Letter: Let down (2000)

Letter to the Editors from the September 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

Let down

Dear Editors,

I’m glad to hear Robin’s local LETS scheme is hale and hearty (Letters, August), but my local scheme collapsed in disarray and has not revived after three years. Like Robin, I was quite enthusiastic at first. Disregarding the more outrageous claims, one could still see a social value in it. I worked hard at it, not minding in the least, and feeling that I was making a social contribution. I collected dozens of credits, but never used them. There was nothing to use them on anyway, since I didn’t want my dog walking and I didn’t need somebody to write me a poem, instruct me in Feng-shui or bake my bread. When the roof leaked, I still had to pay. When the plumbing broke, I had to do it myself. When I had a van, and offered its use, I was deluged with requests, but when I had no van, I had to hire one.

Finally I got tired of the middle-class bias of it all, the stripped-pine Guardian reading oh-so-nice pretend-liberalism that claimed to include everyone but clearly excluded most people. LETS never left the narrow and precious cultural womb it was born from, and it became for me increasingly twee and garden-party. What killed it was an exclusion issue, and the members’ inability to discuss anything and come to a conclusion. In a certain cultural milieu, it is bad form to have an open disagreement with anybody. Liberals hate “unpleasantness”. The LETS group were faced with an obnoxious man whom women wished to exclude, and the group toyed with “consensus” politics and “three-way votes” which caused chaos and prevented decisive action. The man left town fortunately. But so did most of the LETS goodwill.

I have heard that there are large LETS schemes in certain areas, and I wish them well. But for me LETS failed because it did not examine its own cultural assumptions, and confined itself to “nice” people who, unfortunately, were largely useless philosophy graduates who didn’t know one end of a screwdriver from the other. If socialists operated with similar class biases, we could write our entire membership on a jotter pad and install our Head Office, as our LETS scheme did, in somebody’s basement.

Paddy Shannon,

Lancaster

Letter: World problems (2005)

Letter to the Editors from the September 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

World problems

Dear Editors,

Many problems are faced today most especially in economical and political spheres of life. For instance, wars, workers’ strikes, corruption, riots, and many others. These most happen in developing countries and some few developed countries and the influence comes direct from world powers.

The selfish ideas of the world powers, being hidden by these powers, are the root cause of the world atrocities in pretext that they are fighting terrorism, ending colonialism, fighting dictatorship among other decisive, political and economic selfish ideas.

It is a great challenge for all socialists to pronounce and advocate for socialist principles without fear or frustration from selfish politicians so that we come to save the world from the ongoing atrocities escalating from selfishness of those who only look for ways of getting richer and richer at the expense of the majority.

Joseph Balikuddembe, 

Kampala, Uganda.

Letter: Canned laughter (2005)

Letter to the Editors from the September 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

Canned laughter

Dear Editors,

Some people, including some socialists, used to get quite irritated about the way that recorded laughter was inserted into, first radio, then television, shows that went under the generic heading of comedy. But we have slowly got used to this feature of modern life in capitalist society. It is almost universal now. It is applied to quality comedy and poor comedy; those with real audiences and those with no possibility of an audience at all in the location of the action. Like antidepressant drugs, canned laughter is prescribed for nearly everybody. Because, let’s face it, much of the time, if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry.

Many aspects of living in this increasingly dysfunctional world society are moving in the same direction. In Japan, as well as North America and Europe shopping has become the diversionary avenue of seeking feel-good factors. Clothes, to make us feel good about our appearance; various types of car, to make us comfortable about our status among our neighbours; health foods, to make us feel healthy; exotic foods to make us feel opulent; gyms, to make us feel confident or even superior about our physical fitness and sexual attractiveness. Houses, gardens, kitchens, etc., etc. Our electronic gadgetry, from mobile phones and digital cameras to MP3 recorders and players, offer us more power to do things we hadn’t even thought of and probably will never try.

The planet is being pillaged, plundered and polluted to make commodities for us to buy, partly because we need them and capital must have the flow of profit, but increasingly in the effort to obliterate our basic hunger for freedom, the one thing we cannot have. Like canned laughter, the temporary lift we get from commodity gratification is artificial, false. It hides a bad joke.

Ron Cook, 

West Bromwich

Letter: Socialism, scientific and humanistic (2005)

Letter to the Editors from the September 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism, scientific and humanistic

Dear Editors

Since January the Pathfinders page has been a valuable addition to the Socialist Standard.  In discussing socialism it recognises that we need to be consciously working for something, not simply against something. In July I argued against the idea that voting and democracy would be significantly advanced by means of new technology.  After reading the August Pathfinders I realise that my questioning of new technology developed within capitalism goes deeper than that.  It is a matter of some interpretations of scientific socialism focusing on things and humanistic socialism (as I see it) focusing on people.  Don’t get me wrong – I’m not against scientific socialism.  I just think that Pathfinders puts too much emphasis on things and not enough on people.

“If capitalism fed, clothed and looked after its people in peace and without coercion, socialism would not be disproved but it would be unnecessary.” There is no evidence that capitalism can be changed to adequately feed and clothe all the world’s population without coercion.   So the idea that it can do these things remains a doubtful hypothesis.  But even if capitalism could change its spots in the ways outlined, would that be the end of the socialist campaign for system change?  I think not.  Socialism is not about changes to capitalism – it is about replacing capitalism with another system.  It is about a world society based on giving and taking, not on buying and selling.

“. . . the ability to micro-produce with minimal waste and distribution costs remains one of the most exciting innovations socialist society could possibly inherit.” Pathfinders’ fire is obviously lit by socialist methods of producing and distributing things.  My fire is lit by the prospect of socialist relations between people (which will, of course, lead to changes in production, distribution, and much else).

Stan Parker,

London N3

Letter: Asked and answered (2006)

Letter to the Editors from the September 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

Asked and answered

Dear Editors,

I’ve spent some time over the past few months reading a lot about political and social structures, for no purpose other than my own interest. I, like many, am discontented with the situation as it stands. The solution proposed by your organisation resonates with me, as few others have. As a result, I have read Marxist works, and much about varied forms of left-wing politics like Leninism and Maoism, etc.

 

 I do, however, keep coming back to your site. I have read all of the available information but still have a few questions I was hoping you could answer. I sincerely hope you can find the time to assist.

1. In a practical sense, how would labour be distributed in a socialist society? I’m not suggesting some jobs are any less important than others, but how would personal ambition (not ambition for material reward, but ambition of a personal nature, to achieve and feel accomplishment in a particular field) be matched with the needs of society? Could I, for example, say ‘I want to be an electrician’ and get trained? And what if, for example, nobody wanted to be a cleaner? Would people be assigned jobs on a take it or take it basis or is there an element of negotiation? If so, how much?

2. What would happen to people who refused to work/contribute?

3. What is your position on the punishment of serious criminals?

4. How are the creative arts perceived?

As a necessary part of a healthy society, or as unnecessary? Could someone be, for example, a full-time writer, in a socialist society as you describe? Even if they were no good at it?

Name and address withheld by request (by email).

Reply:

1. The general principle of socialist society of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” clearly recognises the obvious fact that different people have different abilities. How will these individual abilities be matched with the social need for particular jobs to be done? We can’t give a blueprint (and don’t want to, since this would be to try to dictate to the future when the details can only be decided democratically at the time), but we can imagine something like the “job centres” of today,only completely freed from any trace of coercion, monetary considerations and stigma.In other words, places where jobs to be done could be advertised and where people could go to volunteer to do them. Or maybe the whole thing could be done via the internet. If there is a shortage of people taking up a particular job,then a special effort would have to be made to encourage people to train for and take up these jobs. We are confident that socialist society will be able to find a practical solution to a practical problem such as this.

 2. We don’t think that, in the context of socialist society where a real community and community spirit will exist, there will be many people, if any, who would refuse to contribute. After all, there is nothing more boring than lying around all day trying to do nothing. Humans are social animals who need to be active as well as appreciated by others.

 3. Since over 90 percent of crimes today are crimes against property and since property and poverty will disappear in socialist society where everybody will automatically be able to satisfy their material needs, the main “crimes” that would remain would be such things as breaking traffic regulations or hosepipe bans. But by “serious criminals” we assume you mean people who kill or harm other people. Any such behaviour is likely to be highly exceptional but, should it occur, the person responsible would have to be stopped and, if need be, detained. We are not sure that “punishment” is the right word since most such instances are likely to be medical cases.

 4. Yes, of course the “creative arts” are a necessary part of any society, but in socialism won’t be confined to such things as opera and poetry. We go along with William Morris in saying that the everyday work of producing something useful can also be creative and art. And we would imagine that most people will want to take advantage of the possibility socialist society will offer them of being able to do a variety of jobs (even in the same week) rather than being tied to the same job, day after day, year after year – Editors.

Letter: Corruption (2009)

Letter to the Editors from the September 2009 issue of the Socialist Standard

Corruption

Dear Editors

It’s hardly “political rocket science” to understand the decay and corruption that lies at the heart of New Labour as affirmed by yet another dismal by-election defeat for Labour in Norwich North.

Throughout the coverage of this by-election some mainstream political commentators lampooned former Labour MP Dr Ian Gibson (whose resignation sparked this contest) as a maverick left wing politician, thus implying there was some justification for the New Labour “star chamber” to deselect him over the second home allowance scandal.

Maybe if there actually were more left-wing MP’s or prospective parliamentary candidates selected democratically by their local parties and who are periodically adjudged by their local party members on how they stand up for the basic principles their party stands for, then not only would these commentators have had something politically tangible to commentate about but more essentially the new Tory MP Chloe Smith might have had to face a genuine political contest based on policies and ideology rather than personalities and scandals.

Whilst this by-election campaign enticed Tory leader David Cameron to visit Norwich North on six occasions and to predictably hail his victor as a “rising star”, her victory was in fact, as indeed all Tory poll successes are, wholly attributable to the failed free market economic policies of New Labour which are the normal mainstay of the Tory Party itself. Apart from Tory core voters who’d vote Tory under any circumstance, the fact that many floating voters in Norwich North voted Tory during a recession underlines how utterly skewed British political attitudes and opinions have become due to this bipartisan political climate that deludes millions of apathetic voters into thinking that they have a legitimate choice.

Yet in essence Dr Gibson is no maverick and he certainly wasn’t a radical left wing MP. What proved too much for New Labour’s “star chamber” is that he, along with a handful of other Labour backbenchers on occasions, was mildly critical of New Labour’s right-wing free market agenda. Because the majority of Labour MP’s today just poodle along passively from day to day far more concerned about their careers and expenses rather than the wellbeing of society in general, then the likes of Dr Gibson are labelled mavericks, hence easily held up as scapegoats for the MP expense scandal.

At least Dr Gibson was right to resign immediately if only to expose how the treatment meted out to him exposes how the New Labour leadership has undermined internal Labour Party democracy all along and how, barring a miracle it’s going to result in a future Tory government. The real question however is why these very same commentators within the alleged free press and media totally ignored the fact that the behaviour of Dr Gibson, albeit an alleged ‘lefty’ who should have never have accepted the second home allowance in the first place, was relatively quite trivial in comparison with the behaviour of Chancellor Alistair Darling or employment minister Tony McNulty. A greasy pole indeed!

Nick Vinehill, 

Snettisham, Norfolk

Reply: 

Of course it wouldn’t make any difference if all Labour and Tory MPs were honest and democratically selected. They still wouldn’t be able to make the capitalist system work in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers – Editors.

Political Pantoum No.2: Class-ification (2026)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Class-ification

Socialism! I’ve let that pass

Being middle, while that seems to be

Best suited for the working class:

What can it have to do with me?

 

Being middle, while that seems to be

Just possibly worth espousing,

What can it have to do with me?

It’s for those in social housing.

 

Just possibly worth espousing,

Whereas I would be quite ill matched,

It’s for those in social housing.

While where I live, we’re all detached.

 

Whereas I would be quite ill matched,

Working hard, yet nothing’s surer,

While where I live, we’re all detached,

Progressively getting poorer.

 

Working hard, yet nothing’s surer,

Socialism! I’ve let that pass,

Progressively getting poorer,

Best suited for the working class.

 D. A.