Pollution State-Capitalist Style (1975)

From the June 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Despite the large amount of work being done throughout the country to protect the atmosphere against pollutants, the pollution level in a number of cities and industrial centres still exceeds permissible norms, due to the constant growth of industry and motor transport, and to the inadequacy or low effectiveness of the measures taken”. 

Sounds a very familiar line doesn’t it? It could have been taken from almost any of the flood of books, reports and articles that have, over the past ten years or so, turned pollution from a concern of cranks into a major world problem.

In fact the quotation comes from an official Russian publication Nature Protection in the Soviet Union (Novosti Press Agency, Moscow, 1974). The fact that Russia and the so-called socialist economies suffer from pollution and environmental degradation just as much as the capitalist west may cause some puzzlement to those who believe implicitly that state capitalist economies are somehow different from the avowedly capitalist nations. This is certainly one line of Russian propaganda. For example B. Gorizontov writing in Soviet Weekly says

  In the socialist countries, where economic advance is based on public ownership of the means of production and natural resources and on planned management, it is much easier to protect the environment and natural resources — but they, too, have their problems.

(Soviet Weekly 14 December 1974.)

And what problems! In Poland only 20 per cent of the rivers have water fit for communal use. The Oder is unusable throughout its entire length. In 1967 8,400 of the countries 14,000 industrial plants discharged refuse directly into rivers and more than a third of the largest plants (accounting for 80 per cent, of all effluent) had no effluent treatment equipment. (New Scientist 6 July 1972). Air pollution is also a problem for the Poles. Anthony Sylvester, a frequent visitor to Poland, reported last year on a visit to Katowice the centre of Poland’s coal and steel industry.

  Contamination here is about twice the level normally tolerated in Poland or for that matter in the West. Again, 100 miles East of Warsaw I saw trees destroyed or badly damaged for twenty miles by nitrogenous fumes from a huge fertilizer plant.

(Daily Telegraph 11 July 1974).

To combat this the Polish Government has bought £2.5 million worth of Western-made equipment for monitoring and measuring so as “to establish the most economical ways of reducing the evil”.

Other East European countries have fared no better. The Bulgarian Black Sea resort of Varna was closed down in 1971 because of contaminated water. The Hungarian Ministry of Health have been battling with an increasing air pollution problem since 1952. In the German Democratic Republic the chemical industry centred on Bitterfeld releases 180 tons of ash into the air each day. Bitterfeld has been described as having a dust fallout twenty times higher than the permitted 15 grammes per square meter per month. “Bronchitis and breathing difficulties are 5 times as frequent in Bitterfeld as in towns with relatively pure air.” The reason given was that the district produced two per cent, of the national income of the GDR and the question which had to be faced was: What comes first? In Bitterfeld the answer had to be, for a very long period: production. (Democratic German Report 31 July 1974).

Doctor Jan Cerousky, a Czech biologist has also exposed the profit motive as the cause of “socialist” pollution. After describing “Environments so badly destroyed by coal mining, industry and many-sided pollution that they are almost impossible for people to inhabit”, he (possibly unwittingly) pointed out that a state capitalist economy works under exactly the same constraints as do the free enterprise ones.

  Even the most socialist country will certainly find it impossible and dangerous to go far beyond its economic capabilities. To solve existing environmental problems and prevent new, even worse ones, from emerging is clearly a long-term matter, while economics, instant needs, building capacities and technological equipment create pressure for short-term solutions.
 The state as law maker imposes on itself limits to the capacity of industrial undertakings. As decision-maker the state can also permit exceptions from its own anti-pollution laws to state owned enterprises because it needs their products without the cost being increased by expensive anti-pollution measures.

(New Scientist 16 April 1970).

As in the West improvements that are carried out are done so for hard-headed economic reasons. The question “does it pay” enters into any capitalist equation. Two East German dailies investigated the problem of noise at work and found that production costs for noise-reduced machines were between five and ten per cent, higher than “non-silenced” machines.

   . . . but the larger investment is soon made up: there is no need to pay a “noisy-work” supplement, or even a disablement pension. Equipping a noisy work-place with anti-noise devices costs an average 800 marks, but every case of sickness or disability caused by excessive noise costs at least twice as much every year.

(Democratic German Report 10 April 1974).

This is an argument which would sway any capitalist boardroom!

The existence of these problems has been excused as a hangover from the days of capitalism. In the Soviet Union itself which (it is falsely claimed) has had socialism for over sixty years these problems should have been well and truly licked. The facts show this to be untrue. Even though Lenin set up the first nature reserve in 1919 the rape of earth continues. In the USSR some 400 million acres of arable land plus 350 million acres of pasture land are affected by soil erosion. The average yearly loss of fertile soil is a staggering 500 million tons. Forests are felled with little or no regard to the future and in many places replanting is only sporadic or even non-existent.

The Times correspondent David Bonavia reported that the Caspian sea level had fallen by more than six feet in the past two decades and that the White Sea was being used as a dumping ground for oil and industrial waste products.

  Some Russian scientists are already preoccupied with environmental problems which, they complain, the industrialists and city planners do not take seriously enough.

(The Times 4 February 1970).

One such scientist is the “dissident” nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov. Among the world problems threatening the existence of humanity (e.g. nuclear war and weapons testing, by Russia and others, has caused fallout damage which is as yet incompletely assessed) he includes environmental pollution. He is convinced, as are many others, that “The salvation of our environment requires that we overcome our divisions and the pressure of temporary, local interests. Otherwise, the Soviet Union will poison the United States with its wastes and vice versa”. After a brief, if all too familiar catalogue of environmental ills he refers to the tragedy of Lake Baikal. This mile-deep 400 mile long lake (the largest single body of fresh water in the world) of remarkable purity has become yet another dumping ground for waste from wood-milling and paper making plants which pour their poisonous sulphurous wastes into this biologically unique stretch of water. Sakharov puts the blame for this “senseless despoilation” on "local, temporary, bureaucratic, and egotistical interest and sometimes simply by questions of bureaucratic prestige.” (Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom (1969) p.44)

But the problem has now been recognized as a serious one by the state capitalist bosses themselves. Vice-Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Deputy V. A. Kirillin addressed the USSR Supreme Soviet in September 1972.

   The shortage of clean fresh water, air pollution and the erosion of the soil have unfortunately become a reality today . . .  for the socialist countries, too, these problems are today of extremely great importance.

(Nature Protection in the Soviet Union p.4)

So after years of supposedly rational planning for the benefit of all, people in Russia suffer exactly the same environmental problems as the rest of us. By 1980 the level of air pollution will be double that of 1970. Yet it is recognised that

    Desulphurization of . . . fuel burned is a radical means of reducing the discharge of sulphur dioxide. However, economically acceptable methods of such fuel purification have not yet been sufficiently developed.

(ibid p.25)

State ownership of the means of production does not remove the basic drive of capitalism — the need to make a profit in order to accumulate capital. Only with the removal of this by the conversion of the means of life from class ownership into common ownership will the problem of pollution be resolved.

Gwynn Thomas

Socialism—A Sane Society (1975)

From the June 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Long before pollution became a popular cause, and ecology a fashionable term, the Socialist indictment of capitalism included the waste that is inseparable from market production. A minority in society own the means for production, that is the land, raw materials, factories, communications etc. Through this ownership they are able to buy from the majority, the working class, their working ability.

It is members of the working class who run the transport system, who run industry from the gate to the board room, who research, design and make every kind of commodity etc. In other words it is the men and women of the working class who co-operate to perform all of the work necessary to the running of capitalism. But it is not done on their own behalf. All of this work is geared to the profit of the owning class.

Every kind of product, including food, has sale at a profit as the first motive for its existence. It may be thought that it is because commodities are useful that their sale will realize a profit. The fact is that goods are not produced to fulfil human need, on the contrary needs are stimulated so that the results of enormous productive capacity can be sold. A whole industry is devoted to sales promotion; to persuading consumers — hideous term — that their possessions are outdated, outworn or that two of everything might be better!

A marketing expert counselled the home-furnishing industry: "Make people discover for themselves that there’s fun and pleasure in changing their décor. Establish a standard based on changeability and not on permanence.” All this helped provide a philosophical base for the throwaway spirit . . .

(p. 164 The Waste Makers, Vance Packard)

Competition between manufacturers of similar items is not necessarily of benefit to their customers for costs must be kept to a minimum.

Manufacturers themselves have improved anti-corrosion techniques considerably in recent years, but a really thorough job would be unacceptably expensive in an industry increasingly dominated by cost accountants.

(Observer Magazine, 6 April 1975)

Not only are goods produced in the knowledge that they are not the best that modern technology is capable of but some commodities are actually designed to have a limited life. “An engineer’s principal purpose as an engineer is to create obsolescence” — board chairman as quoted in The Waste Makers.

Small wonder that even those workers who are supposed to be enjoying the good life have in reality succumbed to the adman’s dream world. Accumulating material possessions to assuage the frustration associated with work in which they can take no pride and the problems of everyday living.

Society does not have to be organized this way. Capitalism is not the natural order of things and it has outlived its usefulness. The quest for profit which provided the impetus to develop large scale, social production, now prevents that production being used to the advantage of society as a whole. A revolutionary change to Socialism will resolve this contradiction.

When an immense majority of working class men and women become aware of their position in capitalism they will join with us in consciously organizing to elect for Socialism. Thus to carry out the legal formality of abolishing private property. Then the means for production will be owned and democratically controlled by the whole, worldwide, community. This vital fact of common ownership and control will mean production at last geared to human needs. The one reason for making any articles and supplying any service will be that they are of use to human beings. Only the best quality need be made and with due regard to the careful use of raw materials.

All of the wasteful elements of capitalist production will disappear. With all that is on and around the earth owned in common by all of its inhabitants there will be no possible use for armed forces and other instruments of war.

Try listing the pursuits which will not be necessary when money no longer has any role to play in production. Included in the list will be duplication of effort when, for instance, airlines compete for passengers over the same route, banking, insurance, nor will we ‘‘carry coals to Newcastle” . . . but you can continue. Some occupations will be adapted to the needs of the new social order. Perhaps marketing research could be redirected to monitoring the actual needs of the community.

Workers co-operate now to run capitalism. How much more will the spirit of co-operation prevail between the free individuals who contribute to the well-being of Socialist society. Each will give to the best of their ability satisfied that the work in hand is socially useful. Each secure in the knowledge that they have free access to the goods and services which they require. Socialism will do more than resolve the problems of poverty, waste etc. It will be a harmonious, caring social system where human beings are at last free to realize their full potential.

We have given only an outline of some aspects of the Socialist future. To fill in the detail we need your help. What are you waiting for?

Pat Deutz

Malthus, Marx and Socialism (1975)

From the June 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

If Malthus could look in at present-day discussions about population and food supply he would no doubt be flattered that he and his ideas are still remembered and that the discussions have gone beyond this country, to occupy a prominent place on the world stage. He would be particularly interested to note that the question now takes in the allegations that world resources are approaching exhaustion and that continued growth of total production is becoming more and more difficult.

Malthus has a special interest for us, both because of Marx’s attack on his theories and because of the purpose for which he published his essay in 1798. Its full title was: Essay on the Principle of Population as it affects the future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Godwin, M. Condorcet, and other Writers. At that time the British ruling class were alarmed by the spread of revolutionary ideas following the French revolution in 1789. Among those who caused them alarm was the philosophical anarchist William Godwin who propagated the idea that people could live happily together, free from poverty and crime in a system of society based on voluntary co-operation, with no coercive state or other institutions of a class society.

Malthus wrote his Essay to show that Godwin and others who shared his views were wrong because they ignored what Malthus called the Natural Law of Population. This law, as stated by Malthus, was that population, if not checked, would always increase faster than food supplies, and that it always is held in check by the limited food supply operating through poverty, war and pestilence, which necessarily bring misery and vice; therefore the Godwin utopia of universal happiness was impossible.

Having to admit that population in theory might be restricted by what he called “moral restraint’’ he fell back on the argument that such restraint could not be exercised in a society that lacked private property to act as incentive. (Much like the argument now used by Sir Keith Joseph for his “Social Market Economy” capitalism.)

Malthus’s Essay was welcomed by some of the ruling class at the time because it could be used not only against revolutionary ideas but against almost any social change. Malthus made no serious attempt to prove the arithmetic of his law, and the nineteenth century in Britain showed the rate of increase of the population falling drastically while powers of production were increasing fast. Interest in Malthus continued though very erratically, declining when trade was good and unemployment low and reviving during every recession, particularly in the Great Depression of the last quarter of the century.

This was the key to Marx’s attack on Malthus. Marx pointed out that capitalism has its own population law, the symptoms of which are that in a boom the population appears to be too small and in a depression too large. Because capitalism does not produce to meet the needs of people but only to meet the effective demand in the market, capitalism never had produced enough to meet the needs of the whole population.

Capitalism has not changed in that respect, and UN officials now estimate that about a third of the world’s population are poverty-stricken as measured by accepted standards of nutrition. This figure is quoted in a recent article by a regular columnist of the Financial Times, C. Gordon Tether (1 May 1975). He used it to show the uselessness of leaving the problem to the interplay of supply and demand and defines it as a double one, that of raising the standards of the “poor” and of providing for the expected big increase of world population.

Mr. Tether has at least come some way from Malthus, for whom there was a second “natural law”, that the poor should go on being poor. Mr. Tether is so fearful of “ultimate global disasters” that he demands “a far-reaching re-structuring of the planet’s economic system during the next few years”. He does not spell out what he has in mind, and it would be most improbable that he envisages the social revolution at which Socialists aim. Yet it is the only one that, by eliminating the waste, the limitations on production and the sheer destruction of capitalism would give the big increase of useful production that he knows is necessary.

One last word about Marx and his collaborator Frederick Engels. They were fully aware of the arguments of the Malthusians and Engels wrote in 1844:

Even if Malthus were altogether right, it would still be necessary to carry out this [Socialist] reorganization immediately, since only this reorganization, only the enlightenment of the masses which it can bring with it, can make possible that moral restraint which Malthus himself puts forward as the easiest and most effective counter measure against overpopulation.

(See Marx and Engels on Malthus by Ronald L. Meek, p.109.)

Engels recalled this in a letter dated 1 February 1881 sent by him to Kautsky, in which he wrote:

There is of course the abstract possibility that the number of people will become so great that limits will have to be set to their increase. But if at some stage communist society finds itself obliged to regulate the production of human beings, just as it has already come to regulate the production of things, it will be precisely this society, and this society alone, which can carry this out without difficulty.

Edgar Hardcastle

What A Waste! (1975)

From the June 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Much has been written and said about the problem of waste — savings which could be achieved, environmental problems alleviated.

The solutions advanced by different factions are often valid in themselves. However, each pre-supposes the co-operation of a number of parties with different, or even conflicting interests which, under capitalism, is only possible in a very limited way. Also, it is necessary to define what we mean by waste, as savings in one respect can mean waste in another; savings on raw materials often means waste of manpower. Saving of energy may be costly in cash terms; the often invoked re-cycling leads to waste of energy and manpower. It is the intention of this article to illustrate some of these contradictions.

Mr. Giles Shaw in a debate on waste in the House of Commons on 5 April 1974 stated that in the generation of electricity from coal 40 per cent. of the heat is lost. Of every million tons of coal burnt, the equivalent of 400,0000 tons produces warm air and steam dissipated in the environment. Mr. Hugh Rossi, in the same debate, told the House that in Dusseldorf a new incinerator disposes of the refuse of 700,000 people, making a profit by the sale of steam for space heating and the use of ash for land filling.

Much was heard recently about the Friends of the Earth who collected empty pop bottles and, in protest against the bottles, not being re-cycled, dumped them on the doorstep of the firm well-known from their advertisements as "SCH . . . " Speaking at a conference War on Waste, Mr. Ron Cook, Marketing Manager of United Glass, warned that while glass can be re-used the process can result in waste of petrol, labour and energy. But in Kansas it has been found profitable to build several miles of State highway using glass waste as aggregate.

Mr. Shaw, in the previously mentioned debate, also said that, of 17 million tons [of] household waste, 85 per cent. is dumped. Indignant people write to newspapers complaining that Local Councils show little interest in their efforts to save paper etc. To them it is a straight forward issue and the complications imposed by capitalism escape them. The re-cycling of paper which could save raw materials will mean transportation, sorting and storing involving costs which sometimes outweigh the original savings. The removal of labels, adhesive tape etc. from polythene and cans, for example, may cost more than the saving on raw materials. The cost to Local Councils of doing this cannot be offset by savings achieved by manufacturers and the people who write letters would probably be the first to complain of 1p on the rates to pay for reclamation.

Excessive packaging has also come under fire, yet here the issues are often even more complicated. Many products packed in aerosol cans would be less convenient in any other way. So, if you want the product, the basic oncost of, say, 5p, is inevitable. However, to make the product stand out from those of his competitors, the manufacturer may use a special-shape can and closure. These raise the cost of packaging to between 8p and 10p. The gimmick in no way improves the product, but the customer pays the price to keep the manufacturer in business.

Often criticisms of apparently wasteful food packaging ignore the extra protection and convenience. However, here too it is true, particularly with confectionary and toiletries, that materials are often used vastly in excess of the needs of protection and distribution so that the package may shout 'Buy ME!'

In this article we have shown a few of the many-sided problems of waste under capitalism. The criticism is often levelled at the Socialist Party of Great Britain that the complexities of modern life make the workings of Socialism impossible. Here is one aspect where we can state categorically that Socialism will be easier to administer than the present system. In a world of common ownership, with the elimination of cost and profit considerations, the disposal (or reclamation) of waster, of whatever kind, will be simpler and more efficient than it is to-day.

Eva Goodman

Sir Keith Joseph meets the SPGB (1975)

From the June 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Philippa Fawcett College 24th April 1975

Speakers: E. Hardy, SPGB, v Sir Keith Joseph, Conservative

Subject: THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM

The Philippa Fawcett is a teachers' training college. The debate was held during the afternoon and was attended by about 250 people, mainly students. Two south London newspapers and The Times had reporters and photographers present, but only the briefest of reports appeared. The following précis is from a tape recording.

Each speaker made a twenty-minute contribution. This was followed by a period for questions, to which both speakers were invited to reply. There was a final winding-up of five minutes for each speaker. The debate was attentively listened to and fairly conducted throughout.

Sir K. Joseph
Sir Keith Joseph spoke first. He devoted the first minutes to reading a statement to the press, condemning the proposal of Wedgwood Benn to use pension funds for investment purposes. Turning then to the subject of the debate he continued as follows:

There are broadly three different forms of organizing society. One, the mutual-agreement family arrangement suitable to a Kibbutz size community, but not relevant to a nation of 55 million people. Two, the Market system in which goods and services are produced and supplied according to demand by the price mechanism and profit and loss. Profit within the law under competition. Profit is a signal mechanism for moving men, women and resources from goods and services that are not required to goods and services that are required.

Three, the Command system where goods and services are laid down by a central bureaucracy. Mr. Hardy is as much against the Command mechanism as I. He is in favour of the first mechanism. The question before us is, which system provides the best guarantee of prosperity, freedom, choice and humanity. The optimum combination of all four?

In a small system of simple needs, perhaps a mass meeting could make its decisions. This could not apply to a society of 55 million people. The simple life would rule out such things as anaesthetics. How do producers decide what people want to use?

The Central Committee in a Command Society cannot make decisions that satisfy people. Are we going to spend more money on fighting pollution, for example?

The Market system is based on the proposition you only make a profit if you make and sell what people want. If you don not make what people want, you do not make a profit. This means widespread decision-making, decentralized control spread among thousands of small, medium and large firms. Central government lays down the laws for everyone in the Market system, regulates the degree of pollution.

It is perfectly compatible with humane society. Inventor, critic, reformer, writer, artist — five most crucial people — are free within the market economy.

Marx has changed history more than any individual in the past hundred and fifty years. He was supported by Engels, a Manchester business man.

How do we justify the vast profits of property? Somebody had to take the risk. The only justification for profit is risk.

Civil servants' decisions do not have to be right, they do not stand to lose. The Market system leaves decision-making to those who stand to gain if the decision is right and stand to lose if the decision is wrong. Look at Switzerland: we could be as prosperous and humane.

E. Hardy
The chairman then announced the next speaker, E. Hardy for the SPGB.

He began by drawing attention to the fact that the Market economy as described does not behave as planned.

We must remind you what capitalism is. Wealth is produced by the working class who keep society going, but they do not own the means of production, they do not own the wealth they produce. When no profit can be made, capitalism curtails production. Workers become unemployed. The normal phases of capitalism are expansion, boom, stagnation and crisis. There were twelve crises during the nineteenth century, including a crisis lasting nearly twenty years towards the end of the century.

When there is a crisis it does not mean that capitalism has gone wrong; capitalism has always behaved like this. The Conservatives have been protectionists and then free traders and turned back to protection again. In recent years they have gone in for all the variations of income policy. None of it makes any difference. Nothing can be done about it; capitalism is always the same.

There had been a growing recognition that perhaps Marx was right. Then in the years between the wars a blight fell on the world. Its name was Keynes: an undiluted tragedy from the standpoint of the working class.

Tories, Liberals and the Labour Party all believed in Keynes. Keynes said Marx was wrong. Capitalism can be controlled. You can have full employment, no more crises or wars.

The Market economy is unregenerate capitalism given a new name. They have not got capitalism under control. They have not solved unemployment. We are now in a crisis. They should go back and recognize Marx was right. Keynes was wrong. All past policies including incomes policies have failed.

The SPGB never supported nationalization, which is state capitalism. Private or state makes no difference. We are Marxist. Marx's conception of Socialism is a society where you do not have a wages system. There would no prices or profits. Production would be solely for use, and free access on a world scale. People will co-operate to produce and take out of what is produced that which they need. You cannot do anything with capitalism. It creates class conflict, industrial strife, and war. You must look for an alternative.

What is there to prevent the world becoming Socialist? What obstacle? People won't cooperate? — why can people on a large scale not cooperate?

E. Hardy put a question to Sir Keith Joseph: Do you feel incapable of co-operating for your own advantage? Sir Keith he did feel incapable. E. Hardy continued. What has Benn got to do with Marxism? Nothing. He does not claim to be a Marxist. Sir Keith had claimed the contest in the world was between Marxism and democracy. We are the only democratic party in this country.

The Tory Party has a long list of nationalization projects in its history. Rolls Royce, UCS, Post, Telegraphs, BBC, London Passenger Transport, Harland and Wolff. When Benn nationalized Court Line, he gleefully reminded the Tories it was done under an act passed by a Tory government. Nationalization has nothing to do with Socialism.

Heath had said "no rescue for lame ducks". Mrs. Thatcher advocated rescue on a temporary basis — like going in for drug addiction on a temporary basis. We do not say civil servants can run capitalism better than the whiz-kids. Nothing can be done with capitalism; if you will not go in for Socialism, you will be stuck with capitalism. It will be the same in the future as it always has been in the past.

Questions from the floor
The chairman invited questions.
Q. Under the market economy why are goods destroyed if they cannot be sold at a profit? Education is the first to be hit in a crisis.
A. Sir Keith Joseph.
Surplus food in America rescued Russia, Many poor countries neglect their own agriculture. We have crippled capitalism in this country. Negative income tax is needed to bring people to a minimum level of income to be able to buy what they need.

A. E. Hardy.
Capitalism has never produced enough for the people of the world. Capitalism has enormously increased potential. The largest industry under capitalism is the killing industry. Socialism will get rid of the killing industry.

Q. How does capitalism cause war?
A. E. Hardy.
Looking for markets. Stalin said it was necessary for Russian industry to find outside markets. Nigeria — oil discoveries were the main factor in sparking the civil war. All capitalist powers are expansionists. The bigger ones are simply stronger than the smaller ones. Capitalism and war are inseparable. Socialism will have no market economy. Capitalism not only destroys world resources in wartime, it also destroys them in peacetime. Russia and China behave like capitalist powers threatening each other with armed forces, because they are capitalist powers.

A. Sir Keith Joseph.
The war between Arab and Jew had nothing to do with capitalism. It was a war about national and ethnic identities, and possession of territories. Mr. Hardy had no world to defend.

Summing up
The chairman asked each speaker to make a brief closing statement.

Sir Keith Joseph.
How simple it is to argue for a system that is purely emotional. Mr. Hardy is arguing for pie in the sky. You cannot get all people in the world  to agree. Marx left no room for the owner, who is part of the productive mechanism, because of his willingness to take risks to ensure supply in the Market system. The investment occurs to give people what they need.

E. Hardy.
Sir Keith Joseph has to defend the shocking system of capitalism. Capitalism was only a notion when it began. All the reformers have tried to be practical and improve capitalism. They have solved nothing. The utopians are the ones who think they can do something with capitalism. You can't, you have to go in for Socialism.

H.B.

This is an abridged report of the debate. You can hear the tape recording of the debate at the following link.