Disunited Nations (1957)

From the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always maintained that the United Nations Organisation, and before it, the League of Nations, could never provide a solution to the problem of war.

We have gone further than this. We have claimed that most politicians, British and foreign, have always been well aware of the fact. But politicians, if they are to keep their jobs, must profess to have an answer. After each world war the working class has looked to its “leaders” for a scheme to prevent the next one. No politician in these circumstances could hope to win votes without some solution to offer.

How many politicians have supported U.N.O. in the knowledge that it could not be effective can only be surmised. That it constitutes a majority we assume from the fact that they are generally no less intelligent than the rest of us.

U.N.O. Moonshine

But here is one who, in an unguarded moment, comes right out into the open. Here is what Ted Leather, M.P., thinks of the United Nations:—

"Sir,—Mr. Gaitskell’s statement that whatever the United Nations may say we should meekly reply “ we obey ” is perhaps the key to much of our differences in the last few weeks. Mr. Awbery, Labour member for Central Bristol, recently referred to the United Nations as a “court” which had passed “judgment” on us. In an ideal world they might both be right. In this one it is the view of many of my friends and I that they are talking moonshine.

For good or ill, it is just not true that the United Nations is a supreme court, or that it hands down objective judgments that have any moral force at all. The Assembly in New York, important though it is, is a body of politicians. They make political speeches, and the great majority of them vote according to their own political interests. A large number of them represent dictatorships. Many are openly hostile to Britain. If there were an international Government based on sound principles, or an international supreme court empowered to enforce law, many of us might support it. To surrender the ultimate sanction of the interests of the lives and interests of the British people to a body constituted as the United Nations now is, seems to me not only unrealistic but downright suicidal.

Yours, etc.,

Ted Leather,

House of Commons.”  

(Letter to the Times, December 10th, 1956.)

We may well wonder how long Mr. Leather has been of this opinion, whether he proclaimed these views when he sought votes at the last election.

He suggests that there are “many of us” who do not support the United Nations. That is what we thought. But we do not remember “many of them” saying so at the election.

We do not think there are many members of the British electorate who now have any faith in the effectiveness of U.N.O. We believe that most of them are aware, if only vaguely, that international conflict is an inevitable outcome of international Capitalism. The trouble is that they see no alternative.

It is that alternative which is offered in Socialism. We urge all workers to study the case for Socialism. With that understanding they will never again surrender their votes for spurious solutions to the problems of Capitalism —whether it be war, or poverty or unemployment or any other of its manifestations.

Read our two pamphlets, on Socialism and on War. Think for yourself and put not your trust in “leaders.”

John Moore

No Orchids For Sweet William (1950)

Film Review from the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although socialists agree about the solution to social problems, when it comes to other issues differences of opinion can and do arise. What is a “good” film, is a question about which socialists can and do disagree. Some attach great importance to colouring, dresses and scenery, others to acting, sound recording, and the tempo of the drama. In short the same film is “good” to some and “bad” to others. For that reason we cannot exhaust these columns with personal views on the technical merits or demerits of films. What we can do is turn the socialist searchlight on the silver screen and show how the need for socialism is reflected in film stories.

For example take a recent production—“All the King’s Men.” This film, given academy awards, is the story of the rise to power and privilege of Willie Stark; a story adapted from real life.

Willie Stark starts off with poverty and honesty. During his struggles for political power he loses both, and finally “stops a bullet”—just before the National Anthem. That is the story in a nut shell as far as many people are concerned, but for socialists what is much more to the point is the social background of squalor and discontent that makes the story possible.

In the film we are shown glimpses of the poverty and humiliation experienced by workers, and the corruption, bribery and trickery that characterises world of rich and poor. We hear speeches by politicians anxious to turn the votes of working people to their own ends. Moreover we see in the political careerism of a Willie Stark only a melodramatic version of many a real life would-be reformer. Starting off with the desire to do something for workers and ending by doing something to them. Willie Stark, like many another before him, thought he could separate means from ends in his efforts to solve social problems. He thought he could gain political power by any means and wield it to benefit ordinary working people. Instead, having gained the support of people easily swayed by promises he had to resort to every kind of deceit to retain their support and his position of power.

Willie is not alone. Many have thought, and still think, that any kind of voter will do to solve the problems of working people. History belies this fallacy. The history of the working class in all countries shows that only a majority of working people equipped with socialist knowledge can solve their problems. This is an assertion to the validity of which the columns of this journal over many years bear ample testimony, and is in fact a touch stone of the Socialist movement.

Socialism, a world of common ownership and democratic control where all have free access to the things they need, will give the “Willie Stark’s” of this world no opportunity to harm others by their ill-informed efforts to rid the world of problems they do not fully understand. More important still Socialism, by ensuring the well-being of everyone, will eliminate the discontent and misery which is the breeding ground of those who aspire to personal power.

These then are some of the thoughts of socialists when they pay their one and nine’s to see the world of make-believe reflecting unwittingly the problems of our time. Our task as socialists is to change reality thereby changing the reflection. Why not join us?

John Moore

SPGB Meetings (1974)

Party News from the March 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

There is actually an audio recording of the advertised Annual Conference meeting, featuring Hardcastle and Barltrop, available on SPGB website. Though I believe there are earlier recordings of SPGB meetings out there . . . somewhere, this is the earliest recording on the website. Enjoy!

Letter: Russian steps (1985)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Russian steps

Dear Editors

In the November Socialist Standard the nature of the Russian socio-economic system is discussed and "bureaucratic collectivism", as suggested by Bruno Rizzi. rejected in favour of "state capitalism".

It may therefore be of interest to note that Lenin, in a speech delivered to the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets in 1918. had this to say about the situation:

Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us; if we were able to bring about in Russia in a short time State Capitalism it would be a victory for us. How could they [Lenin's critics] be so blind as not to see that our enemy is the small capitalist, the small owner? . . . What is State Capitalism in the hands of the Soviet Power? To bring about State Capitalism at the present time means to establish that control and order formerly achieved by the propertied classes. (Translated from the Official Version in Isvestia, 30 May 1918.)

The "transition to complete Socialism" to which Lenin also refers has of course never taken place.

J E Moore,

Evenley, 

Northamptonshire

Houses off the Conveyor Belt (1944)

From the June 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The need to resort to a more rapid technique of building, in face of the unprecedented shortage of housing facing us at the end of the war, has occupied the minds of our ruling class, its government and technical advisers, for some considerable time. Houses made in standardised sections, mass produced in factories and rapidly assembled on the site, were being considered. We who may have to live in them have been duly warned of what to expect by articles and reports in the daily papers. Most of these seemed anxious to assure us that the only thing wrong with prefabrication was the name, and that houses built by this method could be every bit as good as houses built by the more traditional methods (our emphasis).

The under-current of support and opposition by various sectional interests need not concern us here. The fact is that the Government has now decided to build factory-made temporary houses during a two years’ period after the war in the hope of weathering the storm which will occur on demobilisation.

Socialists are not concerned with what could be the advantages of prefabrication as viewed in an economic and social vacuum. We do, however, consider it necessary to point out some important aspects of the question as they exist under capitalism.

In announcing the Government’s decision. Lord Portal, Minister of Works, stated that these pre-fabricated houses would be “publicly owned” and licensed for only ten years. (Speech in House of Lords, News-Chronicle, 9.2.44.)

It follows therefore that an attempt will be made to produce these houses at a cost to some extent related to their limited life. Experience so far in this country and America has not shown that by means of factory methods any reduction in cost can be achieved which is at all commensurate with this reduced life.

We can therefore expect a reduction in those standards, such as they are, to which we have been accustomed in new housing. Moreover, the mere issue of a licence is no guarantee that at the end of ten years these houses will be pulled down. If alternative accommodation is not available, it will not be an unprecedented occurrence if the State extends the licence on what would be, after all, in spite of the words “publicly owned” its own houses. Having in mind the halting development of housing programmes after the last war, and the fact that the economic conditions which produced scarcity prices and subsidy cuts will be the same, it seems reasonable to doubt whether sufficient permanent houses will be available at the end of the ten years’ period. The slums of to-morrow may only differ from those of yesterday in the fact that they will be prefabricated.

With regard to prefabrication in general and as applied to ordinary houses, one of the main arguments put forward in its favour has been the fact that cost of production could be considerably reduced if mass production on a sufficient scale were achieved. Experts write as if this would be of some advantage to the occupiers. Some go as far as suggesting that the money saved would be spent on improved equipment or better standards of accommodation.

Let the workers have no illusions. Improved housing will not come by these means. If the cost of housing, and therefore rents can be generally reduced, this will only give our employers an excuse to reduce wages.

The official attitude is well expressed in the following extract from the Report of the Departmental Committee on Housing (Ministry of Health, 1933): —

“In arriving at the suggested figures of subsidy we have had regard to existing levels of cost. We are, however, far from accepting the position that no further economies can be made in planning and construction of working class dwellings. . . . We consider that the position should be reviewed at frequent intervals with a view to reduction of the subsidy. …” (p. 27).

And how would this reduction in cost of production be achieved? By the replacement of skilled labour by unskilled, with its consequent reduction in wages. By a reduction in building time, and therefore of the number of workers required.

In a recent conference report, architects and builders expressed themselves as being “deeply concerned, both as to the future of the industry and conditions with regard to wages and employment if factory operatives and unskilled labour should supplant their building technique and the work of the craftsmen.” (The Architects Journal. 27.1 44, p. 90.)

Reduced building costs means to the workers lower wages and more unemployment. Just as the introduction of factory methods and machinery have always done.

Under Socialism an improvement in building methods would mean better buildings and more leisure—not so under capitalism,

John Moore

Why be Efficient ? (1975)

From the July 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have all heard Trades Union leaders on television blaming British management for inefficiency — claiming that this is the root cause of “our economic difficulties”. To most people the word “inefficient” means something bad and “efficient” means something good, so they are prepared to believe this claim. It also seems to be in line with their personal experience.

If you intend to erect a fence around your garden because you cannot afford to pay someone to do it, you will soon discover (if you did not know it already) that the most efficient way is first to cut all the timbers to their correct sizes, then to drill all the holes in the timbers, then to dig all the holes in the ground and then to mix all the required amount of concrete — and so on. This, in miniature, is mass production, as compared with performing each process over and over again as you proceed around the garden. Why is this called “being efficient”? Because it saves you labour time — your labour time — and after a hard week’s work this is of benefit to you and your family.

It is perhaps natural to transfer this idea to the larger world of industrial production and to conclude that greater efficiency in the factory will also be of benefit to you and your family. As things are at present, nothing could be further from the truth. Let us quote from a report in The Times of May 6th.

The British Steel Corporation’s plan is to increase output at its low-cost general steel plant at Scunthorpe and strip mill plants at Port Talbot and Llanwern, with the general steel plants in Scotland being supplied with their ingots from Ravenscraig. The effect of this will be to trim between 7,500 and 10,000 jobs in the general steels division and 9,000 to 10,000 jobs in the strip mill division (Our italics).

The above-mentioned plants are obviously more “efficient”, have more streamlined production processes and more up-to-date machinery (like using a power drill to make the holes in your timbers for the fence). But is all this efficiency of benefit to the workers who will become unemployed — or their families?

Who then does benefit by greater efficiency in industry? Someone does or it would not be considered worth striving for. To answer this question we have to understand in broad terms the economics of capitalist production.

The owners of factories, whether they be private companies or state enterprises, purchase raw materials or partly processed materials, together with plant and machinery. They then employ the abilities of

(from opposite) a labour force to produce finished materials or goods. These are then sold on the national or international market and there is a margin of profit for the shareholders or the investors in Government stock. This profit is not plucked out of the air. It represents the difference between the wages and salaries paid to the workers in the factory and the value of the work they have actually performed. Where else could the profit come from? Why do employers of labour try to minimize wages? Why do they use mass production methods? Why do they introduce better machinery? The answer is obvious: minimum wages, less labour time or fewer workers means a smaller wage bill. A smaller wage bill means a larger difference between costs of production and sale price — equals more profit.

All this is called “efficiency”. But it is primarily for the benefit of the shareholders, not the workers in the factory. For them it may, as now, be very much to their disadvantage.

The above quotation from The Times is part of an account of a meeting between a TUC committee and Mr. Wedgwood Benn, the Secretary of State for Industry. The account is concluded as follows:

Mr. Benn, the members of the (TUC) committee said, had been sympathetic and they had told him that in their committee’s view the corporation’s proposals at this stage were completely unacceptable.

So, closing down inefficient plants is now completely unacceptable to Trades Union leaders.

But there is still one more question to be answered. Why were these inefficient plants not closed down or improved long ago? Simply because the demand for steel was such that, overall, a very handsome margin of profit was attainable in the past at the market prices the industry could then command. Now there is worldwide overproduction and fierce competition between producers. The only way to compete is to be more “efficient”, that is, to cut labour costs. It is difficult to see what the TUC committee can do about that.

But there is something the workers can do about it. They can consider a system of production and distribution in which steel (and all the other things they require) is produced to the extent that they need it — and not to the extent that it can be sold at a profit on a competitive market. Such a system is what we mean by Socialism, not Mr. Benn’s nationalized British Steel Corporation or Mr. Heath’s Imperial Chemical Industry.

Let Mr. Benn and Mr. Heath answer one question: why should workers be unemployed when they need the wealth that industry (and agriculture) can produce?

Under Socialism as we mean it, and as the word originally meant, workers would be working for themselves — like the chap fixing a fence around his garden. Then it would be worthwhile being efficient.

John Moore

Workers’ Houses in the Next Ten Years (1943)

From the October 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Concurrent with the development of the war and long before the housing shortage came to be felt acutely, articles on post-war building reconstruction began to appear in the national press and popular periodicals.

With the bombing of English towns, evacuation, and compulsory billeting, came a marked increase in the numbers of such pronouncements. Like most other aspects of post-war reconstruction, our future architectural environment has been depicted in most attractive and novel forms.

The average reader may have been led to suppose that in some remarkable way the war will have made possible “ideal homes” for everyone and gardens for their children to play in, even though he may not have been so interested in schemes for new civic centres and roof-top aerodromes.

Those who have lost their homes by bombing, those who have been forced to live under the most cramped conditions in single rooms with shared kitchens, together with those who have always lived in this way, have perhaps been buoyed up by these promises of better times to come.

One cannot escape the conclusion that our rulers have been more than ready to accept the assistance of social reformers and unemployed but hopeful architects in this contribution to the maintenance of national morale.

And yet in these same papers, warnings of difficulties ahead seem to make game of their sanguine prospects. We are told that strict economy in national expenditure must be maintained. How much rent then will the wage worker be able to afford ? “Taxation’s burden on industry” will have to be minimised. How much will be spared for housing subsidies ? No secret is made of the possibility of mass unemployment. What kind of shelter will the unemployed be able to buy?

Of the physical difficulties resulting from the wartime cessation of building and disruption of the building industry, of the shortage of materials and skilled labour in face of an unprecedented housing shortage, little need be said here. The recent debates in Parliament have sufficiently exposed the situation and the inability of statesmen and experts to meet it. It is only necessary to add that it took twenty-five years between the wars for capitalism to produce four million houses, the number now said to be urgently required. Even if building were to proceed at its highest pre-war rate it would take over eleven years to build them.

It has been said that demolition has been carried out for us by the enemy, that the public are becoming increasingly aware of what technical progress can achieve, and that it will be in a mind to demand it.

As for the bombing, severe though it has been, it has demolished only a small part of our slums. Moreover, damaged houses can be patched up. According to the Minister of Health, of 2,750,000 houses damaged by bombing “no fewer than 2,700,000 houses in England and Wales have been given first-aid repairs, and more extended work has been done to 1,100,000” (statement in House of Commons, May 4, 1943, and to London Master Builders’ Association July 26, 1943).

Barrack-like tenements can be built on the ruins of slum houses in spite of a “public demand” for houses with gardens. Reporting Lord Latham, leader of the L.C.C., the News-Chronicle (April 1, 1943) states .-

“Thousands of Londoners in the eastern boroughs will, after the war, have to live in flats . . . houses could not be built because of the lack of space and the cost of land (our italics).

Public demand will be unavailing, unless the public understands more fully the nature of the so-called “housing problem”; understands how capitalism sets a limit to the production of houses, as it does to the production of all other things required by the working class.

The capitalist system is based on the production and sale of goods for profit. To obtain this profit the capitalist purchases the physical and mental energies of the workers at their market price. With the ever-present competition of unemployed in the labour market, this price, or wage, is reduced to the bare minimum compatible with the maintenance of the worker in a physical and mental condition suited to the efficient performance of his work and to the reproduction of his kind. With regard to one aspect of this. Mr. Churchill has put the matter plainly: —

“You cannot conduct a modern community except with an adequate supply of persons upon whose education. whether humanitarian, technical or scientific, much time and money have been spent.” (Reported in the News-Chronicle, March 22, 1943.)

This necessary physical and mental standard will vary according to the kind of work on which the worker is engaged The kind of shelter necessary for himself and family will vary in the same way.

The agricultural worker and the miner can work and reproduce themselves even though their only protection is the squalid cottage or “back-to-back” slum. The skilled or “black-coat” worker must have slightly better conditions if the quality of his work is to be maintained, and if his children are to have an environment conducive to a higher standard of development.

By the natural competitive working of the labour market, the worker, then, finds himself, at best, with only sufficient money to rent accommodation of this minimum standard. Indeed, the Industries Group of P.E.P. (Political and Economic Planning) are of the opinion that: —

“. . . the income of the average working class family has been too small to enable it to buy as much shelter as is desirable for comfort and efficiency. (“Housing England,” p. 145—our italics.)

The modest improvement in the standard of new housing does not invalidate these general conclusions, for it should be noted that, between the wars, the technical level of most wage workers was rising. New housing scarcely kept pace with the increase in the number of families, so that the condition of the lower-paid sections was little affected.

In 1935 there were still 38,773 “back-to-back” houses in the “prosperous” city of Birmingham alone (Bourneville Research Trust, “When We Build Again,” p. 31), and according to Mr. Craven Ellis, in the same year there were in Great Britain 4,607,000 houses at least 80 years old, and of these 1,052,000 at least 180 years old (quoted in “Housing Before the War and After,” M. J. Elsas, p. 21).

That this state of affairs was the direct result of the poverty of the wage worker and not shortage of either labour or materials, is shown by the fact that in 1933 the average unemployment among building and public works employees had been 336,503, almost a third of the total engaged in these industries.

Writing in 1942, M. J. Elsas says : —

“If we could assume the mere quantitative problems of housing were to be solved in a not too distant future, it is to be hoped and expected that the qualitative problem will come to the fore. “(“Housing Before the War and After,” p. 30.)

The failure to supply even sufficient numbers of minimum dwellings is the inevitable outcome of the erratic course of capitalism, with its periodic cessation of building during slumps and wars; but what Mr. Elsas calls the “qualitative problem” will remain unsolved until capitalism, and with it the wages system, is abolished.

Only when a system is established based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, including building materials, land and plant, when wealth, including houses, is produced for use instead of profit; only, that is, under Socialism, will the workers obtain the kind of homes they want, and decent and commodious accommodation be available for all.

John Moore

Inflation: twentieth century scandal (1981)

From the October 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

The cost of living is not rising—it is the value of money which is going down.

To understand this statement it is necessary to be clear about the origins and function of money. The first trading was undoubtedly in the form of barter, that is, an exchange of one kind of desired produce for another. The restrictive nature of this form of trading hardly needs explanation. The finding of someone who has a surplus of what you want and at the same time is in need of what you have to spare would be difficult enough even today. Moreover, the system of barter makes it almost impossible to exchange a large surplus of one commodity for a variety of different items for which the trader has a need.

The invention of the idea of “money” solved both these problems. Bushels of corn, for example, could now be exchanged for coins of a precious metal which could subsequently, and at convenient times, be exchanged for a variety of items such as clothing, tools and jewellery. The important thing to remember is that the metal used for the coins had an intrinsic value every bit as much as the corn, the clothing, the tools or the jewellery.

Gold and silver coins were early adopted as convenient units of value for exchange with other items of value. Gold in particular was suitable because it was durable, unaffected by time or ordinary chemical agents and so precious that large values were easily portable. Silver, of rather lower value per unit of weight, was adopted for the exchange of items of smaller value or in conjunction with gold to arrive at a more exact evaluation. The word “pound” originally meant a pound weight of silver.

Debasing the Coinage

The first requirement of “money” is that the recipient can be assured that the coins he is receiving in exchange for his goods are of a known weight and purity. This soon became the responsibility of the sovereign ruler of the country of origin of the coins—the king or emperor. Our word “sovereign” for gold coins is a reminder that they bore a relief of the monarch’s E head—his “seal of approval”. Coins were produced at the Royal Mint to a controlled weight and purity. A small amount of base (inferior) metal was normally used in the making of coins to produce a more durable alloy but from time to time monarchs abused their control over the money supply by increasing the proportion of base metal to their own advantage or to meet their debts. The most flagrant example of this came to light quite recently when Roman coins minted in the third century AD were discovered in a field in Lincolnshire [1]. Analysis of some of the coins revealed that their silver content varied from 18 per cent to rather less than one per cent. As recently as the reign of James I gold coins were debased from 11/12 pure gold to 8/12 in order to meet debts incurred by the exchequer [2].

For most of the 19th century the gold content of the "sovereign” was fixed by law at just over a quarter of an ounce and it should be noted that from 1815 to the beginning of the First World War prices remained more or less stable [3]. However, by that time there had been a further development: the general substitution of paper money for coins.

Paper Money

The idea of paper money really had its origin in the receipts or “notes of hand” given by goldsmiths as early as the 17th century to those who wished to deposit their gold with them for safe-keeping. These receipts came to be accepted as a means of payment and, when banks were formed, they too issued “notes” against the deposit of gold in their vaults. Such notes also had the advantage of being light compared with gold coins (gold is almost twice as heavy as lead) and for large sums this was a consideration.

The important thing to notice in this context is that these bank notes were readily “convertible” into gold coins on presentation at the bank. This was still the case when the issue of notes became a government monopoly along with coins— in this country by the Bank of England. The first such notes were for £5—the “fivers” which the modern reader may come across in the literature of the period. These bore the words: “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five pounds”—that is, five gold sovereigns—and the signature of the Governor of the Bank of England. Later, £1 notes were also issued and for a time these also were fully convertible into gold. Then at the outbreak of the First World War convertibility was suspended, resumed in 1925, and abandoned during the depression of 1931 [4].

Released from the obligation to redeem notes for gold coins, the Bank of England could issue bank notes to meet the demands of the exchequer—well beyond the amounts collected in taxes. Printing money became an easy source of finance, not only in wartime but when in peacetime the call for increased public expenditure could not be resisted. This action on the part of successive governments was “currency inflation” and inevitably resulted in increases in prices.

Currency Inflation

By the operation of the market—if, for example, the number of pound notes in circulation is by this means doubled, the price of commodities will also be doubled. The pound notes will be worth only half their previous value so that twice as many will now be required to purchase the same good or services. This increase in prices docs not occur immediately; there is a time lag while the effect of currency inflation works its way through the system.

Other economic factors, such as trade depressions, poor harvests, import controls, monopolies and changes in the technology of production, can cause price fluctuations but these are minor compared with the effect of currency inflation in recent years. This was shown very clearly in a graph produced by the Treasury at the end of 1980 and published in the Daily Telegraph [5]. We reproduce it here. The solid line shows the annual increase in the money supply, that is, currency inflation. The broken line shows the annual percentage increase in prices.

It will be seen that major increases in the money supply in 1968, 1973 and 1978 were followed by increases in prices of the same order in 1971, 1975 and 1980. Below the graph we indicate the governments in office and responsible for currency inflation which was seldom below 5 per cent and topped a staggering 25 per cent in 1973. It should be noted also that the term “inflation” is these days used to describe increase in prices. This is quite incorrect and confuses the issue. In the writer’s dictionary the monetary definition of “inflation” is:

increase in the amount of money, especially paper money, in circulation leading to an increase in prices [6]. 

This mis-use of terms, whether intentional or not, opens the door to the suggestion that there are other causes for the major increase in prices in recent years—the most insidious being that of an increase in wages.

This reason for price increases was favourite with the last Labour government in spite of all evidence to the contrary. It is still being repeated in some quarters, most notably by leaders of the Confederation of British Industries. A recent report in The Times states that:

In informal talks with ministers, CBI leaders have underlined their strong belief that a tight rein on pay increases in the coming round (of pay negotiations) is vital if inflation is to be reduced to the single-figure target the Government has set . . . [7].

Inflation and Wages

It cannot be over-emphasised that increased wages do not cause a general increase in prices. There is no such thing as the “wages-prices spiral”. Nor is it a “chicken and egg situation” in which no-one knows which comes first. The sequence is quite clearly: currency inflation by the government-general increase in prices—demands for increased wages, as prices rise, and final wage settlements.

In an article headed “Prices and Taxes Rising Faster than Earnings” a contributor to The Times reports that:

Prices and tax stoppages are now rising faster than pay. Although the typical worker has seen his average earnings rise by about 14 per cent over the last year, he would have needed an increase of 15.7 per cent in order to maintain the real purchasing power of his pay packet [8].

This is based on the Government’s tax and price index published on May 22 1981. It hardly looks from this as if wages are pushing prices up. Again, the Treasury seems in no doubt about the sequence of events. In a recent study entitled The Role of Money in Determining Prices, the conclusion is:

Generally we could accept the strict monetarist proposition that a 1 per cent change in money would lead to a 1 per cent change in prices in the long run, with the main effect coming after a lag of between six quarters and three year [9].

If the reader still has any doubts as to the truth of the statement at the head of this article he has only to enquire about the present day value of a sovereign, or a quarter of an ounce of gold. He will find it is about £55. If our wages were today paid in sovereigns we would have no need to worry about the cost of living.

Why then Inflation?

The expenditure by governments in the industrially more advanced countries has reached colossal proportions. In the financial year 1979-1980 in this country, total “public spending” was little short of £80,000 million and rising [10]. Such expenditure was on defence, housing, education, health, social security and similar areas of government responsiblity.

When this country was on the gold standard the money had to be collected in the form of taxes of one kind or another—or borrowed. Borrowing normally only postponed the day of reckoning when the money plus interest would have to be found by increased taxation. Taxes are of two kinds; those related to income (direct taxation) and those unrelated to wealth (indirect taxation). Income tax is an example of the former and tax on beer an example of the latter.

Currency inflation opened up another source of finance. In the House of Commons recently Keith Joseph made the .matter quite clear:

The Government had to obtain the money it spends from taxing, borrowing or printing. There is no other source [11].

From a capitalist point of view the problem with increases in income tax is that they reduce profits. Even those taxes apparently paid by wage-workers are actually indirectly paid by their employers. In the last analysis, pay negotiations are based on “take-home pay”.

This is not to say that governments are unaware of the dangers inherent in currency inflation. Their hope has been that by this means the economy could be stimulated by the additional demand created by the increased money supply. The failure of this policy has led to what has become known as the “monetarist” school of thought by which the attempt is made to reduce the increase in the money supply by economies in public spending. But such economies can have no effect on the current trade recession— another dilemma which cannot be resolved within the economic framework of capitalism.

John Moore

REFERENCES

[1] Daily Telegraph 24/6/1980

[2] Harmsworth Encyclopaedia

[3] Socialist Standard Feb. 1979

[4] Socialist Standard Mar. 1980

[5] Daily Telegraph 29/12/1980

[6] Universal Dictionary of the English Language 1932

[7] Times 12/6/1981

[8] Times 23/5/1981

[9] Times 29/6/1981

[10] Times 18/6/1981

[11] Times 27/1/1981

Local Authority Housing (1967)

From the June 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

Working class housing, and by that we mean houses for those who depend upon wages and salaries for a living, has for a very long time been provided in three ways: by private enterprise builders, by employers and by Local Authorities. Of these, Local Authorities came last on the capitalist scene in an attempt to carry out a rescue operation after others had failed dismally to provide for even the minimum requirements of an efficient labour force.

Like any other capitalist venture, private enterprise building must promise a profit to those who engage in it, or lend money for it, before such “enterprise" is even contemplated. Moreover the rate of profit must compare favourably with that from other kinds of capitalist investment. The fluctuations in the rate of building have, since the beginning of capitalism, been attributable in the main to the movement of investment caused by the search for the greatest profit. Particularly has this been the case in respect of housing for the lower-paid workers, able to pay only small rents, and where profit margins are consequently small. The situation has been aggravated by “boomerang reform measures" — Public Health, Building and Housing Regulations — which have raised the minimum standards of working class housing from the dismal levels of 19th. century slums. The result of such legislation has been to still further reduce the prospect of profit in private enterprise building with a consequent drying up of supply.

Of the second category of house building, that undertaken by employers, little need be said, except that it suffers from similar limitations to those found in “spec" building. In the early part of this century a few idealistic employers such as Cadburys and Lever Brothers built model housing estates for their workers (Bournville and Port Sunlight) which provided the shining example for those reformers of capitalism who saw in these ventures a means of solving the housing problem without disturbing the edifice of a capitalist economy. The movement however did not spread to the extent envisaged. Industrialists in a competitive world can seldom afford to provide better housing for their employees any more than they are generally willing to raise their wages.

Whether houses are built by speculative builders or enlightened employers, standards are still limited, directly or indirectly, by the purchasing power of the worker.

Against this background of failure the housing shortage developed, slums proliferated, the decayed housing of the middle income groups was split up into “flats" to provide cheap accommodation for their less fortunate brethren. Wars and slumps brought building to a virtual standstill, until at the end of the last World War politicians were estimating the housing shortage in this country at figures ranging from one to four millions, according to their political outlook.

It was early realised that slums threaten the health of the community and reduce the efficiency of the workers. Herbert Morrison, later leader of the LCC, writing in 1923, pointed out that

In addition to the public money spent on slum clearance, it has to be realised that, consequent on evil housing conditions, much expenditure on Public Health Services is involved. A not inconsiderable proportion of the £1,880,884 spent by the London ratepayer in the financial year 1916-17 on Public Health Services . . . was the consequence of bad housing, and the same is true of the £500,000 estimated expenditure in connection with tuberculosis in the year 1921-22.” (A Housing Policy for London).

and George Hicks in a pamphlet published by the TUC and the Labour Party in 1922 has this to say about slums:

Bad housing creates illness and encourages crime. Illness and crime mean public expense. The effect of overcrowding upon industrial efficiency, unemployment in building and allied trades, loss of public revenue as a result of arresting the normal increase of rateable property — these are included in the price we pay for housing neglect.” (How to Get Houses).

Industrialists appreciate all this but, as has been seen, can do little about it on their own account. Political parties cannot ignore acute housing shortages when they appeal for votes at elections. If private enterprise cannot provide the housing required, then the State must step into the breach. Which brings us to our third category of housebuilding: Local Authority Housing financed by Government grants and contributions from the rates.

Since 1890 a succession of Housing Acts have provided subsidies for the building of houses by Local Authorities together with powers to charge part of the cost of building to the rates. (Some of these Housing Acts have offered subsidies to private builders but their interest in such offers has steadily declined since they were first made in 1919).

It might be thought that here was the answer to the housing question and it seems strange that after 77 years, some ten Housing Acts and a succession of Conservative and Labour Governments, there should still be an acute housing shortage. The reasons are however not hard to find. One has only to look to see where the money comes from.

Government grants for housing derive from taxation. In the last analysis income tax is paid by the capitalist class since employers have to pay their workers not only enough to enable them to live but also enough for them to pay their taxes. And they have their own taxes to pay as well. It is no wonder therefore that capitalists become as alarmed as anyone when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes an increase in Income Tax. They, in the end, carry the burden of it. Taxation eats into their profits in more ways than one. Money flows to where profits are greatest — even right out of the country when things are bad — and no Government, Labour or Conservative, can allow this to happen.

If we examine the history of the Housing Acts we see this situation reflected in repeated economy measures, restrictions, limitations and sometimes complete abolition of subsidies. The same situation exists in respect of rates, the other source of housing subsidies. Rates are only another form of taxation, property-based instead of income-based. Faced with such restrictions in expenditure, with an increasing population, the deterioration of old property, the destruction due to war and the cessation of building during wars and slumps, the fact that Local Authorities cannot solve the housing problem, even for the lower-paid section of the working class, is not difficult to understand.

Before the 1914-18 War the almost universal type of working class urban house was what came to be known as the “tunnel-back” — mostly two-storey terrace houses containing living room, parlour, kitchen and scullery on the ground floor and three bedrooms on the upper floor. With the rapid improvement in means of transport which took place at the beginning of the century, it became practical to spread new housing over the cheaper agricultural land surrounding the towns and considerably reduce the density of building. Apart from this, and the addition of a bathroom, the accommodation provided was generally the same and room sizes no larger. In fact, in many houses the parlour was surrendered in exchange, for the bathroom. These were the “Council houses” brought into being by the Housing Acts.

The first of the Government “housing manuals”, published in 1918 as a guide to Local Authorities, indicated space standards for various types of houses and sizes of families. This manual set the pattern for many subsequent manuals by suggesting minimum sizes for individual rooms and by providing typical plans showing room sizes and over-all areas for various types of dwelling. If we trace through these manuals the recommendations for three-bedroomed houses for a family of five, we find that between 1918 and 1961 (the date of the last manual) there is remarkably little increase in space standards. The following table illustrates this.

To sum up the present position it is therefore fair to say that the provision of State-subsidised Local Authority housing has, in spite of repeated Government promises, neither met the demand for working class housing in terms of numbers of dwellings, nor shown a material advance in space standards over a period of nearly fifty years. The housing standards of the working class remain a reflection of the wages they receive. The housing problem is essentially a poverty problem and cannot be solved until the workers exchange capitalist poverty for socialist plenty.

John Moore

Who will do the dirty work? (1947)

From the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most Socialists will agree that, of all the questions put to them in their attempt to explain Socialism to their fellow-workers, this is among the most common. In fact, sooner or later during the process of convincing a worker, it is almost certain to come up.

We all know what is meant by the question. The enquirer is not alluding to the sharp practices of his masters, the betrayals of his leaders, nor yet to his own exploitation. He refers to some of the jobs that are looked upon as dirty and degrading, and to which many of his fellow workers seem doomed by the very nature of things.

It is not all dirty jobs that worry the questioners—for example they never ask about doctors and coroners—but only the badly paid dirty work, a favourite being the work of dustmen. The following extracts from a Government report show what could be done about that work now if cost were not the deciding factor. Under Socialism health, comfort and safety will be first considerations.

 “At Quarry Hill flats in Leeds . . . we inspected what we believe to be the only installation in this country of a water-borne system of refuse disposal whereby the refuse is conveyed direct from the kitchen sink of each flat by means of large bore pipes. The specially constructed sink is combined with a large circular hopper into which the refuse is placed. The hopper is then filled with water and when the tenant raises a plunger it discharges its contents in much the same way as an ordinary w.c. The refuse, which may include without damage to the system ashes;, tins and bottles, is then conveyed by suction through underground pipes to a central chamber. Here the liquids and solids are mechanically separated, the liquids discharging into the ordinary sewerage system and the solids being burnt in the furnaces which heat the water for the communal laundry. The system appears to work extremely satisfactorily . . . (“Design of Dwellings,” H.M.S.O., 1944, p. 21.)

However, let not any dustmen among our readers imagine that they will soon be out of work. To the best of our knowledge the system of refuse disposal described above was first installed in blocks of flats near Paris in 1932. The Quarry Hill flats in Leeds were built in 1935 and appears to have been, in 1944, the only scheme of flats in this country where such a system was employed. It does not look as if dustmen are on their way out just yet. The next paragraph in the report may suggest why: —

“Owing to the cost of equipping the central chamber, which contains an expensive plant, a  water-borne system of refuse disposal would scarcely be a practical proposition except on a large-scale development. But at Quarry Hill, with its 938 flats, the average cost of maintaining the system does not exceed 1.7 pence per week per flat." 

The all too familiar reason: too expensive. Atomic bomb plants, yes. Refuse disposal plants, no.

However, dustmen should not despair. Since the local authorities who pay their wages are also building the flats, it may occur to them that a mechanical system of refuse disposal might be cheaper. In that case we can anticipate many fine speeches about the progressiveness of public authorities in abolishing an unpleasant task.

Would it be churlish to ask whether the dustmen will be found other work? Or will it be a case of "off the dust cart, on to the dole"?

John Moore

"The Missing Millions" (1957)

From the March 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Where are the Missing Millions? This is the great lament of all the sports columns of the daily newspapers. They take sympathetic view on behalf of the monied people interested in the prosperity of Football Clubs, Boxing Promotions and Race Meetings, big and small throughout the country for this falling-off of attendances doubtless affects their profits. Especially in football, where since the end of the war they have been experiencing yearly record-breaking profits. But tnow no more of those “fabulous gates,” no more of those “astounding transfer fees.” Of course they are not alone. The Churches of this country for so many, many years now, have been faced with the self-same grim decline. Try as they may, with their Missions here, Missions there, Missions everywhere; they simply cannot win back the deserters.

The Cinemas and Music Halls would appear to have contracted this illness as well. Fewer long queues or ”full-house” signs to be seen these days. And the theatre, ballet and opera, have their black spots and dull moments.

Not only are entertainments affected, but more serious interests. Trade Union meetings, lectures of all sorts, and political meetings, do not seem to arouse any concern in the people at all. Communists. Conservatives, Labour and Liberal alike, they find it harder to hold successful meetings today, except when a big crisis turns up.

We all know that partly to blame is that bugbear Television. Fagged-out after another day's wearisome toil and an equally tiring journey home, no doubt it is more than a temptation to slump into the nearest chair after some food and remain there glued for the rest of the evening, reading, listening, talking, viewing or more likely ... dozing.

Hark then! this question of the "Missing Millions.” Is it because of Television? Or, lack of spare cash to spend on entertainment? Or the time and trouble in rushing home, swallowing a meal, racing about preparing yourself, etc., etc., and then eventually getting out in time to enjoy those amusements, interests, hobbies, studies, or duties?

Socialists would say that it is all of these, combined with a host of other difficulties. Mind you! it could also be a yearning to participate in new and fresh ventures so different from those of the pub ... the pictures . . .. or the dancing. But, alas! it isn't to be. This brings the everyday ritual into the scene, you know, how much? Can we afford it? Can we spare the time? Must we rise early next morning, or can we lie in.

But there positively is something you can and should make time for, something really well worth the effort; something you ought to start helping to bring about, something we all need badly and this is the “System of society called Socialism.”

Under Socialism all would be doing a useful job and not just clipping tickets on buses and in the underground, or wasting away in Armies, Navies, Air and Police forces.

Thousands of clerks who just fill in forms and fuss about with little rubber stamps in Labour Exchanges, Town Halls, Ministry of this, that, or the other. Doing much the same in banks, insurance offices and building societies. Yes! these useless stupid jobs! ! !

Just look; what can be produced these days even with all this waste of manpower and materials. With the complete abolition of all this pitiful junk like, guns, battleships, warplanes, bombs, military uniforms, barracks and the rest . . .

Just stop and try to imagine what could be done' and enjoyed by every man, woman, and child, if all the able bodied were doing something truly vital. To serve their own and everyone else's needs for the wealth would be the common property of the whole of society, for the free use of all.

Then for the first time there would most certainly be the real prospect of having plenty of free time to do all you desire—with all amenities accessible to all the whole world over.

John Moore

God Behind The Iron Curtain (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Vatican and many Protestant prelates in the Western bloc thunder against “Godless Communism" but their diatribes are out-of-date, for the Communist Party has adopted God as one of its allies. The Daily Worker admitted this in a recent editorial when it wrote, “The Communists and the genuine Christians have much in common. They can find ways of working together to achieve a peaceful world.” (Daily Worker, 29th December, 1950.)

It is true that in the early days of the Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks tried to liquidate religion, to tear down the ikon from the peasant’s hovel and replace it by a picture of Little Father Lenin. The programme of the Communist International adopted by the Sixth World Congress in 1928 contained the following attack on religion, “The fight against religion, the opium of the people, occupies an important position among the tasks of the cultural revolution. The fight must be carried on persistently and systematically. The proletarian power must withdraw all State support from the Church, and abolish the influence exercised by the Church.” (“Lenin on Religion” published by Lawrence and Wishart.) But religion could not be liquidated. The people of Russia were not Socialists and they shared with people all over the world the poverty, insecurity and frustration of capitalism. In their ignorance many of them turned for hope and consolation to religion with its message of the transience of human suffering and everlasting bliss in a world to come. The Second World War gave a fillip to religion in Russia and in 1943 Stalin made a non-aggression pact with Christ by approving the formation of a Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church. Since then the Patriarchs of this Church have been faithful servants of the Russian state. As good lieutenants of the God of Battles they gave enthusiastic support to Russia’s war effort; as humble followers of the Prince of Peace they have been prominent at the Peace Conferences which have been staged to support Russia's current foreign policy. And judging by the amounts that some of them have been able to invest in Russian War Loans they have benefited materially as well as spiritually.

In Czechoslovakia, too, religion prospers under State patronage. The clerics who oppose the Government share the same fate as rebellious laymen, but those who are prepared to serve both God and Gottwald are well looked after. According to “Prague News Letter,” a periodical published in Prague (1st January, 1951) “All church expenses such as electricity bills, bell-ringers’ and organists’ wages, candles and wine are . . . met by the civil authorities” and . . . “several hundred million crowns were spent on other ecclesiastical needs, such as the maintenance of theological faculties and seminaries.” The same paper informs us that “ All priests have rent-free houses;” and the “average salary of priests in the Prague diocese . . . is about 6,500 crowns per month.” “Czechoslovak Life,” another journal published in Prague (December, 1950), states that this amount is “nearly twice the average industrial wage,” and the Czechoslovak minister. Josef Plojahr, himself a Catholic priest, declared that “Czechoslovakian priests are the best paid in the whole world, and not only the Catholics, but the priests of all other religions.” (“Soviet Weekly,” March 1st, 1951). It is hoped that this information does not become too generally known in clerical circles or there may be a mass invasion of Czechoslovakia by poverty-stricken Anglican curates. And what shall we do without our padres?

The Socialist Party alone maintains its hostility to all forms of religion. It considers all religious beliefs to be incorrect and a barrier to the acceptance of the Socialist case. Therefore one of the tasks of a Socialist is to show the falsity of religious ideas and not to compromise with them. A Socialist cannot be religious, and when Socialism is established religion will be dead, for the overwhelming majority of the world’s population will have become Socialists. If anyone remains who wishes to tell his beads or sing his hymns he will be tolerated. But a world of enlightenment and security will not provide fertile soil for the growth of religious ideas, which flourish in the rubbish heap of misery and ignorance.

J. M.

Do we need to be employed? (1987)

From the January 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unemployment, as a percentage of the working population, has not been so high since the war. It has risen to 12 per cent in recent months — a total of 3¼ million — discounting many thousands not registered at unemployment benefit offices and therefore not included in the available statistics. Unemployment is therefore certain to be one of the chief issues in the next election, since it concerns not only those at present out of work but also those who feel insecure in their present jobs and those at school and in other forms of education.

With this in mind, speakers at recent conferences — Conservative. Labour and Liberal/ SDP Alliance — have attempted to reassure their followers and prospective supporters that they take the problem very seriously and are able to do something about it.

Conference “solutions"

At their October conference the Conservatives promised an extension of job-training schemes and financial assistance for those wishing to start their own business — but wisely made no predictions as to the number of extra jobs likely to result.

The Alliance on the other hand propose reviving British manufacture, the sector worst affected by unemployment, by linking wages to productivity — and accept that a pay freeze might be necessary. They claim that their policies "could cut unemployment from more than three million to below two million in the lifetime of a Parliament" (The Times, 17 September 1986).

The Labour Party promise to reduce unemployment "by about one million in its first two years" by substantial state investment in the "infrastructure" — roads, sewers and other services — if elected to office (The Times, 30 September 1986). In fact both policies — wage restraint and public investment — have been tried before without stemming a rise in unemployment. In an impassioned speech to Labour's Conference. Roy Hattersley claimed that “Above all things, Labour is the party of jobs". Well, is it? The graph shows the rise in unemployment over two extended periods of Labour government. On the other hand, the reduction in local government spending achieved by the Conservative government has been accompanied by an unprecedented rise in unemployment.

Nor is unemployment a solely "British disease". The following table shows the estimated percentage unemployment in the working population in other advanced capitalist countries compared with 11.9 per cent in the UK (Dept, of Employment Gazette, July 1986).

The cause of unemployment

Unemployment is a world wide problem and what stands out so clearly in all the conference speeches is that there is never any real attempt to explain what causes it in the first place. After all, the above group of countries have the material resources to provide a comfortable living for all their inhabitants and the vast majority of their populations are only too anxious to work. So what stands in the way of full employment? To understand this we need to know something of the operation of a capitalist economy and its inherent contradictions.

In a capitalist society the means of production and distribution of goods and services are owned and controlled by a minority of the population, the capitalist class. Of the remainder, the majority are dependent for their livelihood on being employed by the capitalist class for wages — generally about sufficient for them to work efficiently and rear their families. Within this society goods and services are produced, not primarily for the benefit of those employed, but to realise a profit when sold on the national or overseas market. Normally, if sale at a profit cannot be achieved, production ceases and those engaged in production become unemployed.

Profit results from the fact that the wages paid to the working class represent a value far less than that of the goods and services produced. The "surplus value" is appropriated by their employers, the capitalist class — or the state on their behalf. Part of this surplus value may be reinvested or pass into the hands of landlords in the form of rent and part into the hands of bankers as interest on borrowed money. They in turn seek profitable areas of capital investment. Finally, part of the surplus value resulting from the employment of wage and salary workers is used, usually by the state, to maintain an efficient working class by expenditure on educational and health services and for the defence of the system from internal or external threats. All this is accepted by the political parties who will contest the next election, with only one exception — The Socialist Party.

Constant unemployment

But let us consider the inevitable results arising from the operation of such a system of production. We must first note that the wages system severely limits the purchasing power of the working class so that capitalists engaged in the production of consumer goods soon find themselves in competition, not only with fellow capitalists in their own country but also with those abroad. Capitalists engaged in other forms of production such as machinery, shipping, aircraft, armaments, likewise meet competition at home and abroad. The inevitable result is an attempt by all concerned to reduce expenditure on wages so that profit margins can be maintained while undercutting competitors.

Since the early days of capitalism, therefore, machinery has been introduced to make labour more productive and reduce the wage bill. Division of labour, the conveyor belt, automation. rationalised administration and computerisation have all followed. None of the four political parties, recently meeting in conference, opposes these production techniques. They are admired for "increasing productivity".

Periodic unemployment

Any graph showing unemployment levels will, over an extended period, display "humps" rising above what we have called "constant unemployment". These "humps" reflect major or minor crises in capitalist trade — called trade depressions — resulting sometimes in calamitous increases in unemployment world-wide.

Such a trade depression was experienced between 1930 and 1939 when there were approaching three million unemployed in this country, six millions in Germany and eleven millions in the USA. Once again workers are experiencing mounting unemployment the end of which no one can see. Against this background some of the remedies proposed by conference politicians are patently trivial — nor do they offer any explanation for economic disaster on such a monumental scale.

During the depression of the 1930s The Socialist Party explained its causes and we can do no better than quote from a pamphlet we published at the time:

  In their anxiety to obtain a surplus, the employers, when the markets are favourable, strain every nerve and fibre to increase their output. New machinery is laid down; fresh ‘hands' are taken on; overtime is worked. There is an expansion of trade such as occurred in the years up to 1929. Then, at the very height of the expansion, reaction sets in. Production in certain industries has outstripped demand; the markets are glutted and the warehouses full to bursting. Orders have fallen off and products have become unsaleable. Workers are discharged, and these, losing their purchasing power with the loss of their wages, affect other industries, and so the depression spreads (Socialism, August 1933).

Once again the product of human labour is inaccessible to those who have produced it and those who may need it. Governments are embarrassed by butter mountains, wine lakes and warehouses full of grain, which cannot be sold at a profit Workers in car factories try to repair their old cars at the weekend while the new ones they have produced fill the factory yard unsold. Such crises of over-production for the market are inevitable. Where capitalist countries compete with each other for the sale of their products, it follows that there can be no agreement about the amount each produces. Saturation and collapse of the market is unavoidable.

Localised unemployment

An individual nation may find its unemployment increased still further in either or both of the following circumstances:

• Where capital is exported for investment abroad in countries where wage rates are lower and the prospect of increased profits overcomes any latent patriotism.
• Countries arriving late on the scene of capitalist development often have the advantage of using the latest plant, machines, designs and methods without the cost of scrapping old equipment or the research costs of the new technology.

Both the above influences have affected industry in Britain and in part explain the pressure on British workers to curb pay increases as the cost of living continues to rise — or even accept a wage freeze.

Capitalism holds no solution

With the above understanding of the causes and scale of present-day unemployment, it should be clear that most of the palliatives offered by politicians are trivial and ineffective. Once more we claim that the only cure for unemployment is to change the economic system from capitalism to socialism in which, as suggested by the title of this article, we are no longer employed to produce profits for a minority section of the community but in which the production and distribution of wealth can be unfettered.

John Moore

Noise, Health and Capitalism (1974)

From the December 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Noise is the invisible pollution of our time. This article will not dwell on the degree of annoyance it causes — the reader can very well judge this for himself and, in any case, annoyance varies considerably from individual to individual. Nor will it discuss the effect of noise on working efficiency. This problem can be left to our employers. It will, as the title suggests, deal mainly with the effect of noise on health, the reasons for the increase of noise in modern society and the prospects for a reduction of noise in the future.

The Effects of Noise on Health
Noise affects health directly and indirectly. By this is meant that noise can cause direct physical damage to the mechanism of hearing — or it may harm physical and mental health by a kind of chain reaction. An obvious example of the indirect effect is loss of sleep due to noise, the loss of sleep affecting health.

How important are the direct effects of noise? In terms of numbers of people becoming completely deaf, not at present very great. But for those unfortunate enough to be continually exposed to high levels of noise the result can be serious. What is called “occupational deafness” is due to damage of the delicate nerve endings of the inner ear, caused typically by factory noise suffered over an extended period of time. The levels of noise which can cause occupational deafness are not very high. It is estimated that workers are at risk when factory noise rises above 85 decibels. [1] This corresponds to the noise emitted by an average lorry, measured at 25 feet distance.

The effect of occupational deafness is insidious. First, the nerve endings which respond to high frequencies — that is, sounds of high pitch — are affected. The worker is not aware that deterioration has started. Gradually, however, the damage is extended down the frequency scale until he becomes deaf to the important upper speech frequencies. He finds conversation difficult and, later, impossible. He can ultimately become quite deaf.

As far as certain types of factory work are concerned, this hazard has now been met by the wearing of ear-muffs. Nevertheless, it was recently discovered that a quarter of the loom workers in Fife mills were deaf to the point of requiring hearing aids. [2] There are still however many workers, such as lorry drivers, operators of road drills and “pop” groups for whom defence measures are either neglected or are impractical.

But the effect of a generally noisy environment is of concern to us all. It was recently established that the hearing acuity of the natives of an African tribe between the ages of 70 and 79 was better than American males between the ages of 30 and 39. This was attributed to the quieter environment of the African tribesmen. [3]

This view is reinforced by the fact that in urbanized societies the hearing of men deteriorates, with age, much more rapidly than for women. This was at first thought to indicate a physiological difference between the sexes. But for the natives of the African tribe there was no difference between men and women. Evidently, in Western civilisations, the difference between men and women aurally is due to the fact that, on the whole, men are exposed to more noise than women.

Urban noise in many areas has now passed the danger level of 85 decibels due to road traffic, and is much higher near airports. One wonders whether the wearing of hearing aids may not one day be as common as the wearing of spectacles.

The indirect effects of noise on health are far more widespread and may indeed be more serious. Indirect effects are difficult to evaluate. If we take the example of noise causing loss of sleep, it is evident that ill-health among people living in noisy environments can be due not only to loss of sleep but also to poverty and poor diet, insecurity and mental strain, and many other factors associated with income groups which cannot afford quieter surroundings — or double glazing.

But the fact that the indirect effects of noise cannot be isolated and measured does not mean that they are any less serious. We know that loss of sleep — or depth of sleep — affects physical and mental health. We know that the frustrations to mental work caused by noise can result in nervous and digestive disorders. We know the need for the solace of a quiet garden after a hard day’s work.

The Reasons for the Increase of Noise

Why then is noise increasing in modern society? The immediate cause is obviously the increasing use of machinery in the factory, in the home, on building sites, for road works — and for transport.

When a machine produces noise there is a small wastage of energy in the form of sonic vibrations, that is, sound. Unfortunately this wastage is extremely small compared with the kinetic, or work-energy developed by the machine. There is therefore no commercial incentive to save this energy by reducing the noise. Unless the purchasers of machinery demand noise reduction, then no manufacturer will readily add to the cost of his machine, in the face of fierce competition, by quietening it — whether it be a lathe or a lorry.

If this is the immediate cause of increasing noise then the more basic cause becomes evident: the factor of cost in the competitive world of capitalism.

There are however subsidiary causes of increased noise, also linked with the economic constraints of capitalism. If one man can drive a large lorry which carries the same bulk of goods as would be carried by two smaller lorries, there will be a saving in wages. Employers as well as Socialists are aware that profits can be increased by a reduction in the wage bill. But the larger lorries require more powerful engines and noise is increased.

In the cut-throat competition between motor-car manufacturers the need to reduce steel has resulted in light metal bodies which amplify noise. Speed is a selling point. To produce a cheap car with low petrol consumption and high speed it is necessary to install “high-revving” engines. High “revs” result in high-pitch noise. The ear is far more sensitive to high frequencies than low. The noise produced is louder.

Similarly in the case of aircraft, importance is attached to a continuing increase of speed. The reader will be familiar with some of the reasons: getting to cheaper and sunnier holiday resorts within the worker’s annual fortnight, getting business executives to their trading destinations before their rivals. It may not be so obvious that a substantial saving in high salaries can be made by reducing the time business men and crews spend in the air. Setting aside the rather immature glorification of speed, its increase can be seen to have more powerful economic motives and the result has been a corresponding increase in noise.

These then are some of the causes of increased noise in modern society. Whether capitalist groups do, in the end, save money and increase profits by the introduction of more powerful machines and faster transport is open to question. Let us consider the numerous office blocks which are being built near main roads in our towns and cities, mostly without double glazing. The loss in efficiency due to noise disturbance for hundreds of thousands of workers is of increasing concern to their employers. Yet traffic noise is allowed to increase year by year. Already, employers are having to instal double glazing and artificial ventilation, the total cost of which may be far greater than the cost of quietening the vehicles which produce the noise.

But capitalists suffer from two handicaps: a need to make immediate profits and an inability to cooperate for their mutual advantage. While car manufacturers are only concerned with the profits of their own industry, they are not likely to consider the needs of those who employ office workers.

How Much is Noise Likely to be Reduced ?

So we have to ask the question: what chance is there, in a capitalist society, of materially reducing noise pollution ? It is evident that, so far, the situation is deteriorating. The Government, three years ago, introduced legislation to reduce the permissible levels of noise emitted by existing road vehicles to a maximum of 92 decibels, for lorries — and 89 decibels for lorries in production. The writer has measured everyday noise levels on some urban main roads at around 87 decibels and the reader will know how loud this is from his own experience. The legislation is obviously ineffective. Add to this the recent decision to allow EEC lorries to exceed the above limits by 3 decibels; take into account the increasing volume of traffic and we. cannot be very optimistic about the future. [4]

The outlook for aircraft noise is no better. In recent years aircraft disturbance has steadily increased — both in noise intensity and number of flights. There is only one large aircraft, the TriStar turbofan jet, which is substantially quieter than its competitors. The Concorde is as noisy as its predecessors. Of twelve types of large aircraft recently monitored all except the TriStar produced about the same level of noise — and these aircraft will be in the air for many years to come. [5] The average life expectancy of such aircraft is said to be 15 years. The only way of materially reducing the noise of existing aircraft over the next 15 years is to fit them with modified engines. This has been estimated to cost about £400,000 per aircraft and is generally considered to be economically impractical. [6]

In a book published after the Government’s rejection of Cublington as a site for a third London airport, it was stated that “it was the considered opinion of the Roskill Commission that the continued use of present-day aircraft and the increased weight of new aircraft like the Jumbo jets would produce a net increase in noise levels up to the 1980’s. Not until 1985.” said the Commission, “could one expect the noise levels of aircraft to drop to the level they were in 1967 and one could not reasonably hope for any real alleviation of the problem before the end of the century”. [7]

The history of noise pollution, like other forms of pollution is typical of capitalist development: the creation of social problems followed by the most feeble attempts to remedy them. It is no use blaming the people caught up in the pressures of capitalist competition. We need an economic and social system from which the profit motive has been removed, in which there is no longer national or international competition, in which progress is measured in terms of human welfare.

That system is Socialism.

References :

[1] Noise, (The Wilson Report) H.M.S.O. 1963, page 125.

[2] “The Danger to Health of Excessive Noise” Adam Fergusson, Times March 17th 1970.

[3] Hearing, Journal of the Royal National Institute for Deaf.

[4] Times, August 8th. 1974.

[5] “Aircraft Noise”, Which, August 1974.

[6] Observer March 12th. 1972.

[7] Cublington, A Blueprint for Resistance, David Perman, 1973, page 28.

John Moore