Letter: Vodka-Cola (1980)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Vodka-Cola

I should like to express my appreciation for your letter of 11th November and the review of “Vodka-Cola” in the November issue of the Socialist Standard.

I also very much appreciate your positive comments on “Vodka-Cola”, which will be the core conflict of the ’80s between democratic socialism and authoritarian state capitalism.

I also appreciate your comments in the utilisation of the term “socialist” and the loose handling of “Marxism” in the text. I share entirely your definition of the USSR as an example of state capitalism -and not socialism. And, of course, the entire tenor and objective of “Vodka-Cola” is to confirm what you state that the means of production and the distribution of its output have now largely been accumulated by small elitist minority groups whose interests converge on the exploitation and the expense of the majority of the population, and especially those who relate to society through their earned incomes.

Charles Levinson

Geneva

The Evolution of Money: From Barter to Inflation (Pt. 2) (1980)

From the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

Paper token money was re-invented in Europe in the 17th century when goldsmiths began issuing receipts to those who had deposited gold with them. These receipts came to be accepted as a means of payment because people knew that they could convert them into gold at any time. This is one of the origins of the modern banking system. At one time any bank could issue its own notes, but later this became, in most countries, a government monopoly—in Britain through the semi-official Bank of England.

The first paper notes were "as good as gold" in the sense that they were convertible on demand into a fixed amount of gold laid down by law. For nearly one hundred years from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the outbreak of the First World War notes in England were fully convertible into gold at a rate of about ¼ oz per £. During this period the "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five pounds" (there were no £1 notes then) meant that the Bank of England would give you about 1¼ oz of gold for the note. Now you will only get another note.

With convertibility, the management of a paper currency is relatively easy, since the number of notes in circulation is regulated by the economy as its demand for money rises and falls.

Convertibility of paper notes into a fixed amount of gold was suspended in Britain during the First World War, resumed in 1925 and abandoned in 1931. Currency today in all countries is inconvertible paper (token) money (topped up by metallic coins). The problems of managing an inconvertible paper currency are immensely greater than those of managing a convertible paper currency since it is the monetary authority itself which now has to gauge how much money the economy needs. The amount is no longer more or less automatically regulated by the economy itself, but is determined by the government through its monetary authority. It is not impossible to get the amount approximately right from studying economic trends (level of economic activity, growth of population); it was done in the Weimar Republic after the terrible runaway inflation immediately after the First World War as well as in Britain after 1920. But governments with a monopoly in the issue of inconvertible paper currency face the same temptations as the rulers in the past who issued debased coins: printing money can serve as an easy source of finance. Indeed, convertibility was suspended during the First World War (as it had also been during the Napoleonic Wars) precisely in order to finance the war.

The effect of over-issuing inconvertible paper notes is exactly the same as debasing gold or silver coins: a rise in the general price level. This inflation is in fact the modern equivalent of debasement. It is the depreciation of an inconvertible paper money just as debasement is a depreciation of coined real money.

The word "over-issue" of course implies that there is a "correct" amount of an inconvertible paper currency to misuse. This "correct" amount is that whose face-value equals that of the gold which would be in circulation were it the currency, the amount (total weight) of gold that the economy requires as determined by the formula we discussed last month (no. of transactions x total prices, divided by the velocity of circulation of money).

Suppose that, with inconvertibility, "pound" continues to be defined as ¼ oz of gold and suppose that the amount of money required by the economy, measured in weights of gold, is 100m. oz. To be correct — not to be over-issued — the face-value of the inconvertible currency must total £400m. This is the only amount which will maintain the definition of one pound = ¼ oz of gold.

Inflation as a policy
If the government issues, say, notes with a face-value of £800m, or 100 per cent more than the economy requires, what will happen? The economy still needs the same amount of money, measured in terms of the weight of the money-commodity, as before — 100m oz. of gold. The issue of a paper currency with a total face-value above this figure — and £800m would be the nominal face-value of 200m oz of gold — will not alter this. What will is the real, as opposed to the legal amount of gold designated by the word "pound". £800m, instead of representing 200m oz of gold, will become, in economic practice, the equivalent of 100m oz. "Pound" will change from being the name of ¼ oz of gold to be the name of 1/8 oz (100/800).

The standard of price will have effectively been changed so that, as with a debased coinage, all prices will rise — in this case by 100 per cent, the same proportion as the over-issue of the currency. Once again, this rise won't take place all at once but will gradually work its way through the economy till the general price level has risen by 100 per cent.

The over-issue of an inconvertible paper currency, or inflation, always results in an increase in the general level of prices. This has been confirmed so many times that it can be regarded as an established law of monetary economics.

Over-issuing an inconvertible paper currency has been the cause of the continuous rise in the general price level since the last World War. Governments everywhere have resorted to inflationary currency policies because this is an easy way of raising money to finance their spending — and of course government spending has grown immensely this century. But there is a difference compared with past inflations. In the past when governments inflated the currency they knew exactly what they were doing and what the result would be. Thus the government during the First World War knew full well that the result would eventually be a rise in prices. But today governments seem no longer to realise that there is this direct causal link.

The economics of inconvertible paper currencies has been forgotten under the influence of economic thinkers who proclaimed that they had devised new and better theories. The man mainly responsible for confusing the question here is John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). Keynes, who was already a leading British economist in the 1920s was at one time aware of the consequences of currency over-issue, but that was before he developed his "general theory of employment, interest and money", the title of his major work published in 1936.

In this work Keynes argued that, in order to ensure full employment, governments should concentrate on trying to control the economy by appropriate tax and spending policies. He relegated monetary policy to a secondary role, saying that it should be framed to fit in with the government's tax and spending policies. Governments interpreted this as meaning that they could safely issue whatever amount of money they needed to carry out their policies, without having to worry about whether or not this might be more than the economy needed. Predictably, they over-issued the currency and the general price level rose.

The first Keynesian budget was that of 1940, when inflation was once again deliberately adopted as a way of financing the war. This policy was continued after the war to finance other government spending, including that on social reform measures (education, health service, social security benefits). While the post-war boom lasted it seemed to some that Keynesian policies had at least achieved the aim of full employment, if not that of a stable price level, and Keynes' view that a certain amount of inflation encouraged investment came to be generally accepted. This myth has now been exploded, as recent years have seen growing inflation accompanied by growing unemployment. As a result Keynes is now almost completely discredited (though he still has a few supporters left in Labour Party and TUC circles). Keynesian economics is now being replaced by a new school known as the "Monetarists" (because they reject Keynes' teaching that monetary policy doesn't matter) who at least realise the connection between an increase in the "money supply" (however defined) and an increase in the general level of prices.

Printing £ notes!
When it is said that government spending is financed by recourse to the printing press, this should not be taken to mean that the government simply prints more paper notes and uses them directly to pay, for instance, its suppliers or civil service salaries. This does indeed happen in some countries but in Britain the method is not so crude as this. What essentially happens is that the government always makes available enough credit for the banking system (commercial banks, discount houses) to be able to lend it whatever it wants. The process works something like this: (i) the government, through the Bank of England, sells bonds to the Big Four Banks (Barclays, Lloyds, Midlands, National Westminster); (ii) to get money to pay for these bonds the banks call in some of the short-term loans they have made to the discount houses; (iii) the discount houses go to the Bank of England which, as the lender of last resort, lends them what they need, at a price — what used to be called the bank rate. The resulting increase in credit in the banking system means, sooner or later, an increased demand for currency (notes and coins). This the Bank of England, as the note-issuing authority, passively makes available by a simple transfer from its Issue Department to its Banking Department. As and when necessary the former arranges for more notes to be printed. So lax is control over the issue of notes these days that Parliament is told afterwards by a mere Treasury Minute which passes automatically unless challenged.

The politician in Britain who comes closest to a real understanding of inflation is Enoch Powell. But there is one thing lacking in his analysis: a concept of what would be the "correct" amount of convertible currency to issue to maintain price stability, or, what is the same thing from another angle, its purchasing power. Powell lacks this concept because it can only be explained on the basis of Marx's Labour Theory of Value (1) and the last thing that Powell is (or wants to be) is a Marxist!

Inflation can be understood only after the acceptance that money is itself a commodity, a product of labour produced for sale, having its own value determined in the same way as that of other commodities (by the amount of socially necessary labour incorporated in it). Despite the surface appearance, gold is still the money-commodity, both internally and for external trade. It has been replaced as the circulating medium by tokens, the metallic coins and coloured paper notes we use in everyday transactions, but is still the ultimate standard of price.

It is still gold that determines whether or not a currency has been over-issued. The various paper currencies of the world are still defined, in economic reality, as weights of gold, even though most of them are no longer legally so. This economic definition of currencies in terms of weights of gold is continually changing; their "gold content" is being continually reduced as a result of inflation.

Although it follows from the Marxian analysis of inflation that the continual rise in the general price level could be stopped by strictly limiting the issue of paper money, it is not the business of socialists to tell the capitalist class how to run their economy. We must not be understood as advocates of a non-inflationary monetary policy since we are against capitalism with or without inflation. An end to inflation would not leave workers much better off; their struggle to defend wages and conditions would still have to continue whatever the currency policy of the government.

We are for a system of society in which inflation could not arise as there would be no money. On the basis of the common ownership of the means of wealth production and their democratic control by the whole people, wealth can be produced in abundance to satisfy people's needs. In socialism every man, woman and child will have free access to the abundant store of wealth set aside for individual consumption. There will be no need for money. Further, being based on common ownership, there will be no private property and so no basis for the exchange of goods out of which money evolved. A moneyless society, then, is our answer to inflation.

Adam Buick

(1) Marx explains inflation clearly and simply in the section on "coins and symbols of value" in Chapter III of Vol I of Capital.

Opportunism Knocked: Bradford Debate With SWP (1980)

Party News from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

The lively and well-attended autumn debates between the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers’ Party in Bradford were also revealing. Each highlighted the SWP’s complete lack of a class viewpoint and their opportunist support for any section in society who claimed a “special” grievance.

In the second debate, the SWP speaker boasted of his support for the most “Right wing” national liberation groups against his own ruling class. No talk from the SWP of the Socialist idea of the self-organisation of the working class irrespective of nationality, with world socialism, rather than the redrawing of national boundaries, as their aim.

Behind a veil of hypocrisy about the need for workers to reject their leaders reared the ugly head of Trotskyist elitism, with its view of the workers as sheep to be led (no prizes for guessing the shepherds). Time and again the SWP endeavoured to draw the audience into its web of trendy reformism, manifesting itself in such pressure groups as the Anti-Nazi League, led by their Che Guevara, Peter Hain, and that guitar-strumming leftist Tom Robinson; various women’s groups, and the “Right to Work” campaign, telling us all that it is indeed our right to be exploited! Such prescriptions for our ills, misleadingly attractive in their initial emotional appeal, are futile and dangerous blind alleys for workers. Yet these reformist movements were proudly held up as examples of Marxist theory in practise.

Both socialist speakers pointed out that for all the lip-service paid to socialism by the SWP, all they had to offer the audience was the “fight” for immediate demands, from the provision of a coffee-machine locally to the national banning of the National Front. Such reformist struggles indicate the SWP attitude of “Blow the disease, let’s fight the symptoms”. The socialist speakers’ answer to this utopian line of thought was that the immediate abolition of capitalism and the implementation of socialism is the only realistic way forward, precisely because the social problems thrown up by the capitalist system are insoluble within capitalism, that the struggle to build up a mass working class movement, rather than the idealistic demands for full employment or a mere change of political leaders, that on both occasions the SWP speakers so vehemently rejected.

In reply, most of the SWP’s speakers’ time was focussed on the SPGB’s refusal to ally with the so-called “Left Wing” to fight off the extreme right—to vote Labour at elections to keep out the Tories and the National Front. In answer to this, our speaker expressed the Socialist Party’s non-compromising opposition to capitalism, “be it run by politicians wearing jack-boots, or by politicians wearing denim jeans”.

Finally, all the SWP could offer was the romantic policy of “getting the workers into the day-to-day struggles”. All very well, for those non-socialists who like that sort of thing—but let them do it under a banner other than socialism.

RNW

Memo to Sir John Methven (Secretary, CBI) from Karl Marx (1980)

Quote from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nothing is more absurd than to explain a fall in the rate of profit by a rise in the rate of wages. The rate of profit does not fall because labour becomes less productive, but because it becomes more productive.

Capital III, p 281

Southend Branch (1980)

Party News from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Bye Election is pending in Southend East, and the local Branch wish to take advantage of the political interest that will arise. They intend to distribute several thousand copies of a Socialist Manifesto, canvassing, literature selling etc. Whilst the date of the Election is not yet known, sympathisers and readers of the Socialist Standard in the area who wish to take part in this work should contact the Branch Secretary.

50 Years Ago: Religion and Capitalism (1980)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

As for the Church, it has to be recognised that the great majority of the electorate, including the majority of the workers, would continue to vote for capitalism even if there were no churches. They would do so because they are satisfied with things as they are, or because their dissatisfaction is not directed against capitalism but merely against the administration of capitalism by a particular party or particular persons. Capitalism remains because the political machinery is in the hands of people who have no wish and no mandate from the electors, to replace it by socialism. Parliament, the centre of power, is controlled by capitalist agents because the electors vote them there, either because they find capitalism good or because they are not convinced that there is a practical alternative.

Organised religion plays its part in moulding the opinions of voters, but it is a relatively small part and probably one that is decreasing in importance.

From a reply to a correspondent. Socialist Standard March 1930.

Political Notes: Food for thought (1980)

The Political Notes Column from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Food for thought

The following interesting information appeared in The Guardian of 4 February:

“The world grain trade is heavily concentrated in the hands of a handful of transnational corporations, including Cargil Inc., Continental Grain Corp., Cook Industries Inc., Bunge Corp., Louis Dreyfus Corp., and Garnac, the first three being based in the US. The half dozen or so companies together control more than 90% of US exports and 80% of the world’s grain market. These companies also handle a large share of the agricultural exports of the Third World grain importing countries, set the price for grains and influence directly and indirectly the diets of millions of people the world over. Furthermore, food aid programmes financed by the US government are also handled by these firms. In times of food crisis (sic), when prices rise rapidly, the grain firms profit considerably. Cook Industries, for instance, increased its yearly profits fifteen-fold between 1972 and 1974, from 3.6 million dollars to 46.2 million dollars. Other firms doubled or trebled their net worth, launched new ventures and expanded into new markets.”

United Nations statistics have shown that one third of the world’s population is malnourished. The reason for this is that starving people cannot afford to buy food from those who own it. It is time to dispossess the owners and controllers of the means of grain production, and all other production, and establish a society in which food is produced for the socially sane purpose of feeding people because they need to cat.

Market madness

The British Datsun Car Dealers’ Association (not the Japanese) are foaming at the mouth and paying thousands of pounds for full-page ads in the national press (refused by The Times) to protest about the Motor Manufacturers’ Society attending a conference with the Japanese manufacturers in Mexico. They claim that British Leyland is supporting restriction of Japanese car imports while allowing large increases in the number of imported French, German and Italian cars. All of which shows the utter absurdity of nationalist policies within global capitalism. Many of the most popular makes of cars nowadays are not made in one country at all, but in three or four different countries. One fact that the Datsun dealers appear to be unaware of is that Michael “Buy British” Edwardes was in Tokyo on Christmas Day, signing contracts for the supply of Honda engines for “British” cars.

No politics, please!

On Wednesday 30 January several members and sympathisers of Islington Branch of the SPGB attended a public meeting on “Cuts and Standards”, organised by the Campaign For the Advancement of State Education (CASE) which was advertised as being addressed by the Shadow Education Minister, Neil Kinnock. In the event Kinnock didn’t turn up (was this a trick to get an audience under false pretences?) and so a stand-in Lefty was wheeled in to tell the audience how awful the cuts were and how they could never have happened under a Labour government. After witnessing one of the dullest speeches ever, the audience was invited to put their questions. Two or three people asked about the cost of swimming lessons and the number of vitamins, to be found in school dinners. Then a socialist was invited to ask a question: “Why do we have cuts at all? Why have a system where you need money to provide the needs of society? Ought not the meeting be considering a new social system based on needs instead of profits?” The chairperson, Anne Madden (Headmistress of Islington Green School) told the socialist questioner to sit down and keep quiet as this was not a “political meeting”. Another socialist who attempted to raise similar points was told that they were irrelevant as they were “political”. We are entitled to ask certain questions of the organisers of the meeting. Is CASE a political organisation? Was Neil Kinnock invited to make a political or a non-political speech? Were people who responded to posters advertising a meeting on “Cuts and Standards” supposed to assume that this was not going to be a political meeting? When the chairperson accused us of being “political” did she not mean that our ideas about political priorities were out of line with the Labour reformism which she and her cronies in the Labour Party wish to perpetuate?

Irish style doublespeak

According to the magazine, Time Out, (25.1.80) the Provisional IRA has debated its policy document, Eire Nua (New Ireland), at its recent annual conference. The result of the debate, claims Time Out, was the adoption of what they call a more progressive, left-wing policy. The nature of this supposed change in political direction was the deletion of a paragraph stating their opposition to both “Western individualistic capitalism” and “Eastern state capitalism”. They have now decided to oppose only western capitalism, ignoring the capitalist system in Russia. It is interesting to note how a nasty, nationalist movement, intent on the creation of Rome-rule in Ireland, can be portrayed by the trendiest of trendy journals as progressive because it no longer dissociates itself from the brutal police State of Russia.

Which class are you?

Those who believe that Britain is no longer an unequal society are referred to the 1979 report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Wealth and Income, which states that the top 1 per cent of the population of Britain own more wealth than the bottom 80 per cent. Supporters of capitalism should consider which of the two statistical groups they fall into and then, when they have faced up to their membership of the working class, they should turn to the SPGB Declaration of Principles and see what can be done about it.

Steve Coleman

Welsh slate (1980)

From the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

As in South Wales it was coal that sustained industrial development and led to the disfigurement of the landscape, so in the North-West it was slate. Poor communications and geographical isolation from the main areas of the Industrial Revolution meant that the North Wales Slate industry was a comparatively late developer. But once the boom was under way, from around 1830, it became an industry of national importance. As Merfyn Jones says:

“The industrial Revolution may have been founded on textiles and powered by steam; it was roofed with slates skilfully wrenched from the Welsh hills.”

At its peak the industry employed about fifteen thousand people and until the close of the last century Penrhyn Quarry, near Bethesda, was the largest slate quarry in the world.

Up to the end of the eighteenth century, a number of the quarries were worked on a small scale by local people, partly for their own needs and partly for sale. By 1800 most such private working had been ended, as the first generation of capitalist quarry-owners began to see the potential that lay in organised, large-scale quarrying. The leases that had allowed the local inhabitants to carry on their own quarrying were not renewed, and partnerships were formed—by landowners, bankers and others—to exploit the quarries and satisfy the demands of the newly-growing industrial towns for slate.

An early problem was that of transport. New harbours were founded by the owners of the largest quarries to serve as ports for their own enterprises: Port Dinorwic for the Dinorwic Quarry, Port Penrhyn at Bangor for Penrhyn Quarry, and Portmadoc for the mines and quarries at Blaenau Ffestiniog. Ports and quarries were linked by railways, horse-drawn at first but later powered by steam engines. Though the ports declined later in the nineteenth century, after the railways had provided the quarries with easier access to the industrial areas of Britain, they remained important for the export trade. Under the new regime the quarries expanded. Those in Caernarvonshire (now part of Gwynedd) produced less than twenty thousand tons of slate in 1786 but over ninety thousand tons in 1831. In this latter year, after a vigorous campaign by the owners, the government abolished the slate duty, and thus the industry’s fifty ‘‘golden years” began.

Golden years they were for the quarry owners. A handful of wealthy families dominated the slate-producing areas, providing employers, landowners, magistrates and Members of Parliament. Some of their enormous profits were sunk in splendid residences, mostly situated by the sea and far from the grey and monotonous quarrying villages. As late as 1894, Penrhyn Quarry was making an annual profit of £100,000. The average wage in the quarry was six shillings a day.

The quarrymen earned starvation wages in return for doing a job that was at once skilful and intensely dangerous. They differed from their exploiters not just in gross inequalities of wealth and power, but also in religion and language (“the rock does not understand English”, as one of their songs put it). Above all they valued their supposed independence, the fact that they were to some extent in charge of their own work. For one thing, the physical conditions of quarrying-men working in the open, spread over great distances— discouraged close supervision by managers and foremen. For another, their prized “bargain” system left the workers to toil largely at their own pace.

Under this arrangement, a group of workmen acted as partners and took on a specified amount of slate rock. They agreed with the manager a piece rate for the slate they made from this area, the rate varying with the difficulty of the rock to be worked. It was then up to the quarrymen how hard they worked—their working hours were largely of their own choice, and if they wanted the day off they just took it. Of course, the “freedom” granted by the bargain system was illusory, and it did not avoid the degradation and exploitation found in any form of wages system. Nevertheless, the quarrymen saw themselves as in some ways independent of the owner’s control and were prepared to defend this independence.

For the quarry-owners’ opposition to the bargain system steadily increased. They disliked the consequent irregular working hours and the men’s tendency to take a holiday whenever a fair was being held locally. Attempts were made to replace the bargain system by a more straightforward version of the wages system. These met with resistance from the workers, who had since 1874 been linked together in the North Wales Quarrymen’s Union. The nineteenth century' saw many strikes for higher wages and better working conditions and in defence of the bargain system. But the big struggle came at Penrhyn in 1900-03.

The owners had progressively nibbled away at the bargain system, for example by forcing the workers to accept the manager’s ruling on the operative piece rate, with no bargaining allowed. They had also installed a contract system, whereby the quarryman was simply the employee of a middleman who subcontracted part of the quarry and employed a gang to do the actual work, pocketing in the process part of what would have been the quarryman’s wages. The men’s opposition to the contract system resulted in two contractors being beaten up at Penrhyn Quarry in 1900. The owner, Lord Penrhyn, had twenty-six men arrested, and soldiers were called in to control the situation. On 5 November, all the quarrymen marched to Bangor for the trial, and Lord Penrhyn suspended them all. The great Penrhyn lock-out had started.

The men’s demands included recognition of the Union, a minimum wage of 4s 4d (22p) a day, an annual holiday and abolition of the contract system. In June 1901 the quarry was reopened, without any of the demands being acceded to, and about four hundred men returned to work, attracted by a small pay rise and the “gift” of a gold sovereign. Soldiers had to be called in to the streets of Bethesda to protect the blacklegs from the wrath of those still on strike. Eventually the men were literally starved into submission. On 14 November 1903, broken and defeated, they voted to return to work on Lord Penrhyn’s terms. The workers had lost, and never again could they pride themselves on their independence and autonomy.

The twentieth century has seen a steady decline in the slate industry. This was partly halted by increased demand after the First World War, but on the whole builders tended to use the cheaper tiles, instead of slate, for roofing. Dinorwic Quarry closed in 1969, and only a handful of quarries remain open, employing less than a thousand people in all. They have however given birth to a tourist industry: the workshops at Dinorwic now house the North Wales Quarrying Museum, and the Llechwedd mine at Blaenau Ffestiniog is also open to visitors—both eloquent tributes to the quarrymen and the industry they formed.

Paul Bennett

Main sources

Jean Lindsay: A History of the North Wales Slate Industry, David and Charles, 1974.

Raphael Samuel, ed.: Miners, Quarrymen and Saltworkers, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977 (articles by Samuel and by Merfyn Jones).

Letter to the Editors: Ruskin quotation (1980)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ruskin quotation

The writer of “Work and Play” in the February Socialist Standard mangled the quotations from Ruskin, Wilde and Marx. Enthusiasm for his argument does not excuse the disregard of the actual words of the quotations, and the joining together of disparate sections without indicating that there are gaps. Readers can turn to pages 705-9 of Marx’s Grundrisse and enjoy the full text. Wilde would, perhaps, have been amused by the mishaps to the first of the two short extracts from The Soul of Man under Socialism—apart from the omissions there are four changes of words, and even one major addition! But as to the Ruskin quote, there can be no excuse. This is part of one of the most magnificent utterances of the English language (would Horatio rewrite a Shakespeare Sonnet?). This is what Ruskin actually wrote:

“We have much studied and much perfected of late, the great civilized invention of the division of labour; only we give it a false name. It is not, truly speaking, the labour that is divided; but the men: Divided into mere segments of men—broken into small fragments and crumbs of life; so that all the little piece of intelligence that is left in a man is not enough to make a pin, or a nail, but exhausts itself in making the point of a pin, or the head of a nail. Now it is a good and desirable thing, truly, to make many pins in a day; but if we could only see with what crystal sand their points were polished,-sand of human soul, much to be magnified before it can be discerned for what it is,—we should think there might be some loss in it also. And the great cry that rises from all our manufacturing cities, louder than their furnace blast, is all in very deed for this,—that we manufacture everything there except men; we blanch cotton, and strengthen steel, and refine sugar, and shape pottery; but to brighten, to strengthen, to refine, or to form a single living spirit, never enters into our estimate of advantages.

S Lion 

London SE24

Social workers need help (1980)

The Briefing Column from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1968 there was a White Paper and in 1969 there was an Act, and the Act was supposed to help children who were in trouble with the law. It was called the Children and Young Persons Act and it made a number of provisions which excited the sort of people who always get enthusiastic about proposals for some trifling reform of one of capitalism’s nastier features.

Basic to the Act was the replacement of the concept of punishment by that of care. This “care” was to encompass a comprehensive investigation into the problem child’s family background and a hoped-for improvement of it under the benevolent guidance of a local authority social worker.

This was a part of the social workers’ Golden Age. Fertilised by the reorganisation resulting from the Seebohm Report (1968), each local authority was empowered to set up a big-spending department with the stated aim of caring for all the specially disadvantaged from the moment of their birth until they died.

Well it has not turned out quite like that; the Golden Age was short-lived and now social service departments are being forced, under the programme of government cuts, to fight for many of their cherished schemes. Homes for old people and for handicapped kids; funds for equipment needed by the physically disabled such apparently desirable things are among those which are under the axe.

Even worse, the social workers’ strike last year in some areas did nothing to strengthen their case; it merely provoked a searching debate on whether they were doing a useful job for their wages. About a year ago, social work was almost a swear word among Members of Parliament.

In the case of the young offender, much of the Children and Young Persons Act is likely to wither away like a disused limb. The proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 has not been, and is not likely to be, implemented. The powers to abolish Detention Centres and incorporate them into Community Homes have never been taken up. Now the Tories are planning to brutalise the Detention Centres rather than get rid of them.

The failure of the Act to arrange for young delinquents to be “treated” in their own communities is starkly illustrated by the numbers in Borstal and Detention Centres. In 1969 there were 3,046; by 1977 it had risen to 7,692.

Social work was once hailed as an effective ameliorative to many of capitalism’s problems, as a way of reconciling workers under stress to the irreconcilable. Like so many similar schemes, cruel reality has exposed it.

Ivan.

Mr Jenkins' poodle (1980)

A Short Story from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

On April 1, 1984, Mr Roy Jenkins, ex-Labour Home Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and failed contender for the Party leadership, finally succeeded in forming the new British political party of the Centre. At the inaugural meeting of the Conmore Party, Jenkins welcomed the audience of 14 (including two dogs and a talking parrot). He said the party was being formed to fill the gap in British political life at the radical centre, a gap created by the failures of both the Labour and Tory parties. The new party which intended to field over 600 candidates in next month’s General Election, when St Margaret of the Cuts finally went to the polls, would propose fundamentally different policies having a wide appeal to all those concerned about the state of Britain.

There was a distinguished panel to address the meeting on this auspicious occasion of the inaugural party gathering. The first was ex-Labour Foreign Secretary, Dr David Showem (superbrat). As spokesman on foreign affairs, Dr Showem said that we needed to build up our foreign defences. To this end the Conmore Party would establish military bases in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Bermuda and the Isle of Mull. He also had a plan to invade the Equatorial Rain Forests of South America by night so as not to be spotted. The exploitation of the huge reserves of fallen leaves would enable the British rate of tax to be cut by 2p in the pound and the dog licence fee to be reduced by half (prolonged bark of approval from the hall). But his main plan for Britain was a secret scheme. Although he was not at liberty to reveal full details, this involved parachuting the Salvation Army into Moscow and overrunning the Soviet capital with brass bands and soup kitchens. This would completely disarm the Soviet nuclear capacity. Thus, said Dr Showem, we would be making a real and meaningful contribution to world peace.

The next distinguished speaker was Reg Apprentice. Mr Apprentice started by remarking that he had left more parties than members of the audience had eaten hot dinners, but that despite this he had never betrayed any principle. As spokesman for Home Affairs, he said he often had affairs at home and in other places too. He did not think it was right to commit the party to detailed policies, but he did say he would strengthen policemen’s truncheons, improve street lighting and clamp down on immigration. He said he would also raise the quarantine period to twelve months. The parrot objected to this, but was ruled out of order. This, said Apprentice, would be a real and meaningful contribution to British life.

The following speaker was Lord Kildore. He was the Rudyard Kipling Professor of Jungle Stories and Economics at Cambridge, and formerly a government adviser. As the Conmore Party’s spokesman on financial matters and the potential Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Kildore argued that the British economy was in serious financial difficulty and that the reason for this was the failure of British politicians to manage the economy. He had, however, worked out a special formula. This was X² + Y² = A² + B^2. He said that the application of this formula (taking into account oil prices, the gold standard and the direction of the prevailing wind) would ensure a reduction of general price levels, increase wages and cure the common cold.

The final distinguished speaker was Cyril Bigg, who had suffered from Liberalism for most of his life. He said that as an old Parliamentarian he had supported many policies such as war, peace, inflation, deflation, high taxes, low taxes, high employment, low employment, boom, slump, often all together. He said most of the time his liberal tendencies meant he did not know what he was doing or why. It was most important (he said) that this element in British political life continued, which was why he was throwing his weight behind the formation of the Conmore Party based on these principles. What he disliked most was people with new ideas since he had never had one in his life. (Mr Bigg sat down to a loud and prolonged cheer.)

Mr Jenkins then concluded the formal business of the meeting by urging the British working class to support the Conmore Party, which was the only party with a real and meaningful policy to deal with the current problems of inflation at 73 per cent, mortgage rates at 49 per cent, unemployment of 5 million, three world wars and the Home Rule for Eastbourne movement. He exhorted all members of the audience to work for a Conmore victory to ensure, as he put it, Britain made a real and meaningful contribution.

The unreal and meaningless charade came to an end. As a footnote, the Conmore Party failed to gain any seats at the May 1984 General Election. Capitalism continued unharmed.

Ronnie Warrington

Confidence trick (1980)

From the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

No socialist can be a christian, for the former’s ideas are based upon material knowledge and the latter’s upon idealist belief. The rational ideas which materialists have about the world can be verified by philosophical methods which can themselves be verified. That is not to suggest that materialists can establish scientific, unchanged and absolute truths but that we can make statements capable of scientific testing which can lead us to believe that a statement is probably factual. Thus, materialists argue that ideas are responses to matter and we can demonstrate our claim by analysing history. Christian beliefs are of a different kind. Faith is the central feature of Christian thought and need not be tested by external criteria. It is true that the Catholic Church once laid down the dogma that the existence of God can be proved by unaided reason, but there are few Christians who have survived for long when they have tried to verify their beliefs by rational means without the assistance of faith. Faith cannot be disproved because its criterion of truth is not material, but supernatural. Belief in the supernatural force can only itself be verified by accepting the supernatural force as the means of verification. So the circularity of the Christian argument is that A is true because A says it is true and we must not doubt the word of A because A informs us that it is sinful to do so.

Socialists are not atheists, insofar as we are not concerned to deny the existence of a phenomenon of which there is no proof, but materialists; our purpose is to explain the nature of the world and the position of human beings in it by means of reason and not faith. Socialists are not in favour of the banning of Christianity or other religions simply because they conflict with our ideas, although we note that Christians have not been so willing to extend such democracy to their opponents. What the Socialist Party of Great Britain is against is the well organised and costly propaganda of Christian faith through the schools, the churches, the media and all of the major institutions of capitalism. We recognise that capitalists do not pay out money for Christian propaganda unless it is going to be of use to them in their struggle to maintain ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution. Christianity is a political force which is supported so as to condition workers to support the social system which exploits them. As socialists wish to see the working class establish a fundamentally different system of society, based upon the common ownership of the means of living, the equal standing of human beings, free access to all wealth and the absence of leadership, it is in our political interest to expose the pernicious nonsense of Christian faith.

The first clause of the christian Declaration of Principles states “That human behaviour patterns are inherently sinful and they can only be changed by seeking forgiveness from an unprovable supernatural deity”. Humans, we are told, are naturally greedy, aggressive, selfish, uncooperative, prone to base temptations and in need of strict discipline. Left to themselves, people will kill, rape, torture and plunder without a moment’s consideration for other people. Christians tell us they are sure that this is so because they all are aware of their own sinfulness and feel sure that if it wasn’t for their faith they would all be going about raping women and mugging the aged. The reason for this sad state of human nature, incidentally, is that the first man ate a forbidden apple and the all-loving god of the Bible has since punished the entire human race.

The irrational idea that humans are inherently nasty is one which will not conform to the experiences of most people and is certainly one which is disproved by the numerous anthropological reports of primitive communities which survive without the anti-social behaviour patterns of modern capitalism. If humans have one natural characteristic it is that which motivates them to survive, and human beings will work to survive either socially or anti-socially, depending upon the way in which society is organised. In the rat-race of the profit system people will behave like rats; in a socially harmonious society, where the system is based upon securing the survival and comfort of all, there will be no need to behave anti-socially. The mind is a response to material phenomena; a new-born baby is not inherently anti-social. Christians try to overcome this point by claiming that the most important part of the human anatomy is not the mind, but the soul. For two thousand years Christians have failed to locate the soul.

The “human nature” argument is a very useful defence of the reactionary suggestion that human beings cannot cooperate, so we have to have bosses and governments and imposed morals. Christianity tells workers to be humble, to conform, to obey and never to question that which they cannot understand, for there are some things which only God and the capitalist class must know about. The carrot at the end of the stick is that if workers stick to the guidelines of Christianity while they live, they will go to Heaven when they die instead of being eaten up by maggots like the rest of us. The present writer would like it to be known to the powers that be that, if there are such places as Heaven and Hell, he is eager to be sent to the latter where he can enjoy some stimulating discussions with his comrades, instead of being stuck for eternity with a crowd of creeps.

Clause two of the Christian catechism is “That the first cause of matter and energy was a supernatural force called god”. God, we are informed, was the creator of everything, such as starvation, cancer, earthquakes, wars and, of course, the Devil. Opponents of the idea of god point out that energy is infinite and that it was never created and cannot be destroyed. (This is known in scientific circles as the first law of thermodynamics). But Christians are not satisfied by such an explanation and insist that everything must have been created by something. When they are told that if God is the something which gave rise to everything, there must have been a something which gave rise to god, they tell us that god is infinite. If there was a gold medal in the Olympic Games for philosophical acrobatics, then the church would have even more gold to add to its treasures.

The philosophical con-trick of the god-idea is of great political significance. For if god is omnipotent, and humans are merely his (or her?) creation, then humans are relatively powerless to change that which god has made. In short, if you are a Christian you must acquiesce to the design of god. The materialist conception of history teaches that people have made their own social environment, without the assistance of supernatural phenomena. The social revolution from capitalism to socialism will be created by conscious human beings. When they have established the new social order, the majority of humanity will abandon the gods which they had made in their own image.

The third and final clause of the Declaration of Ignorance is “That there was once a man called Jesus Christ, who was the son of a virgin, died and was born again, and whose moral virtue should be an example of perfection to us all”. We can ignore the fact that there is not a scrap of historical evidence for the existence of this legendary guru. Even taking the legend at its face value, who will not conclude that Jesus Christ was not an incomparably intolerant, fanatical, revengeful, illogical, superstitious, arrogant madman? It was Christ who said that those who do not believe in him will be “eternally damned”. Eternal damnation means that they will be sent to burn in the unceasing fires of Hell, not only for twenty years, but for infinity. Even Adolf Hitler only sentenced his opponents to the cruel fate of the gas chambers where they would die, and then feel no more pain, but this mad messiah of the ancient world threatened a fate which, to the innocent and ignorant people who accepted him, make the crimes of Hitler seem kind. It is the morality of such a man which millions of impressionable children are being taught in schools all over the world. It will come as no surprise to readers to learn that religious education is the only subject which British schools have a statutory obligation to teach.

People become Christians because of fear and ignorance. Schopenhauer wrote that “religions are like glow worms; they shine only when it is dark”. It is easy to force children to swallow the hateful customs of the property system by telling them that it was created and is presided over by a wise old man in the clouds. Christian morality creates repressed individuals who are taught to hide their natural and pleasurable instincts; it has led to innumerable lives of unhappiness because of its self-hating morality ; it has justified wars in which millions have been killed.

The Christian who is impressed by the idea of socialism must make a political decision. Is he to organise with the fellow members of his class to work for human self-emancipation or is he to continue to defend the submissive idea of humanity which serves to keep the workers on their knees? Those who lose sleep worrying about passing through the eye of a needle when they're dead reap the rewards of the Christian intellectual enslavement which will be ended by rational consciousness and not idealistic fantasy.

Steve Coleman

Running Commentary: Concentration camp art (1980)

The Running Commentary Column from the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Concentration camp art

Culture lovers and those looking for sound investments from which to pay the next gas bill will have found the Art Sales columns of the Daily Telegraph of 6 February interesting reading. Their correspondent was reporting the forthcoming sale at auction of a collection of concentration camp money, including notes issued at Dachau, Auschwitz, Buchenwald and the “show camp” Theresienstadt. Believed to be the best of its kind, with 1944 Auschwitz creations expected to fetch a top price of £875 each, the collection included an exquisite example of the yellow cloth "Jud” badge which Jews were forced to wear. Noticeably absent were the unique specimens of lampshade design of the period, although this does not appear to have deterred potential buyers. The lot was purchased by the auctioneers, Stanley Gibbons, at the knock-down price of £20,000.

What could more accurately reflect the spirit and values of contemporary capitalism than this? Who said that art (whatever that is) is dead?

Iron-Curtain gold

One of the prime beneficiaries of the recent rise in gold prices has been the Soviet Union. Not only is the Russian ruling class moving in militarily on a grand scale, but they are also engaging in some pretty big extracting. Their gold mine at Muruntau in the south west is now the biggest in the world and despite their halving in volume, sales of gold to the West totalled 2,500 million dollars last year. The rise in price means that less Russian gold is required to pay for much needed technology and grain, and it increases their ability to intervene in the world market to the detriment of, in particular, American currency. The Americans fear that the Russians, now the second biggest source of physical gold in the west, will become increasingly capable of using their gold in a play against the dollar. Perhaps Chinese “communist” gold production, presently third in the world league, will expand to support the “imperialist” dollar.

The same cannot be said of Russian sugar beet production, which suffered a severe setback last year. The harvest dropped from 93 million to 76 million tonnes, compelling them to make substantial purchases from the west. This shortfall is one of the underlying factors in the continuing strength of the commodity on the world market, which in turn may be one reason the world’s most famous soft drink will never be quite the same again. Coca-Cola of America recently announced its decision to cut its sugar consumption by 50% by using corn syrup.

Could all this be part of a vast conspiracy by the American Government and Coca-Cola to prevent the dollar further depreciating in value? One theory bandied about in leftist circles is that the Americans are attempting to keep the dollar price from falling by reducing the corrosive content of Coca- Cola, which will in turn lessen the need for gold fillings in teeth. This will have the effect of maintaining the value of gold and propping up the dollar. Well, not really. Speculation in gold is not a result of conspiracy, but flows directly from the inherently anarchical nature of capitalist production. Governments have no control over the workings of the economic system and can only respond to trends as they become apparent. Karl Marx explained the present panic buying of gold more than 100 years ago in Capital (Vol. Ill, p. 673): “As soon as credit is shaken and this always appears of necessity in the cycles of modern industry-all the real wealth is to be actually and suddenly transformed into money; into gold and silver, a crazy demand which, however, necessarily grows out of the system itself.

Apocalypse soon

While by far the best defence against nuclear missiles is not to be there when they go off, this happy situation is not always possible to guarantee. It will come as no surprise, then, to learn that the British government, in the face of increasing international tension, has laid elaborate plans for your survival should a holocaust turn up. The only qualification is membership of the Civil Service hierarchy or of the Royal Family (on either side). Your chances outside these ranks are roughly the same as those of escaping unhurt after being struck by lightning—unless you can get to Switzerland quick.

Swiss Civil Defence is not of the impromptu sandbag variety. As one of their protection Service officials reassuringly put it (Daily Telegraph, 6 February): “We cannot afford to be as slipshod about survival as you are in Britain”. (Well, thank goodness we can afford to be; I was worried for a minute.) The Swiss ruling class, hardly naive when it comes to investment, has contributed three-quarters of the cost of the provision of underground fallout shelters for the entire population. Not only are these now compulsory they have 4½ million of them, all air conditioned—but the first of a planned 22 underground emergency hospitals capable of treating 450 victims was recently opened in Geneva. Close behind the Swiss come the Russians, whose every day-time industrial shift has a vast underground bunker within a few feet. In Britain the government contributes nothing to the cost of fallout shelters (in line with the philosophy that we must “stand on our own two feet”), and even charges VAT on the handful constructed for those rich enough to afford them.

Those of us who have, up to now, been “slipshod about survival” appear to have limited choice: either join the Swiss capitalist class (difficult): marry Prince Charles (more difficult still): or join the daunting struggle for a society in which the causes of war—nuclear and conventional—will have ceased to exist. Those who dismiss as utopian the socialist solution to capitalism’s greatest horror story should reflect upon the history of failure to curb capitalist armaments production. It is not socialists who are remote from reality but those who seek to eliminate the worst effects of the capitalist system while continuing to support it. We will not argue for more shelters, but for an end to the obscenity of capitalism itself. This can only be achieved by workers realising their class position and uniting to end their exploitation. Let Lord Denning try ruling against that.

Melvin Tenner

Socialists oppose all Nationalism (1980)

From the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nationalism and socialism are incompatible for a number of reasons. First, the basis of all nationalist theories is that those supposed to make up a “nation” have a common interest. This is not true. All “nations”, however defined, are divided into two antagonistic classes: those who own and control the means of production and distribution and those who don’t and are thus dependent on selling their mental and physical energies in order to live. Between these two classes there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest which can only be resolved by the conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole community, by the dispossession of the owning class.

In preaching a community of interest between all the members of a supposed “nation”, owners and non-owners, nationalism obscures and diverts attention from this class struggle, thus making that struggle less effective and postponing its final solution through the establishment of socialism.

Nationalism also assumes that the problems facing the non-owning class can be solved on a national scale, within the borders of a particular state. This is quite wrong. Capitalism is the cause of these problems. And since capitalism is a system existing all over the world (in state capitalist Russia and China as well as in the West) it can only be abolished on a world scale. Because capitalism is already a world system so must be the new, higher form of social development which will replace it. The idea of “socialism in one country” is absurd and any attempt at it is bound to fail, leading probably to some kind of state capitalism.

This socialist opposition to nationalism applies equally to nationalist movements such as those in Ireland and Palestine, which are generally regarded in leftist circles as "progressive”. Since about the turn of the century, when capitalism became the dominant world system, only one movement can legitimately be called "progressive”, namely, the movement for world socialism.

Before that time, in the 19th century, a case could be made for certain nationalist movements being historically progressive and hence worthy of the support of socialists. This was the attitude taken up by Marx and Engels towards the movements for German and Italian unity and for Polish and Irish independence. At a time when capitalism was not yet the dominant world system, they felt that it was their duty to help the development of capitalism and to weaken its enemies (in particular Tsarist Russia).

In the changed conditions of the 20th century, with capitalism as the dominant world system, the reasons given by Marx and Engels for supporting certain nationalist movements are no longer valid. Capitalism no longer needs to be helped. This is why we say that Marx and Engels’ views on nationalism are now out-dated and obsolete and that those who repeat them in the changed conditions of today have not understood the first thing about Marx’s method.

The European Social Democratic movement of before the first world war made two fatal mistakes. One was to advocate reforms to be realised inside capitalism. The other was to refuse to be anti-patriotic. On the contrary, to declare themselves to be patriotic Frenchmen or Englishmen or Germans. It was thus inevitable—and logical from their own, mistaken, point of view—that they should have lined up behind their respective governments when the first world war broke out in 1914.

Bloody inroads (1980)

From the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

In two dramatic decades, virtually the entire continent of Africa was carved up among the European powers in what has appropriately been called “the scramble for Africa”, leaving only Ethiopia independent. What gave rise to this sudden change? For the answer we must first look at Europe itself.

England, for a long time the “workshop of the world”, was facing increasing competition. Her industrial supremacy was diminishing rapidly. In 1870 she was still smelting half the world’s iron —more than three times that of any other country—but before the close of the century she was overtaken by America and hard-pressed by Germany for second place. The growth of manufacturing created the need to open up new markets, a need well understood by the then French Prime Minister, Jules Ferry, when he remarked: “What [our great industries] lack more and more is markets. Why? Because . . . Germany is covering herself with barriers; because, beyond the ocean, the United States of America have become protectionist .. .”. The so-called Golden Age of Laissez-Faire capitalism was coming to an end, as England’s competitors waxed stronger. Stanley, the famous explorer of the Congo Basin, enthusiastically addressed the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in 1884 with the words: “There are forty millions of people beyond the gateway of the Congo, and the cotton spinners of Manchester are waiting to clothe them. Birmingham foundries are glowing with the red metal that will presently be made into ironwork for them”. But it was Leopold the Second of Belgium who employed Stanley to establish military posts in the Congo and make treaties with the local tribes. These were the foundations of Leopold’s empire, where the most barbaric practices (such as the flogging to death of fugitives or slackers with the sjambok) were commonplace.

Along with new markets, the colonies could provide raw materials such as copper, rubber, palm oil, timber and cotton which the expanding home industries craved. They also provided highly profitable outlets for the export of capital.

The means of communication and distribution were rapidly advanced with the invention of steamships, locomotives and telegraphs, the effects of which were only felt in the world at large in the last few decades of the century. These made possible massive increases in colonial trade and the expansion of empires. All these factors, working in conjunction, created the possibility for many powers to lay claim to vast territories, reacting to each others’ claims by annexing more, in a sort of complex chain reaction. Hitherto lack of competition, amongst other factors, had detracted from the sense of urgency which now accompanied empire-building.

The specific motives—and pretexts—or colonisation differed from area to area. In North, West and East Africa, colonisation was “largely governed by strategic requirements having little to do with Africa herself”, as far as the British were concerned. South of the Zambesi River “British policy was driven by a deliberate and determined desire to establish a British dominion in South Africa” (Scramble for Africa A. Nutting). Thus Britain gained control of the Suez Canal Company (on the strength of a loan from Rothschilds) and eventually Egypt, to protect the route to her valuable possessions in India. To secure her hold in Egypt she looked upon her territories elsewhere as “disposable assets”, to be bartered if necessary.

By no stretch of the imagination could South Africa be a mere “disposable asset”. The second half of the nineteenth century revealed her immense mineral wealth, beginning with the discovery of diamonds in Qriqualand West in 1867. Bitter disputes broke out over the ownership of the diamond fields involving the Boer republics and the various Qriqua and Tswana chiefs. These were effectively resolved by the annexation of Qriqualand West by Britain in 1871. Diamond wealth spawned the De Beers Consolidated Mining Company, whose vast resources were used to promote the activities of the British South Africa Company. It was through this organisation, with the megalomaniac Cecil Rhodes at its helm, that Rhodesia was brought under European domination.

In 1877, after unsuccessful attempts to establish a federation of states in South Africa, which people like Rhodes dearly wanted, Britain annexed the Transvaal only to hand it back in 1881 after suffering a humiliating defeat by the Boers. In 1884, Germany laid claim to South West Africa and Rhodes, fearing a possible link-up of Boers and Germans, succeeded in getting Bechuanaland annexed by Britain, thus driving a wedge between the two and securing the strategically important “missionary Road to the North”, important for it gave access to what he believed was the Eldorado of the North. From the 1860s explorers had come across the ancient gold workings in that area and in the Tati district the German explorer, Karl Mauch discovered gold. Rhodes and his company finally captured this fabled land of King Solomon’s mines with such ruthlessness against the Matabele that the Company’s own ambassador in Bulawayo felt prompted to remark that “the Pioneer at his most highly developed state is a white savage, the most terrible of men”.

However, the real Eldorado lay not to the north but southwards, for in 1886 in the Witwatersrand area of the Transvaal a rich gold bearing reef was discovered. With the rising fortunes of the Transvaal grew the fear that British supremacy in South Africa was threatened and that the British colonies there might throw in their lot with the Boer Republics. For the next thirteen years British policy was directed at denying the Boers access to a seaport by surrounding the Transvaal with newly acquired British territory. With the completion of the railway line between the Rand and Portuguese held Delagoa Bay every effort was made to exploit the grievances of the “Uitlander” population of mainly British extraction living on the Rand. Such was the determination of British imperialism to resolve the issue by force that Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, faced with the relatively generous Boer concessions to Britain’s demands, despairingly commented: “I dread above all the whittling away of differences until we have no causus belli left”.

But Chamberlain need not have worried for all along an overriding “causus belli” was there. It was still there when the frictions resulting from the partition of Africa played an important role in dividing the world into two armed camps that led to the outbreak of World War One. And today it continues to menace our very existence, until the workers of the world are prepared to learn from its blood-soaked past that the capitalist system of society cannot and will not be made to behave otherwise, and resolve therefore, to abolish it from all the continents of the earth.

Robin Cox

Liberating Africa? (1980)

From the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is a country in Africa which has so much liberty that it is actually called Liberia. It should of course have been christened Tyrannia so similar is it to the other “independent” states of Africa (and so independent that it almost belongs lock stock and barrel to Firestone Tyre of America). Its tyrannical ruling class is not however composed of indigenous blacks but of the descendants of former slaves who returned to Africa after the American Civil War and proceeded to make virtual slaves of the entire black population.

In many ways, Liberia has served as a prototype for the dozens of “liberated” African hell-holes which have emerged since the end of the Hitler war. The sufferings of the mass of the people in the countries that were formerly parts of the European imperialist empire are such that most people do not even have a glimmer of understanding of what goes on there. Oh yes, we all know about the slaughters in Uganda by the minions of the murderous Amin, and perhaps many people became aware that innocent black workers and peasants were butchered at will by another megalomaniac called Emperor Bokassa in a former part of the French empire called the Central African Republic. But there arc numerous other appalling regimes which have busied themselves in murdering thousands of their own populations in countries that arc barely even names in the West.

Who knows where to find Ruanda or Burundi or Upper Volta on the map (assuming you know they exist in the first place)? Who then knows that countless numbers of innocent men, women and children have been drowned in rivers of blood whose sources are their own black ruling classes? In case anyone imagines that the rulers of other African states view these events with horror, just ask the question: Now that Amin and Bokassa (to name but two) have been overthrown, what has happened to them? They are alive and well and living in other African states, enjoying the wealth they accumulated through the sweat of their black subjects. It is significant that these murderous robbers enjoy the protection of their fellow African rulers—and, let it not be forgotten, of their friends—their former European masters like President Giscard who brazens out the scandal of the diamonds he got from Bokassa—with the help of the French Communist Party which says such things don’t matter!

In fact, there is not a square yard of freedom from Cairo to the Cape (ironically there might prove to be a change in that regard in, of all places, Rhodesia, but more of that below). The facts are clear; nationalism, whether it be African, Basque, Irish, Scottish or Welsh, is a trap for the working class. It is a delusion that the workers’ wage-slave status will be different if the slaveowners are changed from white to black or from Castilian to Basque. So that all the sacrifices and all the misery that were endured to get rid of the hateful British imperialism in, say, Uganda, have merely served to change white tyrants for black ones—who in many cases proved even more monstrous. Those British leftists who backed anti-colonial movements thirty or forty years ago show not the slightest understanding of, let alone remorse about the grisly results. Fenner Brockway (now My Lord, if you please), who was formerly young and stupid and is now old and stupid, makes it clear whenever his voice is heard that he remains proud of his efforts to foist the likes of Kenyatta, Nkrumah, Nyerere, Kaunda upon the suffering African people.

To add to the horror of it all, pseudo-socialists like Brockway and similar people in the Labour Party and other so-called leftist organisations, not only besmirched the name of socialism by supporting these appalling nationalist movements, they still lend their names to the preposterous claim that these countries are socialist. Socialism, however, can only be brought about by the conscious understanding and support—freely and democratically given—of the majority of the working class. That understanding is a long way from being evident in countries like Britain, where the workers have a chance to register it freely if they were so minded. The notion that the majority of workers in places like Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique, Angola, Libya, have had an opportunity to discuss and debate the issue of capitalism or socialism and have freely and democratically elected socialists to their parliaments, is clearly absurd.

In all these countries the regimes are tyrannies, where there is no possibility of free socialist parties being allowed to propagate their views. Where, indeed, opponents of any kind are intimidated, gaoled or killed. The white regime in South Africa is undoubtedly obnoxious, but the leftists (including such organs of the capitalist press as the Guardian, the Observer, the New Statesman, Tribune) who spend so much time screaming against that regime, carefully overlook that there are more blacks rotting in the dungeons of Nyerere’s Tanzania or Mengitsu’s Ethiopia—two countries which vie for the honour of first place in Amnesty’s lists of murderous regimes—than South Africa has ever had.

In Rhodesia, at the time of writing, an election campaign is proceeding and—give or take a few murders—it seems that a number of parties, black and white (but of course all capitalists of varying hues) have the opportunity to state their views and canvass votes with all manner of reformist promises, just like good old Britain (they even vie with one another about curing unemployment just like our own con-men). Yet whether any semblance of democracy will exist when the elections are over must be gravely in doubt. The apparent leader in the race for power is Robert Mugabe, who has the impudence to call himself a Marxist (which is echoed by all the ignorant press here). This man has been running a guerrilla army for some years based in Mozambique and his ideas are so full of democratic freedoms that not only does he murder the supporters of opposing parties and even of allied leaders of the so-called Patriotic Front; he even kills and imprisons his own party members who happen to disagree with him. Lord Soames, the temporary British governor, has twisted Mugabe’s arm to release over seventy of such victims from his prisons in neighbouring Mozambique (another Marxist state, of course!). This item was referred to in a leading article in the Guardian (Jan 20). What the leader omitted to mention was that Mugabe only agreed on condition that they arc not allowed to move freely inside Rhodesia during the election campaign (even though some of them are candidates!). In other words, he keeps a private prison and will hand over the victims on condition that they remain chained and gagged. So if he is like this with his own party members before he attains power, the imagination boggles at what kind of hell he will visit on the country if elected in place of the previous incumbent, Bishop Muzorewa. King Stork for King Log!

Finally, we must refer to a recent (January 28) article in the Guardian: President Machel of Mozambique has “advised” (quotes in original) the “Marxist” Mugabe “to send envoys to South Africa to spell out a policy of peaceful co-existence and non-interference. And Mugabe’s vice president of ZANU-PF, Simon Muzenda, is expected to fly to the parliamentary capital of Cape Town soon to add his avuncular charm to such tidings.” All this without a blush in the great “liberal" paper which screams its head off about a team of bone-headed rugby players going out there to play games. One almost feels more at home with the right-wing rugby corespondent of the right-wing Sunday Telegraph, John Reason, who, asked by a BBC twit about the reactions to the rugby tour of the Organisation of African Unity, replied: “Might as well worry about Idi Amin. He was their chairman recently”.

L. E. Weidberg

New Zimbabwe—old story (1980)

From the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

After that great epic series, the Lancaster House Saga (sub-title the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia talks), with its deadlocks and diplomacy, its cliffhanging and imminent walk-outs, Rhodesia now faces the prospect of some kind of limited democracy for all and a build-up of the economy with a largely African government. Since the agreement was signed in December leaders of the Patriotic Front, Nkomo and Mugabe, and many of their guerrillas, plus many Rhodiesians who have been living in the UK, USA, Europe, USSR and other parts of Africa, have returned to ‘their’ country. Many of them are under the illusion that the forthcoming election will bring about changes which will enable them to live freely in a democratic society. The extent of the democracy rather depends, however, on who wins the elections, as some leaders appear to favour “one man one vote” only as long as they are victors. There are numerous reports of intimidation in some areas of the country by Mugabe’s ZANLA forces and Muzorewa’s auxiliaries.

Even though legally sanctioned discrimination by white against black—which for many years was enshrined almost along the lines of apartheid—will no longer exist, tribal conflicts are certain to continue. In any case the freedom to buy large, expensive houses in previously white areas will be of small consequence to the average African worker, except as an abstract notion. The returning heroes will be subject to the dubious privilege of being employed and therefore exploited by a predominantly black capitalist class rather than a white one or unemployed as the case may be. No doubt they will be urged by their leaders to work hard and harder, as are workers the world over. If things go badly they may be put in prison for disobeying capitalism’s laws or even for disagreeing with the ruling party—and it is hard for even the most avid enthusiast for black liberation to convince us that incarceration by a black government is more comfortable than by a white one. The 71 former supporters of Mugabe detained on his instructions in Mozambique until recently could perhaps enlighten us as to whether their imprisonment was more pleasant than that imposed on Nkomo and Mugabe by the white regime.

There is no doubt that the Africans of Rhodesia have suffered immensely at the hands of the European settlers, who have treated them as inferior beings with a vastly lower standard of living than the whites. So many Africans, wishing to rid themselves of their oppression, took to their guns in what they regarded as a legitimate war of liberation. It is tragic that so many have offered and given their lives for a vain cause; despite the belief that true liberation is round the corner (at least if their favoured leader wins the election), they face inevitable disillusionment.

The African population inside Rhodesia has also suffered cruelly from the guerrilla war waged over the past seven years. On the one hand, people have been tortured and killed, their shops and homes have been raided, and they have been forced to feed “the boys” regardless of their own sympathies and needs, with always the threat of a bullet to discourage them from informing the government forces. On the other hand, they have been subject to extreme pressure and violence from a Rhodesian Army determined to discover the whereabouts of the “terrs”. The appalling predicament of ordinary African people caught in this trap is aptly described in an article in the Evening Standard of January 22. A white farmer on police reserve duty describes how he

“. . . came on a village minutes after a party of terrs . . . had left it. Two girls were lying untended beside a hut, bayonetted in the chest . . . I worked on those girls for an hour, to keep them alive until a truck came. Nobody in that village spoke a word or did a thing.
   Then I turned to a man who was watching: ‘Who is this girl? Your daughter?’ ‘Yes’. ‘Where did the terrs come from? Where did they go to?’ ‘Don’t know’. ‘Don’t know?’ That man said nothing until we took him to the police station.
   We did the usual—left him without food until evening then beat the hell out of him. He told us where the terrs had gone but it was too late to track them. His daughter died. Tell me what kind of creature is it that will stand there and do nothing when his daughter is dying?”

All this is complicated by the existence of the Selous Scouts, a particularly brutal crack-force of the Army, who have often been suspected of perpetrating atrocities while posing as guerrillas. The situation has been so confusing and so horrific that thousands of people have been forced by the government into protected villages (like concentration camps) and thousands more have fled to the towns. Their abject poverty and over-crowding has been seen on British television—a particularly moving example, a few weeks ago, was of people picking over the municipal rubbish dumps in Salisbury with large sacks, looking for anything to sell, as a means of livelihood. Others, not lucky enough to be living in appallingly overcrowded houses in the towns, were living on the streets with only plastic bags as shelter against the rains.

After 14 years of UDI, why has the British Capitalist class finally reached agreement round a conference table? Partly because the war has frightened out many white Rhodesians and had dire effects on the economy; partly because of pressure by “front-line” states on the guerrilla leaders to end the war and negotiate—since the economies of those countries had suffered from the effects of the war and of sanctions on Rhodesia. Machel of Mozambique, for example was reported in The Observer of January 20 to be

". . . anxious to see Rhodesia return to normality as soon as possible since a prosperous and stable neighbour would provide a much-needed boost to his country's lagging economy.”

while Zambia had

“. . . enough maize to last only until late February or early March, nearly three months before the first of this [i.e. 1979] year’s harvest will reach the millers.
   The problem might not be so serious had not the Rhodesians cut landlocked Zambia’s two lifelines, the Tazara Railway to Dar-es-Salaam and the southern line which runs through Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to South Africa.”

If the single-track line from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to Zambia were to break down

“Dr Kaunda would then not only face a food crisis but would also have difficulty exporting the copper on which his country depends for more than 90 per cent of its foreign earnings.”

(Guardian, December 11 1979)

Also, it is possible that nationalist leaders like Nkomo of ZAPU and Mugabe of ZANU, who were detained for many years, may have felt that their chance of power might slip from their grasp if they didn’t act soon.

Who will benefit?

So who is really going to benefit from the newly established “democracy”, from the holding of elections, from the lifting of sanctions and the expected stability and boost to the ailing economy? There are rich pickings to be had: Rhodesia is the fifth producer in the world of gold; one of the few producers outside Russia of chromium; the top grower of Virginia tobacco after the United States; Rhodesia is also a main producer of asbestos, copper and industrial diamonds. It is clear, therefore, that Britain’s interest in Rhodesia’s independence is not merely a technical matter of “loyalty to the crown”. Different capitalist groups have lent their support to different leaders in Rhodesia according to which one they judge will best serve their own interests, and the business community in general is taking a keen interest in developments there. Tiny Rowland, for example, chief executive of Lonrho, has consistently backed Joshua Nkomo although, according to the Observer of November 11 1979, he would

". . ally himself with whichever nationalist politician eventually becomes leader of Zimbabwe Rhodesia. Lonrho’s enormous assets there include a million acres of ranchland, besides commercial and industrial operations. These are operated by independent companies, but will revert to Lonrho when sanctions end and the new State is internationally recognised.”

What of the politics of the politicians in Zimbabwe? Do they really plan to bring socialism to that country? Hardly. There are nine black parties fighting the election but effectively only three main contenders, none of whom offers a genuine alternative of any kind: the message from all of them seems to be a general list of platitudes about peace, prosperity and racial harmony. Bishop Muzorewa is openly committed to free enterprise capitalism; Nkomo has adopted a conciliatory, pragmatic approach without reference to either capitalism or socialism and talks of increased wages and redistribution of land. And Mugabe? His image has been that of a hard-line “Marxist”. Perhaps this is demonstrated by the rally of his supporters where he “gave triumphant clenched fist salutes to the crowd and led them in the chanting of nationalist slogans” (Times, January 28). According to the Sunday Times, January 27, Mugabe’s election platform, although cautiously phrased,

“. . . is still the nationalisation of industry, the radical redistribution of land, the introduction of sweeping state controls, and above all, what he terms ‘the collective ideal’, the public ownership of the country’s natural resources, land, minerals, water and forests.”

Whether or not he wishes to establish a “communist” regime such as that in China, it would seem that he is trying to be all things to all men, to be moderate and capable of compromise as well as a “genuine socialist”, for at the same time his party policy-makers

“. . . now encourage the continuity of private enterprise in Rhodesia and accept the need for a close commercial and logistic relationship with South Africa.”

(Guardian, 28 January) 

It has long been fashionable among some Rhodesian Africans to label their political opponents ‘sell-out” for cooperating with the Smith regime, for supporting Muzorewa’s opportunistic government, for making too many concessions to the British government at Lancaster House. But they fail to recognise that the whole thing is a sell-out and a sham. On one prognosis, a limited type of democracy, typical of the development of capitalism, will prevail; on another, civil war will rage. But whoever gains power, we may be sure he will be hell-bent on building up the capitalist economy and on training his citizens to become hard-working, obedient wages slaves, regardless of whether his advice, investment and technical assistance comes from the Soviet Union, Great Britain, South Africa or wherever. The hollow phrase “Victory to the Patriotic Front”, beloved by the left-wing, means for African workers the victory of a different style of exploitation.

Jack Bradley