quite a bit of verbiage this, meaning, one supposes, that a “miracle,” though proven to be a natural phenomenon, can, because of the wonder, awe or curiosity it invokes, be said to prove the “presence of God.”

Many natural phenomena have done this with varying degrees of awe, wonder, curiosity, etc., arising in the mind of the onlooker depending on the understanding of the times, from the rolling of the thunder to the explosions of the hydrogen bomb. Does the hydrogen bomb prove the “presence of God? ”

The “Rev.” writer, knowing what he is up against, says that despite the difficulties teachers have in teaching (about) miracles, younger children (our italics) will accept them naturally, and questions asked will result from curiosity rather than scepticism! So you see, teacher can now get on with her miracle lessons with no fear of attack from her class of five-year-olds!

It is hard to believe that the writer has ever read history. From the time when the Bible was first published in the vernacular, men have read an account of how the world began. It was their only source of knowledge. But in time this simple faith was shattered. Whilst in the Middle Ages learned Cardinals gathered to argue the number of Angels that could stand on a pin head and later, during the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Usher “proved” that it was 4003 years 2 months 11 days and 6 hours from the Creation to the birth of Christ; today we have grown up somewhat, so that even leaden of religion now openly argue the authenticity of miracles, including the Resurrection, Heaven, and so on.

An attempt is obviously being made to capture lost ground, and the young, being defenceless, are the chosen victims.

“Miracles” cease as Nature’s laws are better understood. When no one doubted them they abounded. They were lavished on the world. Now, when more and more deny them, when the Faith is in dire distress; when just a few of the miracles enacted in the desert of Sinai could shake the Modem World to its foundations and bring us rushing back to the arms of “Mother Church"; now, when the least expenditure in Miracles could bring the maximum result—Miracles cease. An attempt is made to keep them alive by means of stories told to impress the imaginative minds of the young.

When mankind finally breaks the last bonds of religion and realises itself as a long, upward progression, shedding its superstitions on the way. then we will have emerged from bondage to freedom. As Socialists we fight the powers “temporal and spiritual.”

We leave you to cogitate over the words of a well-known hymn: “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate. God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate.” This, one suggests, would be a fitting hymn with which to end each lesson on “Miracles Made Easy for Children.” Constant attention to the words is guaranteed to immunise the future worker from the virus of Socialism.

W. Brain.

The Last Hottenhot and the First Bushmen (1957)

From the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists used to be asked whether it was necessary to wait for “the last Hottentot” to become a Socialist before Socialism could be established. It was not really necessary to answer, for expanding South African capitalism did it for us and swept him in. He probably goes back to his tribe at intervals, but, in general, he is a wage worker like most of us.

Like the rest of us, he, or his children, will eventually be introduced to Socialist ideas, and will accept them. Having no illusions about social or economic equality with his white bosses, he may even accept the ideas with startling rapidity.

There is an even more primitive group than the Hottentots—the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert. Living in an arid, almost waterless region, they have acquired many of the characteristics of the camel, being able to consume very large quantities of meat and water when available, and then existing for days, or even weeks, until the next meal is obtained.

So remote are their habitations that little has been known about them until recently. But the pressing need of South African industry for labour has caused this difficulty to be overcome, as reported in the Johannesburg Star of March 1st, 1957:—

"Bushmen, the wild, near-Pygmy tribe of the Kalahari Desert, who have always been considered too backward to learn how to work, are playing an important role in the production of gold at Stilfontein in the Klerksdorp District.

"At this highly productive, two-year-old mine yesterday, I watched primitive tribesmen, fresh from their nomadic life in the desert, sorting out the freshly crushed gold-bearing reef from waste rock with an unerring eye.

"We reckon that since employing Bushmen on this work, not one piece of gold reef has been wasted,’ Mr. J. V. Penberthy, the personnel officer, told me, ‘ Their eyesight is fantastic' . "

The report goes on to describe the delight of the employers with their new source of labour, and the delight of the new labourers at the novelties of capitalism—boots, regular meals and cinema shows. It does not tell us what pay they receive, but it is safe to assume that this is considerably less than that obtained by other non-European workers, low as that is.

A hopeful sign, from the Socialist point of view, is the fact that the Bushmen are quick to “catch on” when a new concept is put to them. When our ideas reach South Africa in any quantity, we do not think the Bushmen will be unduly backward in understanding them.

J. O. B.

A "Done & Dusted" catch up special

It is a sort of a catch up special . . . "sort of" because I'm not including October's finished Standards. That can be a separate post. They deserve their own post.

Usual schtick . . . click on the months for the full issues.

May's "Done & Dusted"

May 1948

May 2026

July's "Done & Dusted"

July 1936

July 2026

August's "Done & Dusted"

August 2026

September's "Done & Dusted"

September 1947

September 1948

September 1962

September 1971

September 1994

June 2026

September 2026

Marching backwards (2026)

Book Review from the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

How I’ve Tried To Change The World. By Alexei Sayle. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2026. £16.99

This is the third of Sayle’s entertaining autobiographical meanders and is subtitled ‘… By Walking Down The Middle of the Street Shouting’. Instead of a straight autobiographical approach to the more recent decades of his career, stand-up comedy’s greatest ever shouter has instead chosen to focus on his political activity and this is the thread everything else revolves around. To an extent it works, though it is also a catalogue of failure and frustration, as he largely admits.

His parents were stalwarts of the old Communist Party of Great Britain but the young Alexei moved on to the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), a Maoist outfit he tired of over time and whose internal atmosphere and membership behaviours he has bemoaned, arguing they could learn a lot from some of the practices of Alcoholics Anonymous. Since then, he has been a supporter of most leftist causes from the late 60s, often prominently so. In recent times he has been especially animated by the atrocity in Gaza and appears to have fallen out with a number of friends over it, including others – like him – of Jewish heritage.

As he recognises, ultimately much of this political activity has been futile, though he clearly had his hopes of something bigger and more successful rekindled by the rise of Jeremy Corbyn when he was Labour leader. This soon went the same way of course, though he seems to downplay the inherent contradictions in the Corbynite position (which was always focused on delivering rhetoric on behalf of the oppressed – while never really challenging the capitalist system of markets, profits and competing nation states that creates the oppressed in the first place). As a great supporter of the Palestinian cause, Sayle also underplays the tendency of Corbyn and his allies to focus on single-issues and rely on the belief that an enemy of an enemy must somehow be a friend, often in a way that has demonstrated a huge degree of political naiveté.

Sayle, however, does show some real lucidity at times which is memorable (as he always does in his stand-up and radio shows). Here he is writing about the Arab Spring when mass movements threatened to topple – and often did topple – a series of Middle East dictatorships:

‘There is no greater argument than the failure of the Arab Spring for leaders of protests needing to understand that they absolutely have to possess a political ideology. For them to have adopted socialism or Marxism or anarchism, this providing a way to bring structure to the act of rebelling. For them, in fact, to have a code. Otherwise, you risk your protest ending up like the Black Lives Matter rallies which went from a visceral outcry against state brutality to players occasionally kneeling before a football match for fuck knows what reason’ (p.147).

Elsewhere Sayle also says that he regards Marxism as the best way available of understanding the world around us … even if it won’t necessarily make you happy! Cheers, Alexei.

DAP

SPGB November 2026 events (2026)

Party News from the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our general discussion meetings are held on Zoom. To connect to a meeting, enter https://zoom.us/wc/join/7421974305 in your browser. Then follow instructions on screen and wait to be admitted to the meeting.

50 Years Ago: Reformism fails again (2026)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists have always maintained that parties, such as the Labour Party, which seek power within capitalism to try to improve the lot of the workers, end up not by reforming capitalism, but by being changed by it into simply a party of capitalist administration. A statement made by Callaghan to the Labour Party Conference at the end of September well illustrates this.

The Labour Party always used to support the idea that the way to end a slump and unemployment was to increase government expenditure so as to offset the decline in private capitalist investment, along the lines advocated by Keynes. But now listen to what Callaghan says :

‘We used to think that you could just spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you, in all candour, that that option no longer exists and that in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting bigger doses of inflation into the economy, followed by higher levels of unemployment’ (The Times, 29 September).

What a confession of failure! What a condemnation of the policy which Labour has always advocated and claimed as its own!

What a confession of failure! What a condemnation of the policy which Labour has always advocated and claimed as its own!

The experience of being in power during a slump has forced Callaghan to recognize that, in practice, a Labour government has to pursue the same sort of policy as any openly capitalist government, to try to restore business confidence and profit prospects by reducing workers’ living standards and cutting back on social reforms. In short, to accept the logic of capitalism. (…)

Once again the miserable failure of yet another Labour government has confirmed the Socialist case that capitalism can never be reformed so as to benefit workers and that therefore workers should direct their efforts rather to abolishing capitalism and replacing it by Socialism where the means of production would be owned in common and democratically controlled to satisfy people’s needs.

[From the article 'Reformism fails again' by L. B., Socialist Standard, November 1976.]

Action Replay: Wasn’t me, Guv (2026)

The Action Replay column from the November 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

We can take no stance on the charges against Manchester City, allegedly involving sham contracts that may have enabled them to pay inflated transfer fees and wages, resulting in them becoming the dominant force in English (and maybe even European) football. The potential punishments could involve massive fines, relegation, having titles revoked, and the owners perhaps having to sell. City have appealed over the guilty findings, and no doubt the appeal will take months to sort out, so we cannot comment on what the club may or may not have done. Findings of dishonesty can be overturned, as happened at the top level of Turkish football in 2015, after allegations of match-fixing dating from 2011.

But we can say that the sporting world is in no way above cheating. This can apply to individual competitors who take drugs to improve their performance. At the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, for instance, a sneaky way was employed to get round anti-doping measures, but it was unmasked, and a number of athletes were banned. Cyclist Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times, but had the titles removed after admitting to taking performance-enhancing drugs.

It can also involve cheating at club level. In 2006 Juventus had two Italian league titles taken away when they were found to have manipulated referees. Marseille lost their 1993 French league title after being found guilty of match-fixing. They were relegated from the top flight, and did not win Ligue 1 again till 2010. At a less exalted level, Elgin City lost their 1993 Highland League title after having the date of one match changed so they could field banned players.

Sometimes the cheating comes from outside the sport, with gambling being an obvious source. In 1997 an Asian betting syndicate bribed stadium workers to cause the floodlights to fail at Premier League matches at times when the scoreline suited their profits. They got away with it twice, but on a third attempt the police were tipped off. In 1964 ten Football League players (including Tony Kay and David Layne) were jailed after betting on the result of matches when they had agreed to influence the outcome. One of the most notorious examples occurred in 1919, when some players in baseball’s Chicago White Sox took bribes to lose the World Series, at the behest of a betting syndicate.

So sport, like capitalist society in general, is often not exactly a level playing field.

Paul Bennett