The Passing Show: The pace-makers (1962)

The Passing Show Column from the August 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The pace-makers

The present uproar among those employed in the “public sector”—nurses, teachers, civil servants, and so on—at the fact that they are the chief sufferers from the Government’s pay policy, is particularly interesting to those who remember what the Labour Party and reformers generally used to say on this subject. It was once a settled belief among left-wingers that any industry or service run by the State or by a municipality would give its workers better conditions than any similar private industry or service, and that private employers would have to improve the wages and conditions they offered in order to keep their workers. So that the nationalisation of an industry would not only benefit the workers in that industry: it would benefit those in other industries as well. See, for example, Bernard Shaw in The Transition to Social Democracy, reprinted in his Essays in Fabian Socialism:

“At the very outset of the new extension of municipal industries, the question of wage will arise. A minimum wage must be fixed . . . The worst sort of sweaters will find that if they are to keep their ‘hands’, they must treat them at least as well as the municipality.”

And so forth. When these arguments were fashionable, Socialists were pointing out that since the State, and the municipalities, and the State boards, were and could only be committees representing the general interests of the capitalist class, it was useless to hope that they would give any “better wages and conditions than individual capitalists. And judging by the recent agitation among “public sector ” employees, it seems that not only are those employed by the State and its agencies no better treated than similar workers in private employ—they are actually falling behind in wages and conditions.

But no doubt the nationalizers will still be trotting out their “better wages” arguments for years to come.

Strike in Saskatchewan

When we say that all workers by hand or brain have fundamentally the same interests, we are told that white-collar and professional workers are somehow quite different from manual workers— for example, doctors and the rest would never strike. This theory was never in accord with the facts—doctors and nurses have gone on strike more than once in Continental countries in recent years, and they threatened to strike, and nearly did strike, in this country on the introduction of the National Health Service. Now, of course, the theory has been swept away finally by the events in Saskatchewan. There the great majority of doctors have gone on strike against the Government’s attempt to introduce a medical service having some points in common with the British system. What matters here is not whether one sympathizes with this particular strike (we emphatically do not), but the simple fact that the strike has happened and has continued several weeks. Doctors, in fact, are workers just like the rest of us. In their struggles over conditions of employment they can and do use such working-class weapons as strike action even, as in this case, for the wrong reasons.

Cruel and violent

As a judge recently sentenced a man of twenty to five years’ imprisonment, and other youths to shorter terms, for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, he is reported to have said: “The iron bars and bottles and other weapons with which some of you were armed show how cruel and violent human beings can become.”

Well, well. There is news for the judge.

Human beings can become even more cruel and violent than that.

An iron bar can kill a man. A high-explosive bomb can kill a thousand. An atom bomb can kill a hundred thousand. And the latest H-bombs, we are told, can kill several millions.

But for these large-scale killings, no one is put in the dock. Violence is only deplored when it is not in the interests of the ruling class.

Yet if five years’ jail is the fit sentence for injuring one or two other men, what sentence can the workers pass on the capitalist system?

The only possible sentence is total abolition.

Top people

A new book Anatomy of Britain, by Anthony Sampson, gives several indications of the wealth of Britain’s upper class. On the distribution of wealth, he says :

“One recent survey has thrown light on capital wealth. Lydall and Tipping, writing in the Bulletin of the Oxford Institute of Statistics in 1961, estimated that the top one per cent of British adults owned 43 per cent of total net capital—whereas in America (in 1954) the top one per cent owned only 24 per cent of personal wealth. The authors estimated that 20,000 people owned more than £100,000, and that their average holding was £250,000. (While at the bottom there are 16 million people with less than £100 each, and an average of £50.)”

Mr. Sampson quotes the Ministry of Labour, I960, figures that 30,000 men and 275,000 women are in private domestic service, among whom (according to one domestic agency) there are 600 butlers. He goes on to quote an estimate of “the cost of service in a well-appointed household”:

Butler:                                       £500

Two footman at £350:               £700

Odd man:                                  £250

Head housemaid:                      £300

Two housemaids at £250:         £500

Cook:                                        £400

Kitchenmaid:                            £250

Lady’s maid:                             £300

Chauffeur (non-resident):         £650

Three daily helps at £150:        £450 

Total:                                      £4,300

Keep (residents only):           £2,000

Total:                                      £6,300

If only someone would mention these figures to the Labour Party leaders, they might stop talking about the “social revolution” they are supposed to have put through after the war.

Alwyn Edgar

SPGB Snippets: Mass Delusion? (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website

August 21, 2026

‘Mass delusion’ is among the many labels that have been attached to Donald Trump’s rule and the support for him by tens of millions of Americans. But what about the delusion that affects the vast majority of the world’s population? They believe it’s natural and inevitable that millions should suffer grinding poverty while the 56,000 wealthiest people on the planet own assets three times as large as those of the poorest half of humanity combined .

There’s nothing natural/inevitable about this at all. We can fix it but only if that majority comes together to set up a system of common ownership and voluntary cooperation with free access to the abundant goods and services the world could provide..

SPGB Snippets: Whoever has will be given more (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website

July 8, 2026

A report on wealth inequality graphically illustrates the class divide in 2026.

Apparently, the 56,000 wealthiest adults on the planet – who could fit inside a single football stadium – own three times as much wealth as the poorest 2.8 billion adults (add their families, that’s HALF of humanity).

Those 56,000 must have really worked their arses off…

Just kidding! That wealth has been sucked from the world’s working class and, as Marx predicted in Capital, the nature of capitalist economics has resulted in increasing concentration of real wealth.

The report’s suggestion? Higher taxes for the rich and spend more on education (!!). In other words, tinker around at the edges and leave the cause of the problem alone. Sad or what?

Tiny Tips (2026)

The Tiny Tips column from the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Global real worker pay fell 12 percent while real CEO pay surged 54 percent between 2019 and 2025. At least four CEOs of major corporations each pocketed over $100 million in pay and bonuses last year. Broadcom CEO Hock Tan led the pack at over $205 million. Billionaires were paid $2,500 per second in dividends in 2025. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and Oxfam are calling for urgent action to rein in extreme wealth, including higher, fairer taxes on the richest and binding limits on CEO pay.

[Common Dreams]

In 2011, he spent 81 days detained in China for criticizing the government following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, in which 90,000 people died. Ai Weiwei worked with hundreds of anonymous volunteers to identify and publish the names of more than 5,000 children who died under the rubble of poorly constructed schools, information that the government sought to censor. 

[El Pais]

…. the Housing and Land Rights Network, have argued that the real numbers are significantly higher and estimate at 3 million…Shelters, where available, are frequently inadequate, overcrowded, unsanitary, unsafe for women, or located far from work opportunities. Instead of treating shelter as a right linked to dignity, many city administrations treat it as temporary charity. During mega-events such as the Commonwealth Games 2010 or the G20 Summit gatherings hosted in India, homeless people are often subjected to eviction drives in the name of beautification. Pavements are cleared, encampments removed, and poverty hidden so that cities may appear modern to visitors.

[Countercurrents]

The right to life in Kenya is often treated as if it begins at conception and ends at birth. As in much of the world, self-described ‘pro-lifers’ claim to defend life at all costs – yet too often stop short of defending the lives already being lived, and those cut short too early.

[openDemocracy]

…the central question of his book, which is built around a concept Marx called ‘disposable time’—the time left over after workers have completed the labor necessary to sustain themselves and their families. Marx traced this idea back to an obscure 1821 pamphlet he discovered in the British Museum, in which the author argued that a nation’s true wealth lies not in gold or goods but in free time: ‘Wealth is disposable time, and nothing more’.

[People’s World]

The communist revolution, if it arrives in the nick of time to prevent humankind’s suicide, is a seismic event that changes everything. It is difficult to imagine it but it will leave nothing untouched. People will change. In the heat of the struggle for survival, proletarians will come together and become the self-conscious collective worker, which he/she already was but didn’t know it. All human relationships (between producers, family members, men-women, young-old, teachers-students and more) change in the process. The entire way in which society reproduces itself changes. Work changes. It no longer means labor.

[Internationalist Perspective]

(These links are provided for information, Target sites don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

Lordly Perplexities (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Their Lordships, Beveridge and Beaverbrook, hereinafter called the two B's, appear to be concerned regarding the future. We shall take Lord Beveridge first

According to the Glasgow Herald (31/12/51) he broadcast “A Letter to posterity," the theme of which was the comments he would like to make on life in Britain in 1951 to the people of Britain in 2052, 100 years hence.

His broadcast commenced with the assertion that the abolition of poverty by levelling up incomes has been part of our social policy for many years. In addition, over the past ten years, there has been tremendous levelling down as well, to pay for wars, their consequences and preparation of fresh wars. He said, “ It is not possible for anyone now to enjoy great wealth or to pass it on to his children.”

We are somewhat perplexed, in view of the real facts, to discover how his Lordship arrived at this conclusion. It would appear that be is unaware of the millions of workers whose gross earnings are £6 per week or less. Also the steep rise in the cost of living since 1945. According to government figures the increase is approximately 29 per cent. Again industrial wage rates have not risen as much, production has been greatly increased, approximately 30 per cent. since 1947. This in conjunction with record profits being made in practically all industries can by no stretch of the imagination be called abolishing poverty. It is in fact the reverse, viz. the intensification of poverty. In this regard perhaps we should recommend that he scan the National Assistance Board figures published in the “Economist” 7th July, ’51. He will find that whereas in 1948 the total number of people in receipt of relief, excluding blind and T.B. cases, was about 785 thousand, by 1950 it had increased to 1272 thousand. Possibly this was only a little extra beer and baccy money for some more of the new “privileged class,” the workers. The same paper (24th Feb. ’51) indicates the absurdity of his claims re levelling down. Figures are given showing that 1 per cent. of the population own 50 per cent. of the wealth. The Economist's comments being—”This is an unimpressive result of forty years of death duties.” Figures given in The Tribune (26th Jan. ’51) show that 16 million people are at the bottom of the social scale with estates of less than £100.

A Lordly nostalgia: —We are informed that he had to leave Fuggal Hall and move into a “middle income group house” in order to make ends meet. He states— “The Baronial Hall with troops of servants laying coal fires in every room was giving place to rows and rows of council houses, each with a radiator and a television aerial.” Shed a tear ye privileged idle and pampered proletarians for the poor, poor rich.

His concern regarding future leadership appears to be considerable. In his opinion the men and women on the stage need leaders. "Just from where in our classless collection of men and women the leadership will come . . . I do not know.” Aristocratic tradition, in his opinion, is a factor of major importance in correct leadership and we are faced with carrying on an aristocratic tradition without the aristocrats. It is of course true your Lordship that people “inherit” traditions; they also dispose of useless traditions. Perhaps your wish is for your tradition to inherit the people. We shall deal with this question further in our conclusion.

His Lordship Beaverbrook is well known for his “modesty and wisdom" through the medium of his newspapers, especially the Daily Express. The opinion column of Scottish Daily Express (31.12.51) while moaning of the loss of Abadan and the rising cost of living states that there is also cause for joy—“The joy that Socialism has been discarded and Mr. Churchill again returned to power.” Further joy—We have escaped war and are still on talking terms with Russia; also, peace in Korea is within grasp and Churchill is on the stage directing and lending the wisdom of his council. In general, the war danger recedes as each hour adds to mounting Western strength. May we remind your Lordship of your very frequently published claims in the Daily Express during 1938 and '39 that there would be no war this year, or next year, or any other year. In fact your last statement, in bold headlines, to this effect was published merely days before the outbreak of war in 1939. How very wrong you were despite your, undoubtedly excellent, facilities for information. Every informed person saw the rapid approach of war from 1935 onwards. Again, since when did an arms race result in anything other than war? You are equally confused regarding Socialism. Capitalism administered by the Labour party or any other parties can never be Socialism. Your judgments in these matters do not at all seem to be reliable. In fact they appear to be parallel with the guesses of Old Moore’s Almanac and should be treated accordingly.

Regarding 1952 and the years beyond, you ask— “Is Britain to have peace without prosperity? Is she to remain for evermore a pinchpenny land in which people live meanly and eat miserably.” When during the existence of capitalism has it been otherwise for the great majority of the people? It will always remain so while capitalism remains, irrespective of the government being an Attlee-Morrison-Bevan, or Churchill-Eden combination. Prosperity, with or without peace, is an almost exclusive enjoyment of the capitalist class. Slums and lack of them, blood and tears, and toil and sweat, whether in times of depression, or prosperity with or without peace has been labour’s reward for honest hard work.

In conclusion a word to the two B’s. Capitalism, the present social system which suits you both eminently shall be abolished eventually. The interest of peace, security, culture and the general welfare of mankind demand it, the sooner the better. A new sane and humane system, Socialism, shall take its place. In this regard you need not worry about leadership, aristocratic or otherwise, as leadership shall also go overboard with other lumber. When one reviews the past and visualises the shabby pretentious collection of bombastic people who have been “our leaders;” whose self-seeking blunders have shamefully abused and squandered wealth and drenched the world in blood, then one realises that the end of leadership cannot be too soon. Intelligent working men and women who organise for the establishment of Socialism have no need for leaders. The end or object, Socialism, means the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, the end of idleness and luxury for your class, the ending of stately baronial mansions, likewise the finish of poverty, misery and slums. The Labour Government have been very good friends to your class. It shall be very very different when, for the first time in history. Socialists take control out of the hands of the capitalist class for the purpose of carrying out the revolutionary task, the establishing of Socialism. The Socialist Party of Great Britain carries on its task of making socialists confident that the future belongs to us. Chums, you’ve almost  " ’ad it.”

John Higgins

Tiny Tips (2026)

The Tiny Tips column from the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

In almost all regions of the world, the top 1% of the population is richer than the combined 90%. Wealth inequality increases further with each passing day, mostly due to the lack of political will to stop it.

[Popular Resistance]

In China, inequality remains high… The top 10% of earners capture about 43% of national income, while the bottom 50% receive just 14%. Wealth disparities are particularly large, with the richest 10% holding nearly 68% of total wealth and the top 1% about 30%. 

[World Inequality Report]

Nearly half of Kenyans live in extreme poverty, i.e., on less than KES 130 [£0.75] per day. Yet a few have amassed enormous wealth. The richest 125 Kenyans have more wealth than more than three-quarters of Kenyans, about 43 million people. 

[Oxfam]

We celebrate the ‘recovery’ of fish populations that are stabilized at 5% or 10% of their historical population, mistaking the management of ruins for conservation. To understand the magnitude of what has been stolen, we must look back before the industrial age. In the 17th century, the ocean was a different planet. When Christopher Columbus sailed through the Caribbean in the late 15th century, he described the seas near Cuba as being ‘thick with turtles’, so numerous that it seemed his ships would run aground on them… in numbers estimated between 33 and 39 million adults in the Caribbean alone. They were a biological dominance that defined the seascape. Today, those populations are a shadow of the ‘mother sea’ that once existed. This report is an autopsy of the decline. It is an investigation into the specific species that the fishing industry has sacrificed on the altar of commerce. 

[Sea Piracy]

As both the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) monitor and Reuters noted, Poland is among multiple state parties in the process of ditching the Mine Ban Treaty. Citing the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the news agency reported that “antipersonnel mine production could begin once the treaty’s six month withdrawal period is completed on February 20, 2026”. 

[Common Dreams]

Greenpeace is a strong example, having emerged from ecological protest movements in the 1970s and 1980s, but having eased into largely cooperating with capitalist corporations and governments over time and giving legitimacy to their propaganda about individual lifestyle choices being the way to solve climate change.

[Counterfire]

The Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid, which has previously slammed vaccine skeptic Kennedy as a ‘paranoid kook’ whose ‘tinfoil hat is blocking out all sense’, tore into the Trump Cabinet member for his war on what it called ‘one of the biggest public health wins of the last century: the widespread use of disease-eradicating vaccines’. 

[HuffPost]

Therefore, we do not offer any support to wars waged by any capitalist state or any faction aimed at creating or strengthening a new state, whether aggressor or aggressed, whether or not they describe themselves as ‘socialist’ or ‘democratic’. 

[Internationalist Perspective]

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

What is Socialism? (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is Socialism? Socialism is a new form of society; a form in which the whole of the people of the world will own in common the means to produce wealth and will distribute it according to the needs of each.

All that people want is the satisfaction of their needs, but private ownership has given its own particular slant to what some people need today. To be wealthy today not only means to live in comfort and security, it also means to be the subject of social approbation. Hence the wealthy ostentatiously display their wealth, live in huge mansions, attend lavish balls bespattered with jewels, own numerous motor cars and so forth in order to inspire the admiration of their fellows. Millionaires without a trace of artistic culture accumulate quantities of pictures and other works of art, as well as patronising artistic movements, for the same purpose. When the possession of jewels, motor cars, and pictures is open to anyone who wishes to weigh themselves down with these things the desire to accumulate them will vanish because society will only look upon the accumulator as a lunatic. Water is one of the most precious things in the world to the human race yet no one attempts to hoard up and display huge tanks of fresh water, nor do they carry air balloons to balls and Command Performances. Water and air, except under extreme circumstances, have not been denied to all but those that can purchase them. Under Socialism the products of human ingenuity will be as free to all as water and air are now, and the badges of vanity and superiority will vanish.

One of the fundamental needs of humanity is occupation for the mental and physical faculties. As work at present is a badge of inferiority most of those who belong to the privileged section of society try to find other means of employing their energies; of these sports, dancing, dinners and philandering appear to be the most popular. But a surfeit of aimless pleasures becomes wearying and there is an endless search for new thrills. Under Socialism this wasted energy would he directed towards objects that would bring permanent enjoyment to the individual and to his fellows.

Socialism would not be a dull, dreary, state-regulated system as so many of its opponents suppose. As the whole of the people in free association would control the conditions of existence the aim would be to make that existence as satisfying as human ingenuity could contrive. Productive operations would be carried out under the best conditions that could be devised and harmful occupations would be abolished; people would be prepared to do without those few. things that could only he obtained at the cost of evil consequences to the producers. Humanity is essentially reasonable and where free to act reasonably does so. Educational facilities would be of the best, open to all, and not clouded by the necessity of learning in order to find the right road to employment and social security.

There are workers who, while agreeing that Socialism is desirable, despair of its accomplishment because they believe it would not work owing to the evil propensities which they think Capitalism has bred into the mass of the people. The basis of this view is “I am alright, but the other fellow is hopeless”; it is unconscious vanity. The evils about which complaints are made are the direct product of Capitalist conditions and will disappear with the latter. For example it does not require much imagination to appreciate that when money is no longer needed no one will sell his self respect for it; when bread and other things are as free to all as air is now no one can become a thief; when each participates equally in arranging social affairs no one can become a despot; when all the avenues of happiness are open to everybody no one can gain by bribery or corruption. And so one could go through the whole of the evils that have a corrupting influence today and lead to social misery.

Today the workers of the world produce the wealth of the world but they do so under oppressive conditions on behalf of a privileged class—the Capitalist class. In return for their labours the workers only receive, at best, on an average what it costs them to live meagrely ; but even this condition is doubtful, and the workers follow their occupations with shadow of unemployment darkening their lives and threatening to cast them into the depths of poverty. When the workers desire to cast off their backs the idle and privileged class that lives in comfortable security upon the results of the workers’ labours they will be able to so organise society that essentials of life will be produced with ease and all will he able to live in comfort and security. Then mankind will be on the road to universal happiness, but not before.

Gilmac.

Social contrasts. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anatole France in one of his novels says that “the life of a people is but a succession of miseries, crimes and follies.” This is largely correct. Certainly, from the manifold volumes of historical works in existence, treating of various periods and various peoples, we may gather some knowledge of the crimes and follies perpetrated by the ruling classes of these times, and the enslavement, and consequent misery, of the other, and greater, portion of the populace. It would, indeed, appear from an examination into different historical epochs, that the greater the wealth and culture of the ruling class, the more degraded and hopeless is the condition of those they rule.

If, for example, we turn back to the so-called “golden” age of Greek civilisation, we find that at the time of the greatest prosperity of the Attic state, the whole number of free Athenian, citizens, women and children included, amounted to about 90,000 ; the slaves of both sexes numbered 365,000 ; the balance of the people being made up of aliens—foreigners and freed slaves—these numbering about 45,000. History tells us little or nothing of the lives of these 365,000 human beings on whose toil practically the whole structure of the much-vaunted Greek culture rested. We have had handed down to us the philosophical systems of Plato and Aristotle, the lyrical dramas of Aeschylus and Euripides; the sculpture of Pheidias can yet be seen in the British Museum ; in the glowing pages of Pluttarch (to say nothing of William Smith) are to be found the records of all the heroic deeds performed by Pericles and Alcibiades ; but the life of a slave does not make such pretty reading as that of a philosopher or artist, and so the historians have been very careful not to disturb the sleek complacency of their readers by a recital of the doings of the mere wealth-producers. The blood and sweat of the slaves would soil the classical purity of Greek culture, so the blood and sweat must be buried beneath the traditional glory of the slaves’ taskmasters.

Coming down to later times a very similar contrast may be observed between the status of the rich and the poor, between the dominant class and the class dominated. In another “golden” age—that of the “virgin”‘ queen Elizabeth—wealth, we are told, increased to an enormous extent. Green, in his “Short History of the English People,” says,

“The lavishness of a new wealth united with a lavishness of life, a love of beauty, of colour, of display, to revolutionize English dress. The Queen’s three thousand robes were rivalled in their bravery by the slashed velvets, the ruffs, the jewelled purpoints of the courtiers around her. Men ‘wore a manor on their backs.’ The old sober notions of thrift melted before the strange revolutions of fortune wrought by the New World. Gallants gambled away a fortune at a sitting, and sailed off to make a fresh one in the Indies. Visions of galleons loaded to the brim with pearls and diamonds and ingots of silver, dreams of El Dorados where all was of gold, threw a haze of prodigality and confusion over the imagination of the meanest seaman.” English literature, following in the wake of the Italian Renascence, took on. a new lease of life through such men as Spenser, Shakespeare, [Bacon and the numerous other poets and writers who graced the Elizabethan age. A scientific knowledge of natural laws was spreading.”

“It was only in the later years of the sixteenth century that the discoveries of Copernicus were brought, home to the general intelligence of the world by Kepler and Galileo.”

Drake, Raleigh, Hawkins and Frobisher, between the intervals of “singeing the King of Spain’s beard,” were circumnavigating the globe, breaking into the charmed circle of the Indies, or discovering the North-West passage.

And yet there is very distinctly another side to the medal. During the reigns immediately preceding that of Elizabeth, a great and ever increasing number of the people had been forcibly expropriated from the soil and thrown out upon the highways to exist as best they might.

“They were turned en masse into beggars, robbers, vagabonds, partly from inclination, in most cases from stress of circumstances. Hence at the end of the 15th and during the whole of the 16th century, throughout Western Europe, a bloody legislation against vagabondage The fathers of the present working class were chastised for their enforced transformation into vagabonds and paupers. Legislation treated them as voluntary criminals, and assumed that it depended on their own goodwill to go on working under the old conditions that no longer existed.” (Marx in “Capital.”)

Marx further tells us that

“In Elizabeth’s time ‘rogues were trussed up apace, and there was not one year commonly wherein three or four hundred were not devoured and eaten up by the gallowes.’ (Strype’s ‘Annals of the Thee-formation and Establishment of Religion, and other Various Occurrences in the Church of England during Queen Elizabeth’s Happy Reign,’ Second ed., 1725, Vol. ‘2.) According to this same Strype, in Somersetshire, in one year, 40 persons were executed, 35 robbers burnt in the hand, 37 whipped, and 183 discharged as ‘incorrigible vagabonds.’ Nevertheless, he is of the opinion that this large number of prisoners does not comprise even a fifth of the actual criminals, thanks to the negligence of the justices and the foolish compassion of the people ; and the other counties of England were not better off in this respect than Somersetshire, while some were even worse. . . . Thus were the agricultural people, first forcibly expropriated from the soil, driven from their homes, turned into vagabonds, and then whipped, branded by laws grotesquely terrible, into the discipline necessary for the wage system.”

In modern capitalist society these same sardonic contrasts prevail. In the Daily Chronicle of June 6th, 1903, it was pointed out that “the whole volume of British Trade has increased from 764 millions sterling in 1898 to 877 millions in 1902,” and in the same issue appeared a report of a speech delivered by the late Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, in which he declared that about 30% of the population were underfed, were on the verge of hunger. (Vide SOCIALIST STANDARD, August this year.)

During the first nine months of 1910, official trade returns show that :

Imports rose by £37,530,000,

Exports of British goods rose by £41,239,000, and Exports of imported goods rose by £11,063,000

as compared with January to September 1909. In the same issue of the paper (Morning Leader 8th October) in which these figures are given, is a short paragraph, headed “Pea-pickers Hardships,” giving an account of a meeting held at Romford, at which “the lamentable conditions under which the pea-pickers live in Essex” was discussed, Canon Ingles remarking at this meeting that the way the pickers lived while on the farms was a disgrace to a Christian country and Canon Lord William Cecil supporting the view that employers should be compelled to provide pure water for drinking and clean straw for beds.

In spite of the great increase in trade that has taken place since the beginning of 1910, at the present time there is perhaps more dissatisfaction among the industrial workers of this country than for some years past. The boiler-makers, the miners, the cotton operatives, the chain-makers and the railwaymen. to mention only a few, are seething with discontent. And yet exports of British goods rose by £41,239,000 !

Historical research shows that, no matter at what period—ancient, medieval or modern,—no matter what may be the wealth and culture, the spread of knowledge, the goodwill even (if such there be) among the dominant class, the condition of the class dominated is, in the main, one of base and degrading servitude, of physical and mental misery. Using the words of the before-mentioned French author, we may epitomise the history of the members of the slave-class by saying that “they were born, they suffered, they died.” Suffering has been their only heritage since slavery was first instituted ; whether it he chattel slavery or wage-slavery does not make very much difference, except that perhaps the chattel-slave was, in some respects, better off than the modern wage-worker.

The Socialist Party exists for the purpose of abolishing, once and for ever, both slave-class and master-class. We of course recognise that natural inequalities between individuals do and must exist. But we know further that social inequalities and contrasts between individuals or classes are an anomaly. To help do away with these social inequalities and contrasts, to raise society to a higher plane, where equality of opportunity shall be accorded to all, irrespective of race or sex, is the reason for our existence as a party. We ask for the intelligent co-operation of our fellow wage-slaves to assist us in this work, so that the day may be hastened when such terms as slave and master, owner and owned, working class and capitalist class, will be, without meaning. When society has evolved into this stage, when the Socialist Commonwealth has at last been established, then for the first time will a period of real culture and intellectual activity be possible to all, and not to, comparatively, a mere handful of men and women, such as have monopolised all the best things of life up to the present.

F. J. Webb

TV Review: Winner Takes It All (2004)

TV Review from the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

Panorama on 7 November dealt with the UK super-rich, under the label of a ‘winner-take-all’ culture. The wealthiest one percent of the population receive 13 percent of the national income (compared to 6 percent in the days before Thatcher) and own almost a quarter of the total personal wealth. They can easily afford to spend upwards of £500 on a haircut, and £2 million on a ‘starter home’. The gap between these millionaires and the rest of the population is getting ever greater:  most workers earn less than £19,000 a year, and personal debt for ordinary people has shown a big rise.

   

The programme had a few dissenting voices, who thought that such vast fortunes were objectionable on various grounds. Not Tony Blair, though, who was seen in an interview saying that there was nothing wrong with people receiving such sums and that he was opposed to a cap on anyone’s income. Mostly, though, it was a celebration of this top one percent, who supposedly create wealth and advance the state of technology. “Everyone has benefited,” said one property millionaire. One individual was said to be ‘building a boat’ – actually a luxury yacht to be rented out to other parasites for £200,000 a week – but of course he was paying workers to do the actual building, and he was just going to rake in the profits.

   

Much was also made of the fact that many of the millionaires had started out as ordinary workers and had made their own way into the elite, originally through their own efforts. But there was no mention of the fact that the vast majority of workers toil throughout their lives for little reward. And it really does not matter if a capitalist came from humble circumstances, for they live off surplus value created by exploited workers. But it’s hardly surprising that Panorama failed to point this out.

Paul Bennett

Tiny Tips (2025)

The Tiny Tips column from the December 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Brazil, Russia, and South Africa top the list for wealth inequality, each posting Gini coefficients around the low 0.8s. These scores imply a highly concentrated distribution of assets relative to the rest of the population. Several energy-rich economies—such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia—also rank high, reflecting significant concentrations of financial and real assets among upper tiers of wealth holders. Country Gini Coefficient 2024: Brazil 0.82, Russia 0.82, South Africa 0.81, United Arab Emirates 0.81, Saudi Arabia 0.78, Sweden 0.75.

[ZeroHedge]

. . . Latin America remains the only region in the world that has not shown a clear decline in child marriage over the last three decades. Nicaragua has the highest rates within the region and ranks 14th globally with 10% of girls marrying or entering a union before age 15. Among boys, 19% marry or enter a union before the age of 18. Here are the main reasons for child marriage in Nicaragua… Poverty continues to affect a large portion of Nicaragua’s population. The United Nations reports that 48% of people live below the poverty line. Continual climate disruptions devastate the environment and worsen economic conditions. High levels of organized crime and human trafficking also contribute to insecurity. Many families marry off their children to ease financial hardship and improve their economic situation, resulting in increased levels of child marriage in Nicaragua. Furthermore, Nicaraguan society continues to enforce cultural and gender norms that pressure girls to marry young and bear children.

[The Borgen Project]

At the centre of the criminality in Gaza today are armed gangs, whose members are often drawn from the territory’s powerful clans. These clans are extended families that have historically played leading roles in their communities – but have also, at times, operated like local mafia. During the recent conflict, clans have settled old scores with violence. Gangs associated with the clans have expanded into racketeering, drug dealing, kidnapping, robbery and extortion. 

[The Conversation]

The rally was a good time with a positive vibe, and I’m glad to see Americans coming together in opposition to one tyrant. But until and unless we start coming together in opposition to tyranny itself — the state per se — and in support of liberty for all, the only question is how much more kingly and despotic our next ruler will get than the previous one got. 

[CounterPunch]

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

Material World: A history of inequality (2025)

The Material World Column from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Thomas Piketty is an academic who specialises in the study of economic inequality and has written a number of books on the subject, the most well-known of which is the 700-page tome Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), which we reviewed in 2014. The most recent is A Brief History of Equality which first came out in French in 2021. Based on historical records such as the archives of legacies, property transactions and tax returns, Piketty identifies a trend since the beginning of the 19th century towards less inequality in wealth ownership, income, and access to education, health care and better-paid jobs. Describing himself as a socialist but in the gradualist, reformist tradition, he believes this can continue and lead to ‘a systemic transformation of capitalism’.

On wealth ownership, he takes as a measure of inequality the proportion of wealth owned by the top one percent compared with that of the bottom 50 percent. The figures for all forms of property are:

‘The wealthiest 1 percent held about 45 percent of total property in France in 1810, and about 55 percent of the total in 1910 …. Then, in the course of the twentieth century, we observe a very strong deconcentration of fortunes: in the whole of France, the richest 1 percent’s share fell from 55 percent in 1914 to less than 20 percent at the beginning of the 1980s, before beginning a slow increase; in 2020, that share was nearly 25 percent’.

But ‘this did not benefit much the poorest 50 percent, whose share rose from 2 percent in 1910 to 6 percent in 2020’ and ‘the richest 1 percent’s share of total private property is currently two times smaller than it was a century ago, but it still remains on the order of five times larger than the share held by the poorest 50 percent’.

The beneficiaries have been the middle 40 percent between the top 10 percent and the bottom 50 percent who Piketty calls the ‘patrimonial middle class’. Their wealth he finds is ‘held mainly in housing’. In fact, the monetary value of housing represents about half of that of all privately-owned wealth. The figures for the ownership of all wealth are interesting but the relevant one for socialists is the one for the ownership of means of production. Piketty usefully defines means of production as ‘all the goods necessary to produce other goods and services’ (‘agricultural land and equipment, factories and machinery, offices and computers, shops and restaurants, salary advances and working capital’). He doesn’t produce figures for this but says that ownership of these is more concentrated than for all wealth. But there is a table which shows that:

‘In France in 2020 (as in all countries for which such data are available), small fortunes are composed principally of cash and bank deposits, middle-sized fortunes of real estate, and large fortunes of financial assets (especially stocks)’.

It cannot be denied that the middle 40 percent — the vast majority of whom are members of the working class properly defined — have benefited, but this doesn’t mean that this group is not dependent, like the rest of the working class in the bottom 50 percent, on having to sell their ability to work in order to buy what they need to live. If they lose their job, they can survive for longer before they become destitute, perhaps a year or so after selling their house. But it does mean that we socialists should be careful when we say the working class is ‘propertyless’. We don’t mean that they literally own nothing but that they don’t own means of production.

There has also been a reduction in inequality of access to education and health care. But this can’t be seen as anti-capitalist, as a better educated and more healthy workforce became necessary as production methods became more complex. As Piketty himself points out:

‘During the second Industrial Revolution [chemicals, electricity, the car industry, household goods], it became essential that an increasingly large part of the labour force be capable of mastering manufacturing processes that required technical and digital education, and the ability to understand detailed equipment manuals’.

Nor is the lessening of discrimination over job opportunities for women and minorities incompatible with capitalism. Capitalism could cope with the abolition of discrimination and even benefit from it by being able to draw on a wider pool of trainable and competent workers.

As a gradualist, Piketty would like to see what he calls ‘the march towards equality’ continue and completely ‘transform capitalism’. Besides steep taxes on wealth and inheritance, he envisages changing company law to allow for more employee participation in decision-making and for a proportion of profits to be set aside for spending to benefit workers. Neither of these will change the workings of capitalism as an economic system which imposes on those who make decisions about production that the priority be making a profit. Widening the circle of those who make such decisions won’t alter this; even worker cooperatives have to obey capitalism’s basic economic law of ‘no profit, no production’. And, of course, from time to time companies go bust and there are no profits to set aside.

He also proposes a scheme to give everyone at age 25 a minimum inheritance equal to 60 percent of average wealth per adult (which is France in 2020 would have been about 120,000 euros, or about £105,000; more today of course). The aim, he says, would be to ‘increase the negotiating power of everyone who owns almost nothing (that is, about half the population)’:

‘Recipients could reject certain job offers, buy an apartment, engage in a personal project, or create a small business. This freedom, which is certain to delight some, may well frighten employers and property owners’.

Which, apart from the cost, is precisely why it will never happen; it would undermine the wages system by putting workers in a stronger bargaining position with employers and enable them to extract a higher wage, meaning less profits. It is rather surprising that anyone should seriously imagine that the capitalist state could be made to give half the working class a lump sum of at least £105k. In any event, such a redistribution of wealth would not affect the unequal ownership of means of production.

In short, the trend since 1800 towards less inequality has not undermined the basis of capitalism. Even less has it been an ongoing slow, gradual transition towards socialism. Not that socialism is a society with a more equal distribution of wealth. Its basis is the common ownership of the means of production which will allow everyone access on equal terms to education, health care, work and what they need to live.

Adam Buick

Letter: Two countries (2011)

Letter to the Editors from the October 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

Two countries

Dear editors

We actually live in two different countries.

On the one hand, we have a tiny minority of people, who own and control this land of “theirs”. On the obverse side of the coin, we have us, the vast majority whose only real possession, is our ability to labour, to use our mental and physical abilities, to earn a wage or salary.

The businesses we toil for do not belong to us. Our only interest is our salary or wage, at the end of the week or month. There ends our interest in the firms that employ us.

According to the Land Registry, 75 percent of the land mass of the UK belongs to approximately 1400 people. I am not one of them, are you? The figures on share ownership are similarly skewed, with less than 1 percent of the population owning over 99percent of all marketable shares!

We live in two different countries. For the mouth-pieces of capitalism to say “we are all in this together” is arrant lies and nonsense. Whether said by Coalition or Labour figures makes not one jot of difference to us, the majority.

They own, we do not. We labour and toil, they do not. We are leaves on the capricious winds of capitalism’s speculation, they are not. We worry about the price of food, energy, housing etc and all the fluctuations of this system, they do not.

Capitalism is not “fair” to the vast majority of us, the population of the Earth. It does not work in our interests. It subverts our nature as co-operative human beings. It and they treat us as dumb adjuncts to the productive process that affords them vast wealth and opulence, whilst at the same time, condemning us, the majority, to the stress, poverty, starvation, homelessness, misery, insecurity, etc, etc, etc, that afflicts our lives every second of everyday, of our lives.

Only a revolution in thought and understanding of this reality will serve to free us from this. Only a working together of us, the disenfranchised and powerless within the present system, capitalism, will ensure that we live in a world where we all can live in dignity, inclusion and empowerment and not in want, insecurity and fear.

Steve Colborn, 

Seaham, Co. Durham.

Our case in brief. (1915)

From the October 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

At such a time of appalling misery and waste of human life as the present, it may be useful to review again the claims of the Socialists, and to set out once more the means by which they propose to reach their goal. The writer has nothing new to tell—nothing at all that he has not said many times over in these columns. Nor can he hope to say it in a different way from which he has said it all before. But the message must be repeated again and yet again, though the messenger grows sick at heart. Conditions are always changing, if the message is not, and therein lies hope sufficient for the day.

Socialists claim that human happiness rests primarily upon the security and sufficiency of the necessaries of life—food, clothing, and shelter They do not say that there are no other sources of happiness, or that security and plenitude in these things must necessarily banish all unhappiness. What they contend is that these material things are the basis of human happiness viewed generally, just as they are the basis of human life itself.

Socialists maintain that the wealth produced at the present day is sufficient to afford ample of the necessaries of life to every man, woman, and child in the community, while the means at the command of society are sufficient to enable that wealth to be produced by the expenditure of a comparatively small amount of the time and effort by which the working class gain their meagre livelihood to-day.

The first of these contentious, namely, that human happiness depends primarily upon the means of living, hardly needs any enlarging upon at this time of day. Everybody understands, even if he had never thought seriously about it before, that before one can have any experience at all, happy or otherwise ; before one can think or act or desire, one must eat—for the simple reason that every organic activity results from the consumption of food, from this to the proposition, that lack of the means of subsistence is bound to cause physical distress and, in highly sentient beings such as man, mental distress also, is a logical step. This physical and mental distress, which, where it exists and in proportion as it exists inevitably undermine all happiness, can only be banished by giving sufficiency of and security in the means of subsistence.

Now as to the amount of wealth which is produced today, let us take the evidence of the opponents of Socialism. Mr. Chiozza Money, the Liberal M.P., an accredited capitalist statisti­cian, estimated the national income in the year 1904 at £1,710,000,000. and he says in his book “Riches and Poverty” (page 29), “if the income the nation were equally distributed amongst its inhabitants a family of five persons would enjoy an income of about £200 per annum.” It is seen, then, that sufficient wealth is produced to afford ample means of subsistence to all.

It must, of course, be granted that much of the wealth produced to-day takes a form which would be useless in a society where the products of labour were equally enjoyed by all, but as all this wealth is simply nature-given material to which human labour has been applied, either to change its from (as in the case of cannon) or to change its position (as in the case of coal), or to change both form and position, as in the case of most things, it would be the simplest of matters to direct all labour into channels, and turn all useful materials into forms, which would contribute to the end in view.

Is it true that the means which we possess for producing wealth to-day are sufficiently developed to enable us to maintain the present output of wealth with the expenditure of far less time and energy per head of the able-bodied population than the working-class bread-winner of to-day has to give, on the average, to the gaining of his livelihood ? To commence with, think what happens to every commodity which is produced before it becomes available to fulfil the function for which human toil has fitted it— that is, before it can be consumed. It has to be sold, and perhaps sold several times. It is, in fact, produced in order be sold, not in order to be used though unless it was capable of being used it could not (except under false pretences) find a purchaser. This means that, an enormous number of clerks, travellers, salesmen, shopkeepers, and others too numerous to mention must be maintained in labour which adds not one iota to the wealth which is produced. According to the Census returns of 1901 there were 504,294 commercial travellers and commercial and business clerks engaged in this useless labour in the United Kingdom—apart from thousands of other clerks and touts, such as those employed by lawyers, political and other organisations, for example. How many shop-assistants are wasting their time waiting for customers who do not come ? How many baker’s and butcher’s carts chase each other over the same ground ? How many canvassers, agents, and house-to-house distributors swarm the streets ? And all this because goods must be sold when they are completed, instead of then being immediately available for consumption.

And as goods are produced under the present system only to be sold, so they are only produced while they can be sold. Hence there is at all times an immense army of workers unable to find employment because there is not sufficient sale for the sort of goods they are producers and distributors of. In the year when the stupendous amount of wealth mentioned by Mr. Money was produced the “percentage of members of Trade Unions making returns who were out of employment was 6.8” (“Statistical Memoranda,” Cd 4671, Local Govt. Board). It is generally admitted that the unorganised trades would show an even larger unemployment percentage, but this figure applied over the whole field would give about a million workers in the country in enforced idleness.

Then even before the war there were in the Army, Navy, Police force and Prison staffs, the very pick and flower of the race another half-a-million men adding nothing to the wealth of community, while 50,000 parson “labour” but to keep us in the land of nod.

Everywhere around us we find energy wasted, from the railway ticket-collector and the ‘bus company’s spy to the jeweller setting diamonds in the collar of her ladyship’s Pekinese pup and the flunkey buttoning up his dilettante master’s breeches. And on top of all this there is that great group of the master class, to the number of about 5,000,000, who produce nothing, and who would, if they contributed workers in the same ratio as the working class, add another 2,000,000 to those available for production.

These figures, even if they may be disputed on the matter of strict accuracy, are sufficient to show that society has means to hand to produce vastly more wealth than is at present produced with the same average expenditure of time and toil which the members of the working class who are in employment render for their bare, miserable subsistence, or the same amount with far smaller average expenditure of time and effort. But we must find a method by which all these idlers, compulsory or voluntary, shall be brought into production, and all these workers whose efforts are directed into wrong channels shall become fruitful in their labours.

* * *

Before we go any further let us make up our minds for the wholesale destruction of preconceived notions, it is quite apparent that, the enormous waste of human labour entailed, in the selling of all the products of man’s industry cannot be eliminated by anything short of the abolition of sale and therefor of production for sale. Nor can unemployment be abolished, it is equally evident, until men’s employment ceases to be dependent upon the sale of the goods they produce—which again means that production for sale must go. And again, it is quite certain that we shall have to have a very different set of social conditions and a very different distribution of social power before those idlers, the master class, can be brought into production and distribution, and compelled to contribute their share to the common labour fund, in return for the food they eat, the clothes they wear, and the houses they live in. So it is plain that the method we are looking for must involve very great changes in our social structure, and that before we can accept, such changes many of the ideas current among us to-day, and many of our common ways of looking at things, must go into the melting-pot together.

* * *

Why do working-class men and women have to sell their strength and skill (commonly but wrongly called their “labour”) to the masters for wages or salary ?

Because the masters own and control all the means by which people to-day can produce the things by which they live…..that is, all the land, mines, factories, machinery, raw material, railways, ships, and so on.

Why do the masters not have to sell their strength and skill, or, indeed, why do they not have to work at all, in order to live ?

Because they own the means and instruments by which all wealth is produced and distributed, and owning these things, own also the wealth which is produced with their aid.

Why are there at all times many workers who are unable to get employment ?

Because the goods in the production of which they seek employment are only produced for sale and when such goods cannot be sold the owners of the means of production will not employ workers to produce them,

Why will not the owner of these means of production employ workers to produce goods which cannot be sold ?

Because, firstly, in order to maintain himself in the position of property-owner (that is, to keep solvent) he must pay his way, which he can only do by turning the wealth his employees produce into money, or in other words, by selling it ; secondly, in order to live without himself producing wealth the employer must secure that produced by others (his employees). But as he cannot satisfy his needs with the actual goods his employees produce, any more than he can pay his debts with them, again he must sell them. And if he cannot sell them he could [not] continue to stand the expense of their production.

It is seen how all these things have their root in the basic condition—the private ownership by a class of the means and instruments of production and distribution. Clearly, then, private ownership in these things—in all things which are necessary for the sustenance and well-being of mankind, in fact—must go.

That, in brief, is the Socialist remedy. Private ownership in the instruments of labour and the raw material, in the land, mines, factories, machinery, railways, canals, ships, and the like of all these things, must cease. They must become the property of the whole community, and be controlled and operated by the whole community. Can anything be simpler than that?

Socialism, after all, is very simple. There is never any need to wrap it up in hard terms. It is just a social system based upon the common ownership of the means of living, as the present social system—capitalism-is based upon the private ownership of these things.

In a future issue it will be shown what will follow from the changed property condition.

A. E. Jacomb

Tiny Tips (2025)

The Tiny Tips column from the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

The latest Oxfam report which was released at 4th UN Financing for Development meet in Seville, Spain, shows that since 2015 the top 1% people in the world have amassed US$ 33.9 trillion in new wealth which is enough to end annual poverty 22 times over. 

(Scoop Independent News)

In some cases, health professionals perform FGM [Female Genital Mutilation] secretly in exchange for payment, turning the practice into a commercial enterprise, 

(People Daily)

The island is currently facing its worst economic crisis since the 1959 revolution. Long and daily power cuts, scarce internet connection, food and medicine shortages, and high prices are the realities of present-day Cuba. Some staple items like beans are nowhere to be found; rice production has declined and much is now imported. Sugar, too, has become an import in Cuba, which, until recently, was the leading sugar exporter in the world. People cannot make ends meet with their meager incomes — a doctor’s monthly salary is approximately $50. Even by conservative World Bank estimates, 72 percent of all Cubans live below the poverty line. Beggars seem to be everywhere, with the African community descendant from slavery being the most economically victimized. 

(Consortium News)

The entire political and intellectual machinery of the French ruling class is now moving in this direction. That includes the miserable little left, led by the Socialist Party, who bark at us from morning to night. They don’t realize that they’re participating in a broader establishment strategy: acting as the left-wing auxiliary of the right. They live in a dreamworld, wanting France to be like Germany, with a grand coalition of the centre: Social Democrats who are indistinguishable from liberals, Greens who are always clamouring for war. These people are doing the work of dividing us every day while pretending to be for unity.

(Portside)

One recent survey discovered that 70 percent of Americans are the most financially stressed that they have ever been in their entire lives. That figure alone tells us that we have a major economic crisis on our hands. The cost of living has been rising much faster than paychecks have been, and most of the country is just barely scraping by from month to month. Anyone that attempts to deny this is simply not living in reality. 

(Zero Hedge)

Donald Trump styled himself as a populist, ‘anti-establishment’ president. But look at what he has actually done in office, and you see he’s a status-quo politician with nothing to offer working Americans.

(Jacobin)

Will voters finally stop both blaming politicians for their troubles and depending on them to end them? Will voters—and non-voters—transform themselves into people who act for themselves, in their own interests, instead of allowing others to act for them? That would be what social change looks like. The survival of the human race may well depend upon it. 

(The Brooklyn Rail)

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

From the first issue of the Socialist Standard (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 70th anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard carried throughout its pages a series of snippets from old Socialist Standard articles highlighting the SPGB's unique position on issues of the day. Where possible, I've provided a link to the full article.

The greatest problem awaiting solution in the world to-day is the existence in every commercial country of extreme poverty side by side with extreme wealth. In every land where, in the natural development of society, the capitalist method of producing and distributing wealth has been introduced, this problem presses itself upon us. Not only so but the greater the grip which capitalism has on industry the more intense is the poverty of the many and the more marked are the riches of the few.

In observing the conditions of this problem, the fact is quickly forced under our notice that it is the producer of wealth who is poor, the non-producer who is rich. How comes it that the men and women who till the soil, who dig the mine, who manipulate the machine, who build the factory and the home, and, in a word, who create the whole of the wealth, receive only sufficient to maintain themselves and their families on the border line of bare physical efficiency, while those who do not aid in production – the employing class – obtain more than is enough to supply their every necessity, comfort, and luxury?

[Extract from Socialist Standard 3 September 1904]

A Worker’s first problem (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 70th anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard carried throughout its pages a series of snippets from old Socialist Standard articles highlighting the SPGB's unique position on issues of the day. Where possible, I've provided a link to the full article.

Mr. Andrew Carnegie in his rectorial address to the Aberdeen University students said:

“Youths should have a decisive voice, if possible, in the selection of their future occupation.”

There is another thing he might have advised them to do, viz, choose their own parents. If they did what large families the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Goulds, and Morgans would have ! Why, no poor man could have any children at all, unless some foolish young man chose a labourer on 16s. a week to be his father.

[From “Jottings”, Socialist Standard, July 1912]

Editorial: A King on Socialism. (1908)

Editorial from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dr. H. M. MacCracken, Chancellor of New York University, has—according to the Harmsworth Press—been interviewed by the Daily Mail’s Own Correspondent.

The professor had just returned from a trip to the Scandinavian countries, undertaken with the object of arranging an interchange of professors. What we are concerned with here, however, is not the object of his holiday, but rather with the delightful example of bourgeois mentality that the Chancellor of New York University introduces to us via the Daily Mail.

The chancellor lunched with King Haakon and conversed for several hours with him on education and politics. “If King Haakon,” he observes, “were not a king he would make an excellent professor of political economy. He understands his subject thoroughly. He knows, too, that Socialism is increasing among his subjects, recognises the fact openly, and is, indeed, much worried about it.”

And then we come to that dreary, hoary old wheeze that Socialism is the Great Divide; that it does not mean a co-operative commonwealth run by associated labour democratically organised, but means that all wealth is to be split up amongst the people !

“Recently, Dr. MacCracken said, the King went among some working men who were known to be Socialists and asked them if they were in favour of a division of wealth. They said they were. “Then let us appoint Friday at noon as the time for the division of wealth,” the King suggested to them. “Very well,” answered the men. “But wait,” said the King, “at five minutes after twelve many babies will be born, and they will be entitled to their share of wealth. Shall we make another division then and another one every five minutes ?”

The King did not get a satisfactory answer to that question, so his opposition to Socialism, he told Dr. MacCracken, was not modified. “Why,” he added, “I could black my own boots if I wanted to. I have done it, and know how. But if I did, what would become of those people who make a living by blacking boots ? The Socialist demand for equality of labour is in fact impracticable. I believe in division of labour.”

After that we are not at all surprised that “King Haakon impressed Dr. MacCracken as a man of unusual intellect.” And when the learned chancellor informs us that the King “would make an excellent professor of political economy,” we can but agree with him.

Equality under capitalism (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

In an article in the Sunday Observer (31/12/1950), Charles Davy poses the question, “ what will Britain be like in ten years’ time?” He wonders whether Britain should aim at a “classless” society, since he recognises that the so-called “Welfare State” is one “where class differences are still wide and well- marked.” Mr. Davy goes on to show that a classless society is understood by some people to be one in which “freedom will be maintained and equality at last achieved.” But Mr. Davy, like many before him, finds “equality” a stumbling-block. He wonders what it can mean in practical terms, since he sees “no obvious sense in which all men are equal, and so many ways in which they are not.”

In his “practical” way, Mr. Davy starts off with the viewpoint of the “child’s fear of being cheated" from which he traces a conception of justice “which implies equality before the law.” However, Mr. Davy himself in his wisdom realises that this lawyers’ well-worn phrase is meaningless. As he puts it:

“We can give men equal legal and voting rights; but we find that they are still subject to economic exploitation, and to gross family poverty which makes a mockery of the fair and equal chance.”

But even with the introduction of the “Welfare State” we find “that glaring inequalities persist.” So what can we do? One can now see Mr. Davy almost trembling with excitement; he daringly continues: “Should we then go further still, declaring that the very existence of rich people, while others are poor is an affront,”—and here at last comes the anti-climax —“and use taxation to narrow the gap until it is hardly noticeable?” But this is rejected, as it is only the viewpoint of some Labourites.

Mr. Davy himself is not so radical! He finds the solution in the “religious idea of equality,” which turns out to be—guess what?—the nineteenth century dogma of laissez-faire in twentieth century garb:

“ It requires that everyone should be given (as far as is humanly practicable) a fair chance in life.” This is the top-level of equality to Mr. Davy, above which “there should be freedom and variety: competition within the rules of fair play.” At last, he shows himself in his true colours: wistfully recalling that “in earlier societies, inequalities were accepted as part of the given order,” he regrets that “to-day it is very hard to get them accepted without envy and resentment.”

So inequality must now be disguised, it must be “seen and felt to be functional, derived not from privilege or influence but from the demands of the work in hand.” This is what Mr. Davy understands by a classless society, “ for the class to which a man belonged would not be fixed nor would it apply to him as a human being. It would simply be a working-dress.” This principle of functional partnership “would' call for far-reaching changes in the forms of ownership and association whereby power and authority are exercised, and rewards distributed in economic life." Thus Mr. Davy’s Britain of ten years hence would exemplify the “fundamental social paradox” of “ the equality and inequality of man”!

Of what “the far-reaching changes in the forms of ownership” will consist, their promulgator is not explicit. But no matter—he says they are only changes in form. This must mean that the substance of our present system of ownership will remain. This system consists in the class ownership of the means of production and distribution, whether through private or state forms, by the privileged minority, called capitalists. The propertyless majority of the members of society are forced by their economic condition to sell their labour-power for a wage or salary-to the privileged capitalists. A surplus-value is produced by the working-class over what they receive back in the form of wages; from this surplus-value all rent, interest and profit is derived. The motive of capitalistic production is to make profit. This is the basic economic disease of our time; from this arise the social inequalities. Mr. Davy is yet another of those social charlatans who see the symptoms but know not their cause. He is a typical apologist for the evils that are inherent in the nature of capitalist society. His concern is not to abolish inequality, but only to disguise it in such a form that the workers will no longer recognise it.

Socialists desire to show their fellow-workers that Socialism alone means equality. By Socialism is implied a system of society where the private ownership of the means of life, production for profit, a money or exchange system, and the existence of classes are all abolished. All the members of society will stand in a similar relation to the world’s wealth—all will be owners, or if you like, non-owners. Each will contribute what he can to society and take what he requires. There will be plenty for all. This is what Socialists understand by equality. In the words of Marx, “from each accord to his ability, to each according to his need."

D. A. Stern

"Nothing new" (1989)

From the December 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wealthy charity worker Elisabeth Symonds agrees with Prime Minister Bob Hawke that Australia is a two-class society.

Mrs Symonds, who lives in a multi-million dollar eastern suburbs home, said the rich had now established themselves on their own plateau.

“I don’t see how it can be otherwise”, she said.

“I don’t think Australia is unique. Anywhere you can think of in the world, it is like this.”

Her comments were echoed by Salvation Army spokesman, Major Neville Brooks.

“There have been two classes for a long, long time”, he said.

“It is a natural outcome of a democratic society to have this polarisation of wealth.

“The only thing is there are a lot more people struggling to survive.”

Major Brooks called for more relief for the “strugglers”, saying Australia had never had so many poor people since the Depression.

“Our experience is homelessness is increasing because of the rise in the cost of dirt and the battle with interest rates”, he said

Daily Mirror, Sydney, 20 March 1989