Born to it – or just up for it? (2001)

"Alex the Animal"

TV Review from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are you a born athlete? A born artist? Naturally intelligent? Or were you born with the wrong genes?

There is something depressing about the assumption that to be good at anything. you have to he born good at it. It’s depressing because it robs us of control over our own lives, and seeing as we give up most of the control we could exercise over out lives to our employers for the vast majority of our time, it’s a loss we can ill afford to make.

It’s all part of the ruling ideology, of course. We’re told that the reason we don’t have any power over our lives is because we don’t have it, and we don’t have it because that’s part of the natural order of things, and we wouldn’t know what to do with it if we did have it. You’re either a born leader – or an entrepreneur – or a natural follower or employee. Socialism is against human nature.

But this is in contradiction to another ruling idea, namely that if you want to get on in life and achieve something worthwhile, or become an entrepreneur, all you have to do is “put your mind to it”. Hard work (i.e. hard work for an employer), dedication and long hours are all that is required and, sooner or later, you shall surely succeed.

The fallacy of the first idea was exposed in an entertaining way in Faking It, a Channel 4 documentary showing until recently on Tuesday evenings. The idea of the show was to take Joe or Josephine Public, and see if they could perform a role other than that which capitalist society had assigned to them. They were given a month’s training by people with expert knowledge on the role they had to play. Then they were thrown in the deep end: they had to perform the role for real alongside those for who it is a “natural” job. The “experts” were asked if they could spot the “fake”.

For example, a painter and decorator was trained how to paint modern art, and successfully fooled the art critics who instead denounced a successful modern artist as a fake; a cellist was successfully trained to perform as a dance DJ; and, in my favourite episode, an effete, toff homosexual Oxford student was trained up to be a bouncer working the door on a busy London nightclub.

Having been bought up on a farm in the country, the Oxford student’s only previous experience seeing their housing estate, all his worst prejudices were confirmed. “Oh my god,” he said in horror as he passed a discarded mattress in his taxi. “Did you see that? There was a mattress on the pavement. That’s exactly what I was expecting. Oh my god.”

Given everything that we knew about this student, the chances of his making it as a bouncer on the door of a nightclub could not seem more unlikely. When he met and stood side by side with his trainers – towering doormen experienced in the martial arts and in real-life street-fighting – the physical and cultural differences between them seemed all the more startling. The doormen looked “naturally” big and imposing, and the idea of turning this slightly built, nervous student into one of them was comic – plain impossible.

But the show demanded the impossible. We followed him as he went through a metamorphosis – not exactly waking up one morning to find himself transformed into a gigantic fighting machine – but a gradual and hard process of training. He was put through his paces in martial art skills – including a few sessions in the ring so he would know what it feels like to get hit hard – and was given acting and voice training lessons so he looked and sounded the part – “y’aint caming in, y’ah daan’t meet the dress code”.

By the end, not only did he look and sound the part but, when he played for real on the door of a busy London nightclub, not one of the “real” bouncers identified him as the fake. Natural born bouncer?

Another essential part of the training process was a night of bonding with his new-found friends. He was taken on a piss-up, which rounded off the night in a strip club. When asked if he had enjoyed the night, the student came clean to the huge loud-mouthed cockney doormen, and told them he was gay.

The interesting thing about this was that the student assumed they would be horribly prejudiced, coming from the background that they did, and would turn against him – indeed, would feel dodgy about having rough and tumbled with a poof. As it turned out, it was the student’s prejudice about them that was unfounded. They couldn’t give a shite about his sexuality – and pointed out to the student that he was the one who was prejudiced for making assumptions about them based on their accents, their job, and their housing estate.

I loved the whole series because it showed that human beings are capable of a wide variety of behaviours and skills when given a favourable environment. It sent the mind reeling with what is possible when we assert our own needs.

Imagine what we could he and do if we participated fully in the creation of our own lives! Our social existence may determine our consciousness, but there is now no reason, other than the rule of capital, why we cannot actively create our own social existence, and therefore our own consciousness. This is real freedom – not just freedom from oppression or freedom to do what you want, nor even freedom to choose but a dynamic freedom to determine what the choices are in the first place

Stuart Watkins

Blogger's Note:

The Guardian's 'How We Made' column had a short piece on the "Alex the Animal" episode in September 2020.

Human capacity (2001)

Book Review from the December 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Becoming Human. Evolution and Human Uniqueness by Ian Tattersall, OUP, 2001.

Like all the other life-forms on this planet, we humans are the product of a process of evolution from earlier life-forms. Our immediate ancestors will have been ape-like animals which had evolved to walk upright. The fossil record suggests that there will have been many species of such animals, from one line of which we are descended. All the other lines not only became extinct but left no descendants either. The last of these other types of Homo to go extinct were the Neanderthals, a mere (in evolutionary time) 27,000 years ago.

All this is described by Tattersall, who is the curator of the Department of Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, in this paperback edition of a book that was first published in 1998. According to him, although there was no predetermined course of evolution leading to us as the “highest form” of life, there is a feature that distinguishes us from all other life-forms—the capacity for symbolic thought, i.e. the ability to generate and manipulate complex abstract symbols (words naming parts of our environment and relationships between them). This allows us not just to react to the external world but to refashion it. This of course is tied up with language and it is what makes us unique. It has enabled us to develop technologies that have changed both the rest of nature and the societies in which we live.

Tattersall speaks of “human capacity” (as opposed to “human nature”) and clashes with those, such as the sociobiologists and the evolutionary psychologists, who have a very narrow view of this capacity, seeing it as being severely limited by our genes. But, Tattersall points out, while our genes can’t be ignored “they only intervene in our behaviours in an indirect way, by programming the development of our brains”. Therefore, “if we are to understand the complexities of our behaviour, it is to our brains, not directly to our genes, that we have to look”.

When we do this then, we can add, we find that our brains allow us, as a species, to adopt – and, as prehistory and history bear out, we have in fact adopted – a great variety of different behaviours depending on the natural, economic and social environments we have found ourselves in. So, contrary to the biological determinists of various hues, “human nature” is not a barrier to socialism. On the contrary, our biologically evolved and inherited “human capacity” will allow us to live in a socialist society.

Tattersall has his own particular theory of how our brains developed, which is not accepted by all anthropologists and palaeontologists. He suggests that the ability to think abstractly, and to express such thoughts vocally, arose for other reasons than directly to be able to do these, for instance perhaps as a result of the mental images involved in fashioning tools, in one line of Homo which only later exploited this capacity. Hence his view that the Neanderthals did not use symbolic language.

This is a neat refutation of the views of those who claim that our brains only evolved for life on the open grasslands of East Africa and that therefore we have “stone age minds” which make it difficult for us to live under capitalism let alone in a socialist society. In any event, Tattersall points out, the idea that the brains of us modern humans (Homo sapiens) evolved out of living in a single environment has been overstated. During the time that the various different species of Homo evolved, and all except the line that led to us became extinct, the natural environment was unstable. The Earth cooled and warmed and cooled again, shifting patterns of vegetation even in East Africa. “It is out of this ecologically and geographically unstable world that our ancestors ultimately arose,” concludes Tattersall. “The widely cited notion of a monolithic ‘ancestral environment’ that, through our genetic heritage, still conditions our behavior today is simply untenable”.

Adam Buick

Human Problems (1952)

From the August 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

When discussing the problems of the present social order (or rather disorder) we usually concentrate on those whose cause is most easily traced to the property basis of society, problems such as malnutrition, disease, bad housing. But there are other perhaps more subtle but none the less widely-felt sources of human misery. They are the “human” problems, in the sense that they appear to have little or no connection with material things.

Tell a man he needs a new suit or a better meal or a larger home and he will readily agree with you. But tell him he needs to be appreciated by others outside his family circle, to feel a sense of belonging to the community, and he may well reply with something like “I don’t worry about what other people think—I can look after myself all right.” The world of Capitalism is a hard one, and (as the “successful” gentry never tire of repeating) jt has no time for weaklings or fainthearts. Yet it is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of people are treated as mere cogs in the system that, in Marx's words, has resolved personal worth into exchange value. In spite of attempts to make it appear otherwise, the market place is still essentially impersonal.

Now the worker’s energies bought by the capitalist are not something abstract—they are part of a human being who is deeply influenced by the process of which he is part. Small wonder that someone who answers an advert, for “skilled hands” is easily led to believe he is valued by society at large, as by his employer, only for the skill he possesses. Not unnaturally he tries to come to terms with his environment to fit into society as it appears to him, and in doing so his thoughts tend to be moulded into the pattern that ensures the continuation of the existing state of affairs.

The nature of the system, then, has its effects on the natures of the individuals who support it, actively or passively. It is based on exploitation, on the survival of the slickest, and on the doctrine that some men are naturally inferior to others. Therefore it is not surprising that these concepts are reflected in people’s outlook on all aspects of life. Although it is unquestionably offensive to human dignity and self-esteem to feel oneself exploited by others, it is perhaps some compensation to believe that that’s the way of the world. Some have been lucky, some haven’t, some have “got what it takes,” others have only themselves to blame for their failure to make good—these are very comforting views for the privileged minority. But what is the price paid for thinking in this way by those who cannot hide from themselves the fact that they have got hold of the dirty end of the stick and are never likely to be able to leave go?

To the extent that the great majority of people desire approval and appreciation by others they also try to avoid being hurt by the absence of these things. They do this by building up a sort of self-defensive armour which protects them to some extent from the insults and injuries inflicted on them by strangers or even by “friends.” This is how Hortense Powdermaker, the anthropologist, describes the calculating Hollywood outlook, the capitalist mentality par excellence:—

“To the casual observer all relations seem to be on a remarkably personal level. But this is merely a sugar-coating for a deep impersonality. This impersonality comes out in two important ways. People are property in no uncertain terms, usually valuable property, and everyone has his price. Underlying the endearing terms of every conversation are the questions: 'What can I get from him? ’. . . 'What does he want from me?' . . . ‘ Will I need him in the future, if not now? ’Human relationships are regarded as basically manipulative and are lacking in all dignity."

By and large the attitude of present society towards its members is not calculated to restore the feeling of adequacy and personal worth that is lost by those who fail to “make the grade.” The greatest tragedy is that the cult of success is worshipped not only by those on top but by those underneath too. Intense individualism, the desire to stake one’s claim to recognition in the same way as to property, overlays the social feeling in man. As Barrows Dunham sums up capitalist morality, “The bricks which are to build my happiness I take from the wreckage which was yours.”

The effect that all this has upon the individual is to set up the same sort of conflict within himself as exists in society as a whole. The bankruptcies in the business world have their counterparts in the degradation of men, who are often led by their unfortunate experiences to believe that they are incapable of making a success of even the simplest relationship or job. Being thrown out of a job not only means greater poverty for people but it also shatters their confidence in the stability of their world. Far from being the natural state of affairs that its defenders claim it is, Capitalism goes so much against the grain of humanity that some doctors now believe that most physical illness has its root cause in forms of neurosis resulting from suppressed desires, anxiety and worry.

Many of the readers' letters and advice bureaux that have become such regular features in the mass- circulation newspapers and magazines are concerned with human interest problems. The frequency with which a few basic types of question arise—on frustration, boredom, loneliness, marriage failures—is too great to justify dismissing them as individual or personal affairs. The writers only mirror the thoughts, feelings, desires and ambitions of a large section of the community. One thing stands out clearly—there is a great difference between the good intentions or social feeling of most people towards those they come in contact with and their attitude to the wider problems of humanity as a whole.

But this difference is becoming less and less and at the same time the receptivity of socialist ideas is increasing. The case for Socialism amounts to saying that social affairs ought to be planned and intended in the same way that man's control over nature has been planned and intended. Society ought to be pursuing a purpose that is broadly human, not narrowly individual and class-based. The development of Capitalism as a world system is fast breaking down old barriers of prejudice and parochial thinking that have divided mankind against itself. People are more and more questioning the glib explanation of war as being due to the Eastern (or Western) mentality, or of business success being due to the inborn superiority of all capitalists. Man's knowledge of himself is at last beginning to accelerate, and soon it will convince him that he can be an agent in making the world he wants instead of a patient suffering the one he has got.

Production solely for use will not only solve material problems but will also give a fresh outlook on life to those whose horizon has been limited by subservience to private property and all that goes with it. The changing of the economic base of society will mean the changing of the human relationships that arise from it. No longer will people suffer an environment that often convinces them that every man's hand is against them, and no longer will the superficial differences between man and man overshadow the common interests that unite the whole of humanity.

Stan Parker

Creative employment? (1999)

From the June 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Readers’ Digest Universal dictionary defines creativity as “characterised by originality and expression; imaginative”. Using this as a starting point, here is a socialist’s view.

The type of society in which we live—capitalism—naturally produces an uncreative, dull and very boring social condition We all suffer as a result. Politicians, world “leaders”, journalists, academics, authors, TV reporters are all constantly telling us that there are no other alternatives to the way we live. Capitalism is full of boring jobs to do. All that factory, office, insurance, cashier work needs to be done. All those salesmen/women and financial advisers. We could be here all day.

Even in our “free” time, or rather our employment-free hours, an uncreative, stale mentality exists. What most people do in their free time and consider enjoyable—watching/playing football, listening to music, going round to pubs/clubs, eating at McDonalds, watching TV and the like, is largely a reaction to dull and tiring hours at work (or another day of being unemployed). An opportunity to get away from it all, as it were. That is not to say these activities are totally useless and unnecessary. The Friday/Saturday night culture is but another example of people letting their hair down after a tiring, boring week. A drug-taking youth culture is indicative of a pessimistic working class trying to escape the boredom of everyday life, searching for some excitement and adventure through manipulation of their own mind.

Compromise is an ass

Children of course are usually full of energy, emotion, enthusiasm and spontaneous curiosity. As we become more accustomed to “the way of the world” and more indoctrinated with ruling class ideas, we lose this. Instead we realise we have to compromise whatever throughts and ideas, creativity, energy, emotions and intellectual capabilities we may have in order to get a job and to keep our job. Our minds and bodies are not our own but are to be used and exploited by a parasitical minority—that is if we do not wish to be thrown onto the reserve army scrap-heap known as the unemployed. If you want promotion, it gets even more extreme; just look at politicians, Freemasons, company directors and the like. Even when “creativity” does exist in the labour market—most obviously with musicians, film writers, designers, illustrators, etc, these employees are constantly restricted in the amount of artistic freedom they can pursue. Current trends and fashions, which can generate enormous amounts of profit if aggressive marketing techniques are used, usually dictate the parameters of their creative boundaries. (Look at the number of Spice Girl products available. They are not so much a band as a brand.)

One of the ironic and terrible things about this decadent culture is that it is so dull and hopeless that a lot of people hope for nothing more. Some workers are so tired and stressed that they have no time or energy to work for a world which would be free them from such a miserable existence. Another irony (and tragedy) is when the psychological effects of many tiring, boring hours has a knock-on effect into the non-employment hours of the day, when workers are unable to imagine a world free from the drudgery of wage slavery.

The sky is the limit 

So how would work, as opposed to employment, seem in a sane (that’s code for socialist, by the way) society? Well, for a start at least 50 percent, maybe up to 70 percent, of the existing jobs will disappear. In a world of common ownership, money will cease to exist or have any function. All the jobs concerning money—cashiers, bankers, insurance workers, tax collectors, etc, would be totally useless. That’s the majority of the most boring jobs out of the way, then. The abolition of production for profit, and the introduction of production for use, will mean the end of unnecessary long and stressful hours. The line between “work” and leisure will become very hazy, perhaps disappear altogether for some. The fact that work will be socially and individually useful will be a great motivating factor. Ideas, expressions, thoughts and intelligence will be of great value when it comes to designing, building, organising and problem-solving. No longer would we be victims of the needs of the wages system. Human beings will cease to be mere one-dimensional, profit-grinding zombies. Everyone of us has ideas, logic, experience, knowledge, reason and creativity that is of use to others and society in general. And yes, that includes small children, the elderly and the “disabled”. In a fully democratic society (code for socialism, again) we would all be able to contribute on an equal basis (if we so choose) and take according to our self-defined needs.

The working environment will dramatically change too, of course. Being bossed around, getting up far too early, dread, anxiety, working too many hours amidst an unpleasant environment all have a negative psychological and physical effect on us. When people work in a stress-free environment and act on their own free-will they are much more co-operative. Instead of competing for jobs and promotion, which gives rise to a hostile and back-stabbing environment, emphasis will be on co-operation. Even when there are not so exciting jobs to do—cleaning perhaps, the work itself may still be mundane, but working in a co-operative and friendly environment will make whatever work we are engaged in so much more enjoyable. Cleaning can become bearable. Being around people who are enjoying themselves, enthusiastic, co-operative and engaged in socially useful work is a wonderful experience (or should I say, could be). It may be hard to imagine such experiences being part of everyday life, but don’t think of socialism as an utopia. The only thing which stands in our way is a working-class majority who understand and desire such a society. And who are willing to take the necessary political action to achieve it.

We would argue that workers have nothing to gain from being employed or unemployed. Every time we set foot in the workplace we are being exploited. And to those who want to get rid of such a reactionary society, I’ll leave with some words of wisdom from old Karl:

“Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains and a world to win!

Tom Jones

Does Genius Come from Unhappiness? (1936)

From the August 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Genius comes from unhappiness! So reads a headline in an article in the Liverpool Evening Express. The grounds for this amazing assertion, you ask? The only reason given by the author of the article in question is that ”the great geniuses of the world have been far from happy men.” One naturally asks whether, had they been happy, they might not have been even greater geniuses.

The author adopts the expedient of quoting selected instances in support of his assertion, but many other selected instances could be quoted in opposition.

Before we start talking about genius, it might be of interest to understand what is generally meant by this term, and for this purpose the following definition from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (14th, 1929, edition) will be of assistance : —

   "Genius itself has become the regular English word for the highest conceivable form of original ability, something altogether extraordinary and beyond even supreme educational prowess, and differing in kind, apparently, from “talent,” which is usually distinguished as marked intellectual capacity, short only of the inexplicable and unique endowment to which the term 'genius' is confined.”

The greatest instance of genius given by Mr. Charles Carter, the author in question, is that of Michelangelo—sculptor, painter, architect, military engineer, and poet. Yet the only instance of unhappiness given here is the fact that he was "unhappy” because he was not able to devote as much time as he would have liked to one of his favourite works—the tomb of Julius II. Yet obviously his genius had become apparent and was recognised long beforehand, so it might almost be argued from the evidence given by Mr. Charles Carter himself that it was Michelangelo’s own genius which caused his “unhappiness.” This would indeed appear to be the case, because it was the recognition of Michelangelo's genius which caused the various potentates to quarrel over him.

Again, however, definition becomes necessary. What do we mean by happiness or unhappiness? Many attempts have been made to define happiness, but the writer ventures to put forward a definition of his own, for which, however, he does not claim any originality, namely, a condition of life in which the individual is able to give full scope to his mental and physical ability. Such a definition will explain the  unhappiness” of Michelangelo, but it does not follow that genius itself results from such unhappiness. It would perhaps be more correct to say that there is a tremendous variety in the make-up of individuals and that the physical factors which make for “genius” also makes for an incomplete fulfilment of the human organism in all its functions.

Possibly the simplest answer of all to the assertion that genius causes unhappiness is to point out that here are two conditions, viz., “genius” and “unhappiness,” and one might just as well argue that genius causes unhappiness as that unhappiness causes genius. The author has either fallen into the trap or deliberately adopted the cheap method of connecting two facts and assuming that the one is the cause of the other when both may, in fact, be due to some other cause.

To revert for a moment to the Encyclopaedia Britannica definition given above, it will be noticed that the main idea of genius is originality. When, however, we study originality in the light of historical development, we find that history generally records only those instances which have been useful to the ruling class at a particular epoch, or useful to a new rising class who are about to seize the reins of power. Not only that, but the nature of the originality itself depends upon the stage in economic development which any particular society has reached. We thus find that whilst Galileo was, in 1632, forced to recant his theories. Sir Isaac Newton’s great work, published only 55 years later, brought him honour and renown, he being knighted by Queen Anne in 1705. Whilst Galileo’s theories menaced the interest of the then dominant church, in Great Britain economic development had reached a stage further, and the new merchant capitalist class welcomed any discovery which seemed beneficial to their interests.

Intelligence is obviously allied to the “genius” spoken of above, and the Practical Psychologist of May, 1935, contained a summary of the conclusions which have so far been reached on this subject. Briefly, they are that intelligence is an inherent quality; it may be dormant for some time, but must be already present if it is to be developed. The bright child becomes the bright adult. So that we see that, according to this view at any rate, intelligence does not come from unhappiness. Intelligence is defined as the power to see the various relations or connections between things.

Original ability may, of course, apply to any form of human activity. It may apply to painting, sculpture, music, architecture, mathematics, or practical science. In a system of society based upon the private ownership of the means of production, the last of these is deemed the most important, and hence the average man immediately thinks of practical scientific inventions in connection with the word "genius.” Previous instances have been given in these columns of the meagre rewards granted by capitalism to its inventors. Whilst the inventors are themselves spurred on to investigate and experiment by their need for self-expression, yet where you have a system of society based upon the private ownership of the means of production, the inventor, if he happens to belong to the working class, is obliged to eke out a miserable existence in some uncongenial occupation in order to provide him with the wherewithal of the means of life before he may even attempt to make the researches in which he is interested. Frequently he is unable to patent his ideas on account of the expense, time, and formalities involved, and his ideas may lie dormant for years on this account. Even if he is able to patent them, he is often faced with manufacturers who will not trouble to make the necessary changes to their plant, or by a combine which offers to buy the patent at the price of a Ritz dinner. In this country the inventions of employees in connection with the work on which they are employed are the property of their employers.

Only when “genius" is freed from its subservience to a ruling class, will it be possible for it to be developed to its fullest extent. Such a condition of affairs can only come about under Socialism—the next stage in the development of society, when men will be freed alike from their dependence on a ruling class and the necessity of ministering to the wants of that class, and will be able to devote their energies to improving the means of production and^o encourage all forms of ability which promise to add to the general welfare and happiness of mankind

Ramo.

Capitalist Labour and Socialist Work (1984)

From the February 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism means far more than the mere satisfaction of material needs; creative, emotional and intellectual life will also be given full expression. It is for this aspect of the socialist case that the subject of work has particular relevance. William Morris said in one of his lectures, "if pleasure in labour be generally possible, what a strange folly it must be for men to consent to labour without pleasure, and what a hideous injustice it must be for society to compel most men to labour without pleasure.” (Art under Plutocracy, reprinted by us as Art, Labour and Socialism) The fact is, most workers do consent to labour without pleasure, in so far as they continue to give their support to capitalism which is the cause of all the problems surrounding work — the boredom, the pressures, the insecurity.

In all forms of society the requirements of life must be produced; work therefore is a nature-imposed necessity. The kind of work, the techniques and conditions under which it is done, depend on the stage of development society has reached. For example, capitalism requires arms production, with armed forces, a legal system with a police force, commerce, banking, buying and selling, but none of these activities would have any place in socialism. It is necessary that we study work in relation to society for only then will we understand how socialism will change our whole conception of work and what it will mean.

Capitalism has certain unalterable basic conditions of work that will remain until the system is abolished. Those conditions are — that work takes the form of employment requiring workers to sell their mental and physical energies — their ability to work — to an employer. In doing so, they surrender themselves to the direction and control of others. They work from economic necessity, not for pleasure, nor to express themselves. Workers do not own the tools and instruments with which they produce; they are owned by the capitalist class, and may only be used, with the consent of the capitalists, when they think it is profitable to do so. Workers have no say in the matter. Consequently, in the face of modern technology workers feel threatened by mechanisation and automation. and by the over-organisation of their lives and the dull conformism that it demands. The very thing workers produce is not for their use and satisfaction; it is for selling with a view to realising profit. It is a commodity which faces workers in the market as a force obeying only economic laws, with no concern for their wellbeing.

These basic conditions of work under capitalism ensure that workers have little or no control over their working activity, yet control is of the very essence of work satisfaction. Most writers on the subject, whatever their other disagreements, stress the need for autonomy in work. Under capitalism, therefore, workers produce only as a means to an end — to earn their living, to reproduce themselves as workers. They do not produce for the intrinsic nature of the work, to develop freely their mental and physical energies. Workers are alienated not only from the means of production and the product, but also from the very act of working.

The economic base of socialism will be the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by the whole of society, not a privileged section of it. The wage-labour and capital relation will no longer exist, therefore work would not take the form of employment. In dealing with socialism we can no longer speak of workers, only of freely associated people who own the social means of production in common, who produce for use and satisfaction. Production would no longer control the producers: at last they would be in control.

Capitalism has developed co-operation of labour, but only in the individual place of work, not in society at large. Socialism will be the highest state in co-operation and organisation of social labour. The lone individual can accomplish little; only in co-operation with others will individuals fully realise themselves.

Work will be an end in itself, done with the decision and inclination of the individual, not from external pressure. No longer will the same task have to be performed for a life-time through economic necessity. There will be great variety in occupation, which is important for work satisfaction, and greater efficiency.

Modern technology demands for its most efficient use interchange of activity, yet capitalism confines workers to small details of production, leaving them ignorant of other aspects, unable to adapt to the constantly changing needs of technology, as acquired skills are made redundant. When people spend their lives engaged only in fragments of production, they can only develop as a fragment, not as whole people. Thus capitalism cannot make full use of the technology it has created.

Socialism will be very different. The means of production will be used to the best advantage of all members of society. The productive process will present a whole variety of occupations, allowing people to move from one activity to another. Everyone will have opportunity to develop a range of skills and knowledge; thereby people will gain an insight into the productive process as a whole, instead of only tiny fragments of it. Society and individuals will work in direct relation to human needs; this is what having control over production means. Work will take on a completely different meaning; it will contribute to enriching the experience of life. No longer will it be a drudgery.

The objection may be raised that this all sounds fine, but even in socialism much unpleasant and boring work will still need to be done. Who would do the dirty and dangerous work? Well, most of it would be done with the aid of machinery, as Oscar Wilde said in The Soul of Man Under Socialism:

 All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things and involves unpleasant conditions. must be done by machinery.

Or more recently Lisl Klein in The Meaning of Work:

Technically there is probably very little which could not be done in the way of reorganising work so as to abolish those aspects of work which it might be demonstrated are harmful to the people doing them.

If there still should be awful work to do, we can only echo some more words of William Morris “. . . if there be any work which cannot be but a torment to the worker what then? Well then, let us see if the heavens will fall on us if we leave it undone” (Useful Work versus Useless Toil).

Handicraft is stressed throughout Morris's writing as a means of achieving happiness and satisfaction in work. He writes in an article, the Revival of Handicraft:

We do most certainly need happiness in our daily work, content in our daily rest, and all this cannot be if we hand over the whole responsibility for the details of our daily life to machines and their drivers. We are right to long for intelligent handicraft to come back to the world which it once made tolerable. 

But Morris was not against machinery, only against how it is used under capitalism. In speaking of unpleasant labour he writes: "If machinery had been used for minimising such labour, the utmost ingenuity would scarcely have been wasted on it" (Art under Plutocracy). Indeed, socialism is possible because the forces of production are developed to the point of potential abundance, which implies a high degree of technology. But socialism will have handicraft production as well. Some things that are now made by machines may be made by hand and vice versa.

Work involving the production of food, clothing and shelter is necessary whatever form society takes. Other kinds of work, such as composing music, painting, scientific research, may be done for its own sake. It is sometimes argued that if the necessary work could be limited to as short a time a possible, there would be more time to pursue the more satisfying. However in terms of fulfilment the distinction could not exist. For example designing and building a house is very necessary; we must have houses, but it can also be a very creative form of work in itself. Also, producing something we know to be useful is itself a contributing factor to work satisfaction. Again, painting serves no vitally useful purpose in that it does not feed, clothe or shelter us. But as long as people desire works of art, are they not also useful?

William Morris gave the following definition of art: "The thing I understand by real art is the expression by man of his pleasure in labour” (Hopes and Fears for Art). One thing is certain: if we are to gain real pleasure in our labour we must be in control of our productive activity, but since this is an impossibility within the framework of capitalism, the only possible way to achieve this is through socialism.

P. B. Young

Work under Socialism (1967)

From the December 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

However man organises society, be it chattel slavery, feudalism, capitalism or Socialism, work is necessary to provide his basic requirements of food, shelter and clothing. How he produces and distributes his requirements determines that society’s attitude to work.

For example the ancient Greeks considered that mechanical work, which was mainly performed by slave labour, made man unfit for the practice of higher, more civilised cultural activities.

Early Protestantism justified and made pre-eminent the conduct and feeling about work necessary for modern capitalist society. Luther thought that work was “the base and key to life".

As capitalism has developed it has been realised that constant work does not maintain the efficiency of the worker— ‘All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy'—and so concepts of leisure and recreation have in recent years been much discussed. The use of leisure under capitalism must make the worker fit for the continuation of toil, and so there have been recurring complaints against leisure activities which are considered frivolous or degrading.

It should be noted that leisure in the re-creational sense expends energy, and in that sense is work. The opposite to work, idleness, could not be continued for long for it becomes insufferably boring. Work is necessary to meet mankind’s basic requirements. Also it is necessary to maintain the full health of man’s body, physically and mentally.

One of the objections to Socialism is often framed in terms of man's laziness. Given the opportunity to have his basic needs met, it is argued that man would be lazy or idle.

It should be realised that man must exercise his body, or make it work, in order that various organs and parts—muscle, brain, heart, continue to function efficiently.

Man is essentially a social being, not merely because he enjoys the companionship of his fellows, but out of sheer necessity. This social bond shows at times of great disasters. Without society there could be no man. The reason mankind has gained the control over nature that we know at present is due to his developing social organisation. The various problems throughout his evolution have been met by a changing society. Capitalist society throws up problems which are not soluble in its own terms. Those regarding work are principally: no work unless you can find an employer, alienation from the means of production and the product of labour, debasement of quality, trivialised craftsmanship, and specialisation which results in the worker being an extension of the machine. These are some of the conditions of work that Socialism will remove.

Socialism will be a democratic, classless society. All mankind will stand in the same relationship to the means of production. Production will be organised to meet the needs of society, and science will be used to remove work that the community finds distasteful. All labour will be useful. That is, it will be concerned with the production and distribution of goods and services. Commodity production with its requirement of numerous commercial workers, adding nothing useful to meet mankind’s needs, will be no more. Leisure will be idleness or recreation as the individual desires. There will not be any pressure to conform to any given pattern of work and recreation. Men who are working in their own interests do not have to be driven, coaxed, or cajoled. Work under Socialism will be inspired by the greatest of all incentives— the knowledge that the function required of workers will enable each and every human being to have “according to his needs”.

In Capitalist society life is compartmentalised into Infancy, Training, Work and Retirement. Under Socialism people will endeavour to work their bodies to maintain their maximum efficiency in order to gain the greatest enjoyment from life. When young much of the work process will be educational, but the learning process will not cease at any given age. All people will have the opportunity to further their knowledge, ability and interests whatever their age. There will be no such thing as compulsory retirement.

As people get older they will desire to play a greater and eventually a smaller part in society. This will be demonstrated by greater and later a smaller participation in the productive process.

Work will be a pleasurable activity of free men and women, taken up consciously by them and continued as long as the effort is rewarding. There will be no time wasting as today, for time wasting is a reflection of the fact that there is no satisfaction in the work being done. Under Socialism when work becomes distasteful the worker will seek activities more in line with his need and ability.

Production under Socialism will design and produce goods to meet the needs of man in the best way possible. When the products of labour are the best possible, when production is organised to meet the needs of mankind, when man can demonstrate his interest in constructive work, when the alienating conditions of work experienced under Capitalism are gone—then the social constructiveness of work will have removed the cause of much mental ill-health and work neurosis experienced under Capitalism.

Man will then be free to pursue recreational games and pastimes. The do-it-yourself leisure activities of today—man’s limited opportunity to express himself through work and take pride in his achievement—will be part of the production of goods and services that society will require. This means that man will bring the standards of craftsmanship to production, which can be contrasted with today’s cheap shoddy goods with built-in obsolescence designed to meet the requirements of the market.

The historian and his observations today can tell us much, with considerable detail, about the conditions of work under earlier societies and present day capitalism. We cannot be as specific with regard to work under Socialism, for the problem when looking into the future is that we do not know the scientific and technological tools, instruments and machines that will be available. The means of production will obviously strongly influence the method of organisation. Nevertheless knowing the social conditions it can be said that work will be necessary, that man will gain pleasure from creative work, that the free time he will enjoy will enable him to widen and deepen his interests—all in the knowledge that by co-operative efforts the welfare of all mankind will be furthered.

Man, a social being, will recognise that his first vital need is work.

Ken Knight

The Festival of Britain (1951)

Exhibition Review from the July 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1947 the British Government decided to inaugurate a series of celebrations and displays to commemorate the centenary of the Great Exhibition of 1851. The various entertainments and exhibitions spread over Great Britain all through the centre months of this year are the result. The centrepiece of this festival is the exhibition now staged on the south bank of the River Thames at Waterloo, London. The guide book to The South Bank Exhibition, issued by H.M. Stationery Office, claims that this exhibition is “neither a museum of British culture nor a trade show of British wares." It would be more true to say that it is not an ordinary museum and not apparently a trade show. Actually this exhibition is a super museum, systematically arranged in a pleasant setting. Its main attraction is that it presents, in a very interesting form, the story of man's evolution, both biological and social. Notices informing visitors that they can obtain information about the goods exhibited, belie the statement that it is not a trade show.

In the centre of the exhibition ground is a building aptly named “The Dome of Discovery." Here is laid out a massive collection of instruments, tools, charts, pictures, models, products, reconstructions, etc., depicting man's discoveries, not only in the remote corners of the earth, but under the sea, in the stratosphere, in the bowels of the earth and in the many fields of scientific investigation. Embryology, physics, chemistry, biology, polar exploration, cartography, plastics, water engineering, pest control, genetics—all have their place.

Many of the displays should be of extreme interest to workers who visit the exhibition. For instance, the section of the “Dome of Discovery" labelled “The Living World." Here are diagrams and models illustrating the work of early British naturalists such as John Ray, Robert Brown and Gilbert White who made classifications of plants and animals, mostly based on incorrect notions, but which were of immense help to their successors. The work of Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace is illustrated and Darwin's evolutionary theories simply and interestingly portrayed. Johann Mendel although not a Briton, is mentioned, together with his work on plant hybridisation from which have developed most of the ideas of the modern geneticists, examples of whose researches are also shown.

In other buildings under names like, “Power and Production,” “Transport,” “Minerals of the Island” and “Sea and Ships” are exhibitions of modern tools, instruments and machinery. In these, the visitor who can for a moment cease to wonder at all the marvels of man’s ingenuity, may give thought to the social consequences of this mass of modern invention. No longer does the miner need his pick nor the farmer his pitchfork. There are mechanically operated machines for almost every job. Not only a machine for each separate job, but machines that do a whole series of jobs converting raw materials to finished products. One is struck by the fact that the workers in attendance on these machines do little, if anything at all, in the productive process that is afoot. Their time and effort is devoted to caring for the machine, removing dust and waste, and tidying up around and about. There are machines for testing the accuracy of other machines and the qualities of the goods produced by them. There are machines to switch-on, drive and switch-off and the whole process of production tends to become automatic. One can realise that with the further development of the study of electronics and its application to industry, there will be less and less for the worker to do.

The architecture of some of the exhibition buildings conforms to the modern factory style. No longer the grim and solid brick built factory made to house many workers working in rows at their respective taste, now a light utilitarian structure designed as a shell to protect the delicate and costly machine from the elements.

If only all the wonders displayed at this exhibition could be put into operation for the service of mankind and not for the purpose of profit making for the owners of industry, what delightful changes could be made in the world. Not only could all people have more of the wealth that they produce but the hours spent in its production could be so much shortened. Not only could the tasks be so much easier but the conditions under which they are performed could be made enjoyable. There need be no “dirty work," much less industrial disease, and so much more time for leisure to enjoy the arts, amusements and entertainments that are displayed throughout the length and breadth of Britain during this festival period.

The thoughtful worker will wonder why, when there is such machinery to use, that men in huge areas of the world still use primitive tools and transport; why, when wealth can be produced so plentifully, that so many people are in need of the absolute necessities of life; why, when there is so much labour-saving machinery, that multitudes of people are overworked.

A lot of these machines are not the result of recent inventions but are refinements and improvements of inventions of generations post. It cannot be that the principles applied in these machines are of such recent discovery that there has been no time to produce sufficient numbers of them to solve many of the social problems that exist today. In 1939 H.M. Stationery Office published a book by H. T. Pledge, B.A., entitled “Science Since 1500." This book, with minor corrections was reprinted in 1947, and it shows that many of the inventions that are thought to be of recent origin are really derived from the researches of men over a hundred years ago.

There are a number of reasons why new inventions do not get taken up and utilised immediately they are made. One reason, probably the most effective, is that a new invention will cut across the interests of existing capitalist companies. We can remember the opposition that the turnpike and stagecoach companies put up against the early railways. The whale-oil companies fought against the use of gas for lighting, and later the gas companies fought against the use of electric light. The telegraph companies put up bitter opposition to the telephone and to radio telegraphy and the telegraph, telephone and radio telegraph companies fought against the radio telephone. All these instances are of opposition that may have delayed the application of new inventions but failed to prevent it. There must be many, many cases where the opposition was successful and we have never heard of the invention at all.

One of the American New Deal publications, “Technological Trends," states on page 53,

   "Changes within the electric industry have been retarded by the buying and suppressing of patents by the large corporations which dominate the field . . . A superior electric lamp, which it is estimated will save electric light users $10,000,000 a year, has been invented but has not been put on the market.” 

and on page 353,

   “The author knows of one metallurgist who made his own safety-razor blade, sharpened it, and nitrided it. It has been used daily, without re-sharpening, for 2 years. Naturally the razor-blade manufacturers are not interested"

Sir Alexander Oibb in his presidential address to the Engineering Section of the British Association in 1937, said,

      " . . .  the greater the success of research the more immediate and drastic the effect on existing plant and equipment. That is where the rub sometimes lies . . . and many valuable inventions have been bought up by vested interests and suppressed. . . . " (Report of the British Association 1937, pp. 158-159.)

Two other factors that retard development are, first, the difficulty of finding a profitable market for goods that are in plentiful supply. We quote again from “ Technological Trends ” page 58.

   “Fear of overproduction with consequent shattering of price levels, and a dramatic displacement of cotton pickers, is deterring the introduction of the automatic cotton picker invented by the Rust brothers . . . ."

This automatic cotton picker can pick as much cotton in hours as a first rate hand picker can pick in weeks. The labourers required for cotton picking could be reduced by 75 per cent, if this machine was brought into use. Furthermore, the first patent for a mechanical cotton picker dates from 1850. Secondly, by depressing wages to a low level it is often cheaper to use a number of workers to do a task than to install an expensive machine that will displace them.

All this adds up to the fact that the existing system of production is now a fetter on social progress. No matter how fine a display the festival designers can create,

   “. . .  so that this country and the world could pause to review British contributions to world civilisation in the arts of peace.” (South Bank Exhibition Guide, page 6)

there are still greater contributions that could be displayed were it not for the retarding effect of capitalism.

One thing we failed to find in the South Bank Exhibition was any display or even reference to the work of those Britons who have spent much of their time in research into the causes of social change. Such a display would have shown that the changes in the tools of production, so well depicted, were the cause of the changes in the social structure that is splendidly illustrated. It would also have shown that this mass of wonder-inspiring machinery and all these mechanical marvels must, in their turn, cause yet other social changes.

If the full force of the benefits of all these things displayed, is to accrue to mankind, then the capitalist mode of production must be abolished. “The Land" depicted at the exhibition with its wealth of resources together with all these labour and time saving machines must be commonly owned so that the wealth produced may be available to all. The production of goods for a market in order to make a profit must end. It is clogging the wheels of social progress, it is causing suffering and misery, poverty and unhappiness, ill-health and insecurity, all of which can end when the workers take the means of production from the existing owners and use them for the common good.

The exhibition at South Bank is not the Festival, but it is the core. There are other exhibitions, there are pageants, Eisteddfods, festivals of art and music, pleasure gardens, gatherings of the clans and other attractions throughout Great Britain. Towns and villages are having their own little “do’s" to celebrate the occasion. But all these pleasures and entertainments are subject to the system of production. The means that man employs to get the necessities of life will be reflected in his arts, his entertainments and his amusements. So the exhibitions are not only the core of the festival, they are the key to the understanding of it.

W. Waters

Man — The Creator (1973)

From the August 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Man is a conscious being. He does not toss and sway with the forces of Nature; he is able to view his situation within the natural world and turn the earth’s resources to his own use.

From the time that the first crude tool was taken up until our days of powerful industry, men have gradually overcome the domineering influence of the external world and its processes.

Such a situation would certainly have been impossible if human beings were merely passive creatures acting as their instincts directed them. We are not like the honey-bee whose existence is purely a mechanical process directed towards reproduction and the continuation of the species. Men have the biological potential for creative behaviour and are able to learn and store a mass of information, and can utilize these abilities to mould life for maximum advantage.

People may even act in pure pleasure of creativity. So we see the artist and the writer, the scientist in his laboratory, the part-time inventor, women choosing pleasing and colourful food in an artistic manner, men training racing pigeons and building furniture for their home; all these are creative pursuits, far from the machine-like behaviour of instinct. Humans, with their dynamic abilities, are able to observe their existence, develop techniques that will ensure their survival, learn from the mistakes of their history, and change the organization of their society. All these features place man in a position of biological and social superiority over other animals.

The loss of purely instinctual behaviour in men means that there is no static “human nature”. Theoretically, the ideas, values and general behaviour that an individual develops are open. In reality, a child is born into a society and will learn the behaviour of the group surrounding him. However, no individual’s situation and experiences are identical and everyone acquires slightly different ideas. This promotes criticism, synthesis of thoughts, and new ideologies. Combined with technological advances, societies gradually undergo change. The relationship between ideas and the structure of society, and the manner in which ideologies alter, are extremely complex and cannot be dealt with here. Suffice it to say that ideas and technological developments which react upon society are themselves products of society, i.e. they are both effect and cause.

At particular times in history a change may be dramatic in comparison to the steady, but slow, alterations that normally take place, as was the case in the revolution from a feudal world of lords and peasants, based mainly on agricultural existence, to that of our capitalist world of property-owner and wage-worker, based mainly on industry and involving the competitive market system. The important point to note here, however, is that human nature changes with society. It is ludicrous to justify any society with its faults by saying that the horrors and inequalities are an inevitable result of the restrictions of man’s biological drives.

Indeed any study of anthropology will show a range of “human natures” across different cultures, which in their turn may be dramatically altered by the imposition of a foreign power. For instance, tribal societies may abhor competitive behaviour and “greed” but, once Western authorities impose themselves demanding taxes, their members may be forced to join the market to earn money, eventually becoming imbued with a competitiveness which had, at first, only been economic necessity.

Socialists oppose the unequal ownership of wealth that is intrinsic to the present organization of our society and which results in hardship for so many individuals. Technology has reached the stage where men can produce sufficient for everyone to live comfortably— if society was run on Socialist lines.

However, comfort is not enough.

Biology and history show that all men are creative beings who have raised themselves above Nature. Most creativity has been degraded under capitalism to the almost futile monotony of work, where the product of labour is taken from the wage-earner, whilst he is paid a pittance and other people reap in wealth without any active productiveness. We must demand to control and organize our own society. We must rebel against the indignity of being passive tools within a market system and being at the mercy of (usually incompetent and ineffectual) leaders. We must free our minds and free ourselves from a humiliating situation, and in doing so fulfil our potentialities as human beings.

Judith White