Running Commentary: Plenty (1986)

The Running Commentary column from the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Plenty

Just as the news came in of yet another desperate famine in Africa, it was reported that the EEC are about to try to reduce their 1,360,000 tonne butter mountain by selling the stuff, at 3p a pound, as food for calves. EEC officials argue that this is the best way to dispose of the butter — best because it is cheaper than stockpiling it.

You did not need to be exceptionally perceptive to work out that what is being suggested is that the butter, after being kept in store for some time, be fed back to the animals who produced it in the first place.

There is nothing unreasonable or illogical about this. It fits in perfectly well with the assumptions and needs of commodity production — the turning out of wealth for sale on the market so as to yield a profit for the class who own the means of life. In this system the market — not human needs — decides when there is a shortage or a surplus. That the EEC is grappling with the problem of mountains and lakes of stuff which could feed human beings does not mean that everyone in the world is properly fed. It simply means that the market has more than it can profitably deal with, which is a very different matter.

It is by no means uncommon for food to be stockpiled or, if the market demands it, destroyed while there is an urgent human need for it. Sometimes — like the butter — it is returned where it came from. Vegetables are ploughed into the earth or fish thrown back into the sea. A neat, circular solution you might think — just what all those highly trained experts and economists are paid to think up. Until you look at the pictures of those people starving; the children only hours away from death staring out from shrunken, fly-swarming eyes, the emaciated adults squatting in their final apathy.

Then you know that something is wrong, that somewhere there is an obvious answer which is being evaded. And you are right. But think about it a bit more and ask yourself, who is doing the evading?

Cut price ignorance

Anyone who is thinking about buying a few shares in newly privatised concerns like British Gas, Jaguar and the National Freight Corporation had better brace themselves to receive a letter from Norman Tebbit. The Tory Party chairman, presumably believing that the most impoverished of workers can be kidded that owning some shares makes them a capitalist, will be trying to scare them with bogeyman stories about Labour snatching their dividends to give to lazy dole-queue scroungers.

If you think this smacks of desperation, what about the other scheme at Tory HQ. to attract new recruits by offering them a clutch of cut-price offers? Sign on the blue dotted line and you'll be eligible for a cheap subscription rate to the Countdown discount organisation; the chance to buy gift hampers; membership of a wine society; copies of Jeffrey Archer's books, personally signed by the world's greatest living writer (it is not clear whether this is intended to persuade people into the Tory Party or the Workers' Revolutionary Party).

Of course Labour supporters are having a great time poking fun at all this, on the lines that the Tory Party which was once a marriage bureau is now a mail order company. Well, nobody can argue with that but they should remember that all capitalist parties use a variety of tricks and inducements to get workers to join them.

You can join the Labour Party, for example. by simply signing a form brandished at you by some canvasser on your doorstep. A few minutes later, if you were getting a lot of attention from canvassers, you could join the Conservative Party in the same way. Your opinions need not come into it; the capitalist parties are interested in your support — your vote, your money, your membership.

It is difficult to understand, or to empathise with, workers who fall for this, who allow their intelligence to be insulted in this way and who regard so lightly their political power to transform society.

Capitalism's problems can be solved only by a social revolution. That needs mass consciousness. leading to a deliberate act by the world working class. That is fundamentally different from the sordid grubbing for votes which absorbs so much of the energy of the likes of the Labour and Tory Parties. The question is — how long will the workers allow themselves to be seduced away from their historic role by tawdry offers of cheap wine, food and political thrills? How long will they abandon their revolutionary function for a mess of Jeffrey Archer?

Kick off

Every schoolchild brought up on Henry Newbolt's foolish poem about playing the game knows that the British are great ones for courtesy and sporting behaviour. It is something to do with character building on the playing fields of Eton, and the historic mission of the British Empire to bring civilisation to the lesser breeds without the law.

The snag is that most of the people of this country did not go to Eton, or to any school like it. Their character was built in the sort of neighbourhoods and schools which Newbolt did not care much to write about. They get their living in ways which essentially deprive them of the satisfaction of a sense of affinity with what they must devote most of their waking hours to.

This alienation extends beyond the workplace. into every part of our lives. In a world which is owned and controlled by "them", what does it matter if the saplings which were planted to give a little relief to the eyes amid a wasteland of concrete are tom up? Or if the street lamps which are there to make the pavements safer to walk along are smashed? Or if the ugly slabs of building which they call home are defaced with spray- can graffiti?

It also permeates what might be called their leisure time activities, when for a brief time they may forget their lowly status in society and the aridity of their social prospects. Where better to do this than on the terraces at some football game, with its excitement, glamour and its aura of quick riches?

British followers of the game are famous, not for their sporting attitudes but for such activities as running riot (although not as wildly as the media would have it) in one of the plushest of those floating duty-free supermarkets which ply between this country and the Continent.

This sort of behaviour has now reached the status of a ritual without which no self-respecting football (and soon, perhaps, cricket) match is complete The responses, too, are ritualistic, spurred on by headline-hungry journalists. The popular assumption, for which evidence is conspicuously lacking, is that sterner punishment and more vicious judicial violence are the only measures which can be trusted to bear in on the minds of the riotous football fans.

The people who call for hooligans to be beaten into servility forget those times when worse than yobbishness against foreign workers is officially encouraged — when, for example, the habit of Ghurka soldiers in the Falklands to kill any Argentinians who surrendered to them was gloatingly reported as good, clean, military fun.

It is capitalism which alienates us all — a social system of privilege and repression which is maintained with ritualistic support from the working class: "I vote Labour because my father always did '; "My husband's a Conservative and I can't go against him. can I?"

All this viciousness and self-destruction is protected in swathes of cynicism, from the beginning of our lives until the end. That is why schoolchildren are still being encouraged to absorb patriotic ravings like Newbolt's. Play up. and play the game? Ugh.

Escape to Happiness (or drama on the Trans-Siberian Railway) (1986)

A Short Story from the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

This summer I took a party of tourists to Lake Baikol and Irkutsk, the capital of Siberia. Any professional "courier'' will tell you that every package tour has its "freaks", and this one had two — both young women with college degrees in — "surprise, surprise" — sociology. One, who was quite small and looked like death warmed up. said "she was not getting enough fibre". The other, larger, with a huge shock of fair curly hair, shuffled around in a voluminous covering like a pair of old curtains — and large, soft, fluffy boots. She could have just escaped from the local pantomime, playing Widow Twanky. They were both engaged in local community projects. One was forming a group in Hounslow to help people "analyse their dreams

They were (or had been) "into" everything. of course, running the gamut of the so-called "Left Wing": ex-Socialist Workers Party; CND; Battered Wives; Women's Liberation; Greenham Common — and now "Animal Rights". The little one had been prosecuted for disrupting a fur auction, but did not believe in "violent action" (her boyfriend was doing six months for it) and now the very latest — they were "vegans'; not just vegetarians — but vegans. No meat, fish, eggs, butter. milk, bread or cakes baked with animal fat. etc. etc.

The manager on the dining car of the train (Trans-Siberian Railway) just could not grasp it. "Then what the hell do they eat?", he asked plaintively. The usual Russian attitude to vegetarians is very practical. They just take a knife and scrape the meat off the plate. Not with vegans they don't! They actually sent back an excellent Borsht (beetroot soup) because one suspected a sliver of meat in it — which is just not possible.

Nevertheless, all went well until we reached Ormsk. Here a handsome, almost beautiful Russian lady boarded our train with an enormous quantity (even for Russians) of luggage, including possibly a washing machine, and certainly a child's pram, and three very good-looking children. A boy of ten. a girl of five and a baby of a few months.

There are four berths to a compartment (second-class), obviously two up. two down. The newcomer with a small baby, two other children, and terrifying luggage was quite flustered, almost hysterical with anxiety. With that frank openness so typical of Russians, especially when travelling, she naturally assumed that she would be granted the bottom berths, whatever the tickets said, on account of the children, especially the tiny one.

Our vegans had omitted to master the Russian language prior to their trip, so that no dialogue or explanations were possible. She just plonked herself, her kids, the cradle, and her bags on the bottom berths, pointing heavenwards to indicate her proposal that our two "liberators" move up to oblige.

But no! Not a bit of it! Why should we move? They could not move their luggage. "These are our seats." "Besides", said Widow Twanky, "I've got a bad back"! A "bad back"? How many millions of working days are skived every year with "bad backs"? The one undiagnosable. indefinable gimmick known to all for a couple of days off.

By this time our Russian visitor found everything just too much — and with a voluble stream of rich Russian invective, rudely shoved poor little fibre-less No. 1 violently out into the corridor. Screams, tears, kids sobbing, everyone shouting, with calls for the unfortunate "courier" to "do something'. Calmly surveying the scene I announced portentously: "It's dinner time! Come along! We'll sort all this out later!!" Once our freaks left the compartment, their chance of retaining the bottom bunks was about as likely as snow in the Sahara.

Safely shepherded half-way up the quarter-mile-long train to the Diner, I was able to divert attention and calm hysteria by guaranteeing that the "Schee" (cabbage soup) was utterly meatless. So it was; the meat had been given to somebody else. "Now really". I started persuasively, "You are animal lovers. so am I! So are we all! But little children are animals too! Don't you think? Have they no rights? Is their mother wrong to want to care for them?" No dice. I was talking to a brick wall. "Yes. but we paid for our ticket! They are our seats! She should not be allowed to travel with all that luggage with children. Why should we have to move?" Argument was obviously futile.

But a solution was to hand. Our handsome newcomer had told me, through her tears, that she was joining her husband, an Army officer, in Budapest. This was my cue. Lowering my voice and wagging a finger. I whispered mysteriously "Do you know what I think?" They were agog. "I've suspected it from the start", I murmured. "She's escaping from the KGB." This completely flattened them. After a long pause, little Miss No-Fibre whispered. “Does this happen very often?" "Often", I breathed heavily, "almost every other day or night. We've got to help her. for the sake of the kids." The result was magic. All their sentimental longings for some practical worthy cause were aroused. They obediently and efficiently transferred to the top bunks, proud members of a dramatic liberation conspiracy. Harmony reigned. The Russian lady was now treated with reverential respect, more deeply convinced than ever that the English were nuts.

I am sure that for many months to come the local Community Centre at Ruislip will thrill to the story of how they helped a beautiful Russian lady with her three lovely children to escape the dreaded KGB. But 1 must be getting absent-minded, for 1 clean forgot to tell them that what I had meant was Kinky Girls from Britain.

SPUTNIK

Blogger's Note:

Mmm, what were the SSPC thinking? I grew up reading The Sun newspaper in the 1980s, and I was getting flashbacks as I was scanning this in. Understandably, this short story stirred up quite a bit of controversy amongst the readership at the time, and the following letter from John Usher appeared in the December 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard:

Escape to happiness 

Comrades, 

As a party member I would like to ask what purpose was served by the publication of Sputnik's article in the October Standard. As far as I can see no socialist viewpoint is advanced, rather the contrary; to suggest that "scraping the meat off the plate" is a practical attitude to vegetarians is obtuse and. in practical terms, counter effective. Further, stereotyping of the kind employed can do nothing other than alienate interested neutrals. A propagandist of experience must surely know that stereotypes are no more effective when purportedly factual than avowedly imaginary. Although this should make no difference, the article is not even funny; on my reading it did not even raise the involuntary and quickly regretted chuckle sometimes elicited by sick jokes. 

If I did not know that Sputnik had published excellent articles under another name, I would suggest that he sends his next offering to Punch, a magazine long renowned for bridging the gap between seriousness and humour by eschewing both.

John Usher

London SW4

 

Reply: 

We have received many letters in a similar vein and note the points made.

Editors.

I believe 'Sputnik' was a one-off pen-name for Harry Young ('Horatio' in the Socialist Standard).

Capitalism v. Socialism (1986)

From the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism is not a practical way of organising society. It gets in the way between humans and our needs. The theory of capitalist economics is that the market is a means of satisfying demand as people buy what they want. In reality, the converse is true: the market stands as a barrier between the worker and his or her needs being satisfied.

The basis of capitalism is commodity production. Goods and services are produced primarily with a view to sale and profit. For example, the owner of land producing grain has the main objective of the sale of grain for profit. If a profit cannot be expected, the landowner is discouraged from allowing grain to be produced because if there is more of it in the market than can be sold profitably prices will fall and the sale will not make a profit.

That is why now. in what is called by capitalist economists a crisis of grain overproduction. landowners are either taking land out of cultivation or storing or destroying their grain. This is all very logical in terms of the capitalist system where profit comes first.

A naive person might observe that grain is being consciously destroyed while workers are starving in parts of the world for lack of grain and conclude that there is something perverse about talk of food over-production. How can food be surplus to requirements while millions of human beings — yes millions — are dying of starvation? The wise defender of capitalism will explain to the naive observer that requirements under capitalism are invisible unless they can be paid for: the starving worker who has no money has no hunger as far as the market is concerned. That is the logic of the present system, sometimes known as "the magic of the market".

Other examples of this social perversion which our leaders call economic rationality are abundant. In Britain there are tens of thousands of homeless families. Indeed, in London every night you can see plenty of men and women sleeping on the pavements within the vicinity of luxury hotels. Many thousands more live in squalid homes. It cannot be disputed that new and better housing is not needed. But far from building new homes for the homeless and the slum-dwellers. there is currently a virtual absence of house construction and half a million building workers are on the dole. Why? Because there is a crisis of "over-production" — no market requirement for new homes. Of course, luxury homes are being built for those with plenty of money, but for those without it the misery of homelessness or slum living is the only option.

It is not that we are unable to produce to satisfy human needs. On the contrary, society has never before been so technologically capable of doing so. In comparison with earlier centuries, when men and women were still engaged in the battle to conquer nature, we are now well able to feed, clothe and house the world population of over four billion. We live in an age of potential material abundance.

The problem is not of management or government. Some workers say that if only we got rid of Thatcher or Reagan or Gorbachev or Mitterrand (different enemies depending where they live) all would be well. But would things be any better if the American CPers got their Gorbachev and the Russian Westernisers got their Reagan and the British Labourites got their Mitterrand and the French Conservatives got their Thatcher? All that would happen is that the same unworkable system would be administered by different leaders with different slogans but with the same need to keep in line with the laws of the market. Under capitalism governments do not control the market — it dominates them. The history of sincere politicians doing nasty things is proof enough of that.

Take unemployment. It doubled under the last Labour government. They blamed if on the world market. The Tories proclaimed that "Labour Isn't Working" and promised to deal with the problem. Unemployment doubled again under the Tories. They blame the world market. Now the Labour Party, relying on the short memories of the working class. complain that the Tories have brought about unemployment and they will deal with the problem. The fact is that both sides were liars and both sides were telling the truth: they were liars in opposition when they claimed that they could solve unemployment and they were telling the truth when they were on the spot and they admitted that they were not in control. World capitalism causes unemployment because labour power, being a commodity to be bought and sold, is not needed as much during a period of depression (over-production for the market) as it is when the market is booming.

According to capitalist economics, money is necessary for the satisfaction of needs. Give people money and they will be happy. Most workers would agree with that. Most workers lack money to the extent that they can properly satisfy their needs. Socialists argue that it is only when nobody has any money that they will be happy. This odd statement needs to be explained. Where money exists there is property. Money is used so that those who do not own can buy from those who do. Under capitalism a minority of the population own and control the major resources of the earth. Even though it is the working class who produce the goods and services, we must buy them from the owning capitalist class. So you might work all day at Dagenham building Ford cars, but unless you can afford the money you will not drive one. In short, money allows those who produce everything to buy a little piece of it back from those who produce nothing. Socialists advocate a new system of society in which everyone owns the world in common. In such a social order there will be no owners to buy things from because everything which is produced will belong to all of us. Production will no longer be for profit, but for use. In a socialist society there will be nobody to buy anything from, so money will be useless — it will be abolished, just as the tram lines were when trams went out of existence.

Let us take the example of the homeless person. Under capitalism the homeless worker does not exist in the eyes of the market. only coming to life as a paying tenant. In a socialist society two questions will need to be asked. Firstly, who needs to be housed? Secondly, what is the best way to satisfy these needs? Obviously, production is a material process which calls for labour, resources and planning. Nobody need sit in an office with a calculator working out whether it is profitable to provide shelter for people. The world will belong to everyone and everyone will have an equal right to decent shelter. Socialism will not solve the housing problem by stuffing money into a cement mixer. Money creates nothing — except problems for the majority of people who have too little of it. In a moneyless society people will have free access to goods and services.

Adherents to capitalism's market dogma say that socialism is not practical. It is the common error of an unscientific mind to think that what has never been tried could not work. People used to say that about aeroplanes. In fact, a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of all social resources would be far more practical than the capitalist system. In a world where production is solely for use there will be no need to ignore human desires simply because there is no profit to be made out of them. Is it not practical to have a society which is solely concerned with achieving what is technically possible, rather than tying itself up with the artificial constraints of the market? When we enjoy free access to the goods and services of the earth no child will cry with hunger and no old person will freeze because food or heating cost more than they can afford. They will be freely available to all. Only when they are can we speak of ourselves as living in a free society.

Defenders of capitalism, worried by how reasonable and workable the case for socialism appears, tell us that there is some invisible but immutable characteristic called human nature which will stop socialism from being practical. According to them, human beings are too unco-operative and unintelligent to live in a socialist society. Socialists deny this, but if we are wrong then socialism will never come about, because inherently unco-operative people will forever put up with the ruthless competition of capitalism and naturally unintelligent workers will permanently endure the poverty which the system offers them. Our experience is that workers do not like the consequences of capitalism: they are less stupid than capitalism's defenders hope, but not yet wise enough to see how easy it would be to create a fundamentally different way of running society. Socialists do not believe for one minute that workers enjoy poverty and homelessness and hypothermia and long hospital waiting lists and mass starvation. Nor will workers ever be brainwashed to do so. In fact, our experience tells us that our fellow workers are capable of thinking reasonably. of acting wisely, of organising co-operatively. So far such behaviour has been donated to those who benefit from capitalism: it is the millionaires who live in privilege thanks to the workers' strength and knowledge. Once those weapons are used in the cause of real human co-operation, socialism will be more than a practical proposal — it will be seen as the only sane way to live.

Steve Coleman

Jarrow: the truth that was murdered (1986)

From the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jarrow is a trigger word for the British labour movement, detonating emotions, prejudices and false reputations; for half a century it has given nourishment to the misconceptions of Labour politicians. Fifty years ago this month the Jarrow march (it called itself a crusade) set out to bring a petition to parliament from the stricken Tyneside town. It was, to be sure, a moving episode in working class history. now to be celebrated by another march which will climax with the presentation of another petition, worded just as it was in 1936. Most of those taking part will no doubt be sure that they are doing something significant about unemployment and poverty. The crucial question will evade them: why must it happen again, fifty years later?

Labour's propaganda victory of the 1940s was largely based on their asserting that prewar poverty and unemployment was the result of the policies of a heartless Tory government. In support of this, free use was made of photographs of events like the Jarrow march, with nostalgic references to the town's Labour MP, Ellen Wilkinson. In this way the Labour Party succeeded in identifying itself with the march and with the idea that, had they been in power at the time, there would have been no reason for it to happen. In fact the march was not a Labour Party demonstration; it was a protest on behalf of the whole town, the petition was carried jointly by the Conservative and Labour agents and at the time a truce was observed in the local elections. Even more: far from supporting the march the Labour Party and the TUC condemned it. At the Labour conference which took place while the march was on the road the NEC representative made a scathing attack on Ellen Wilkinson. The TUC advised all trades councils to ignore the march. Of course not all of them took this advice but when they did hospitality was often provided to the marchers by the local Conservative Party, or the Territorial Army, or businessmen.

Jarrow's established reputation for militancy comes from its mistaken association with the marches of the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, which happened regularly in the 1930s and which were larger, more demanding and often riotous. Jarrow was anything but riotous; it would be more accurate to describe it as a company town. As it developed during the second half of the 19th century its central industry — in effect its only one — was C. M. Palmer's shipyard, which took advantage of the change from wooden to iron ships to develop a screw-driven collier. Palmer's financial policies have been described, in retrospect, as "exuberant'. which implies that they were recklessly optimistic but at the time they could have had few critics. By 1860 the company was dominant among the iron ship builders of the Tyne. It had grown into a huge, integrated business with its own ironstone mines, its own port, its own coal mines and steel furnaces. Palmer's workforce included a large proportion of highly skilled men such as boilermakers and ship wrights. the kind who are sometimes referred to as an ''aristocracy of labour". Until 1921 Jarrow was, by working class standards, one of the better-off towns, where wages were relatively high. Its people were confident that things would stay that way.

This was reflected in the way Jarrow voted. Until the turn of the century it was a Liberal stronghold. Before 1907 the Unionists would not even contest the seat and one Labour MP grumbled that "There was never a more hopeless constituency for a Labour candidate to attack than Jarrow in the nineties. Sir Charles Mark Palmer, the sitting member, was the most popular man in the north of England". The secretary of the Jarrow march described the place as "more a Tory town than it is a Labour town". After Palmer's death in 1907 the Labour Party won the seat but it then changed between Labour and Liberal until 1929, when a Conservative won there, inflicting on Labour their second worst result in the North-East. When Ellen Wilkinson won the seat in 1935 the Tory vote was as high as 47 per cent. Wilkinson had been a member of the Communist Party, changing to Labour when the Labour Party made it impossible to be a member of both parties. She accumulated the familiar reputation for fearless militancy but — and this again is a familiar story — her career peaked when she became Minister of Education in the 1945 Labour government, which was continually at odds with the Communist Party over its policies both at home and abroad.

In many ways Jarrow represented the economic changes which were forced on British capitalism during the first half of the 20th century. By the 1930s it was accepted by all but the hardest of die-hards that British capitalism had lost for good many of the export markets which it had once dominated and on which so much of its wealth and power rested. As heavy industry and mining, located mainly in the North, went into decline capital was switched to lighter, consumer-orientated industries in the Midlands and South. Jarrow's dependence on Palmer's made it particularly vulnerable in any such movement; the First World War demand for shipping postponed the inevitable but by 1921 the brief post-war boom was at an end and shipbuilding was badly hit. In December that year 36 per cent of the industry's workforce were unemployed, by the following August in Jarrow 43 per cent were out of work. Palmer's were unable to take advantage of the partial recovery which followed and Jarrow might be said to have led the way into the slump of 1929. In July 1932 Palmer 's launched its last ship and in 1933 the yard was closed. By 1934 there were 67.8 per cent of the town's insured workers unemployed, by 1935 it was 72.9 per cent and by 1936 it had reached 80 per cent.

J. B. Priestley, in his English Journey, described Jarrow as he saw it in 1933: "Wherever we went there were men hanging about, not scores of them but hundreds and thousands of them". The town had long suffered a high incidence of tuberculosis — the result of bad housing, malnourishment and topography — in spite of its relative prosperity. In the 1930s the rate of TB rose to double the national average. In 1934, when the infant mortality rate was 47 for each thousand live births in the Home Counties, in Jarrow it was 114. So alarmed was the Board of Education at the malnutrition among Jarrow's schoolchildren that they sent a request to the council to increase free school meals.

Little wonder that Jarrow should feel, in its desperate plight, that an especially harsh discrimination was being applied to it. If, as the title of the famous book has it, it was The Town That Was Murdered who., or what, did the killing? During the recessions of the 1920s and the 1930s some industries attempted to defend themselves by forming cartels with the object of restricting (they called it "co-ordinating" or "rationalising") production and marketing, in the hope that this would enable part of the industry to survive in profitability. Much the same thing happens now in. for example, the oil industry. The steel industry organised the British Iron and Steel Federation, which set itself to oppose any efforts by non-members to open up production. It was opposition from the BISF which caused the abandonment of a plan for an integrated steel plant in Jarrow — the event which sparked off the march.

The shipbuilders' cartel was National Shipbuilders Security Ltd. set up in 1930 with most of the industry and the big banks as shareholders. The NSS was financed through a levy on its members and its object was to buy up shipyards and then "sterilise” them. By 1934, in this way, it had finished off 137 berths, or two-fifths of the British industry. with a production capacity over a million tons. Among them was Palmer s yard at Jarrow, which went into receivership in 1933 and was sold — delivered up to — the NSS in 1934.

With their dreams and their confidence in tatters, it was tempting for desperate, starving workers to think of Jarrow as being murdered. cut off in its prime, by a small group of greedy capitalists supported by a pitiless government. This is a common enough reaction to unemployment; it goes with the theory that capitalism's problems — its disorder, its crises, its inadequacies — are abnormal and could be avoided by running the system differently. Jarrow, it was said, was the victim of a monstrous crime and crime is. or should be. abnormal.

By the standards under which capitalism must operate, what happened to Jarrow was perfectly normal and reasonable. This society does not produce wealth to meet people's needs, or employ them so that they can be healthy and happy. Its wealth is produced for sale on the market, intended to yield a profit to the minority who possess the means of production and distribution, including things like steel works, mines, shipyards and ships. Workers are employed, that is to say their labour power is bought by the capitalists, in order to turn out that wealth. But it is impossible to predict how the market will behave, to control it. to guarantee that it will always absorb what has been produced. That is why every so often there is a "surplus" of some sorts of goods, however much people may need them. When sales are high, in a boom, "exuberant" investment policies are praised as divine wisdom; in a recession they are condemned as blindly irresponsible. So it was with Palmer's; had things turned differently the company would have been a favourite among the economic experts and the apologists for capitalism as a masterpiece of financial and industrial genius.

Jarrow was badly hit in the slumps of the 1920s and 1930s but it was not alone for the entire shipbuilding industry was in decline. In 1920 British yards turned out over 2 million tons but by 1933 this had fallen to 133.000 tons. In 1932 the industry had nearly 60 per cent unemployment; that was the year when, according to the Home Office, two unemployed men committed suicide every day. There was a similar story in towns which had depended on other branches of heavy industry; Dowlais. Brynmawr and Motherwell, for example, all had unemployment at about 75 per cent in 1934.

Some of this must have been in the minds of the Jarrow marchers, as they assembled for their trek to London. This was one of the smaller of the many protest marches of that time — 200 selected men compared to the thousands who would take part in the demonstrations organised by the NUWM. It did not demand better benefits or more humane treatment for the unemployed; its object was to persuade the government to direct investment into the town. The marchers were generally regarded benignly by the police (Special Branch kept close observation on all demonstrations by the unemployed for no matter how desperate working class poverty may be it could be permitted to arouse only the best-mannered of protests), the press and the government — in contrast to the NUWM marches which were battered with relentless sneers and criticism and, by the police, with unprovoked assaults.

As the Jarrow men made their way to London The Times congratulated them on their stoicism and sympathetically reported their blistered feet and their fatigue. They enthusiastically cheered King Edward VIII. who happened to be passing by in The Mall. The Home Office agreed that, as ". . . the marchers show every sign of being orderly, it would be a good way of encouraging them and placating them" to allow them to be entertained in the Houses of Parliament. Taking tea with the MPs was hardly the way to bring down capitalism, or even to change its course. Even more, friendly Members took them on a boat trip down the Thames, which caused them to be absent from the climax of the march — the presentation of their petition. They also missed the government's response, which was bluntly translated for them by a Jarrow councillor: "It means you have drawn a blank". The next day the Jarrow men caught the train back home, to the end "well disciplined . . . conduct was exemplary" in the words of the police report.

Apart from putting the town's name and that of its MP — into the history books and the laying out of one small public park, there was nothing to show for the Jarrow march. Its objectives were restricted and short term but even at that they were beyond its reach. No government can change the nature of capitalism or divert it from its natural course and that was why they had to refuse to do anything to revive industry in Jarrow. They even stopped the marchers' unemployment pay, on the grounds that they were not available for work for the period of the march (there was, of course, no work in Jarrow for them to be available for. but never mind). Capitalism continued on its troubled way; while Jarrow agonised the excessively rich Tory MP Henry Channon set out in his diary some of the difficulties his class were experiencing in early 1937:

[I] had a large dinner party . dinner was magnificent. Lady Granard could hardly walk for jewels.

And later that

I find a new, unexpected joy at the age of nearly forty, in accumulating money and watching it grow.

Those appallingly smug words illuminate the real social and political issue, in the 1930s and now — the class division of society based on the private ownership of the means of life. As Channon wrote, one per cent of the population owned 56 per cent of the wealth in private hands. The situation is very little different today. The social system which exploits and impoverishes the majority, which forced the men of Jarrow to that moving, fruitless crusade, remains in being. Now. after another post-war boom, we are in another recession which again has affected the shipyards of the Tyne. Unemployment in the area is at 25.6 per cent. This is what brings the people of Jarrow to London once more, to set down their protest at the effects of capitalism but giving no thought to abolishing the system. That the famous march must happen again, fifty years on. is no cause for celebration for it demonstrates how futile it was in 1936 — and how futile today.

Ivan

Syndicalism: its origins and weaknesses (1986)

From the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Eighty years ago this month the main French trade union confederation of the time adopted at its Congress in Amiens a Charter which, spreading far beyond France, became the doctrinal basis of a theory of unionism and revolution known as “syndicalism” (this is in fact merely the ordinary French word for trade unionism, so in France this doctrine is known as “revolutionary syndicalism “). As this doctrine has played an important historical role in working class thinking and organisation, we mark this event by publishing below an English version of the chapter on trade unionism that appeared in the pamphlet Pour le Socialisme Mondial (“For World Socialism”) put out in French by the world socialist movement in 1981 and which reproduced the Charter in full as well as giving a socialist assessment of it.

Associations of workers of the same trade have existed since the Middle Ages but only became organisations of wage earners to negotiate wage rates and conditions of work with employers in the middle of the 19th century. Up till then these associations had been mainly mutual aid societies, but even these had been banned by the Le Chapelier Law of 1791 which was later incorporated into the Napoleonic Code. Workers’ associations nevertheless continued to exist. It was not until 1864 that they were permitted to come out into the open and not until 1884 that they were fully legalised.

In the 1860s the main workers’ organisation in France was the “Association Internationale des Travailleurs” (International Working Men’s Association) which had been founded in 1864 by French and British workers. Although Karl Marx played a prominent role in its activities the IWMA was not a socialist organisation but was mainly concerned with organising trade unions and supporting strikes. It did, however, introduce some socialist ideas to French workers. Thus in 1869 we find a federation of workers’ organisations in Paris proclaiming as its final aim “the total emancipation of the workers in a new social order where the wages system will be abolished” and in 1870 Leo Frankel declaring (not quite accurately) during a trial of some French members of the IWMA that “the international association does not have as its aim an increase in the wage of workers, but indeed the abolition of the wages system”. This demand for “the abolition of the wages system” had first been raised by the British Chartists in the 1830s and 1840s and had been taken up by Marx in an address he gave to the General Council of the IWMA in 1865 (published after his death as a pamphlet entitled Value, Price and Profit which we strongly recommend for an understanding of trade unionism, its uses and limitations). It was to become a prominent slogan of French trade unionism in the period up till the First World War, after the working class movement had recovered from the setback represented by the bloody suppression of the Paris Commune in 1871.

In 1895 various trade unions and other workers’ organisations joined together to form a “Confédération générale du travail” (General Confederation of Labour) which in 1902 declared its objective to be “the disappearance of the wages system and employers”. In 1906 the CGT adopted at its congress in Amiens a new programme. In view of its historical importance we reproduce (in a contemporary translation) this “Charte d’Amiens” in full:

“The General Confederation of Labour unites, independent of all political groupings, all workers who recognise the struggle to be carried on for the abolition of the wages system [. . .]

Congress considers this declaration to be a recognition of the class struggle which, on the economic field, places the workers in revolt against all forms of exploitation and oppression, material and moral, carried out by the capitalist class against the working class.

      Congress makes this theoretical affirmation more precise by the following points:

Regarding day-to-day needs. Trade Unionism pursues the co-ordination of the efforts of the workers, the increase of the workers’ welfare through the realisation of immediate amelioration, such as the shortening of working hours, wage increases, etc.

But this is only one aspect of its task. Trade Unionism is preparing complete emancipation which can only be realised by the expropriation of the capitalist class. It favours as a means to this end the general strike and considers that the trade union, now a unit of resistance, will in the future be the unit of production and distribution, the basis of social organisation.

Congress declares that this two-fold task, for day-to-day life and for the future, arises from the actual position of wage-earners, which forces the working class and imposes on all workers, whatever their opinion and political and philosophical views, the duty to belong to the basic organisation, the trade union. Therefore, so far as individual members are concerned, Congress declares complete freedom for every Trade Unionist to participate, outside of the trade organisation, in any forms of struggle in accordance with his political or philosophical views, confining itself only to asking him, in return, not to introduce into the trade union the opinions which he professes outside it.

In so far as organisations are concerned, Congress decides that in order that Trade Unionism may obtain utmost effectiveness, economic action should be exercised directly against the employing class and that the Confederal organisations should not, as trade unions, pay any attention to parties or sects which, outside or alongside, may pursue completely independently the transformation of society.”

The doctrine here expounded became a current in the working class movement that has become known as “syndicalism”. Only some of the leaders of the CGT accepted this doctrine and regarded the trade unions and the general strike as the means to overthrow capitalist rule and establish a new society. The bulk of the members were interested only in “day to day needs”, though they were sometimes prepared to support revolutionary phrases as a means of frightening employers into conceding higher wages or better conditions.

The Charter was not as anti-political as it has sometimes been claimed to be. It does not proclaim the incompatibility of trade union and political action, but only that political divisions should not be introduced into the trade unions. This was sensible, since to be effective in their role of bringing pressure to bear on employers over wages and working conditions trade unions need to organise as many workers as possible, irrespective of their political or philosophical views. They are, and must be, composed of workers of all views. To introduce political views (including the anti-politicaI views of the anarchists) is to risk division, so weakening the union in the face of the employers. In recognising this the Charter of Amiens adopted a sound position (one which is unfortunately not always remembered today).

Trade unions arise out of the wage-relation that is at the basis of capitalism. Capitalist society is divided into two classes: the capitalist class who own and control the means of production and the working class who, excluded from such ownership and control, are forced to sell their mental and physical energies in order to live. The wage which workers receive is the price of their labour-power and the price of this commodity fluctuates, like that of all commodities, around its value as determined by the amount of socially-necessary labour incorporated in it. If competition between workers for jobs was unrestricted then wages would tend to fall below the value of labour-power, as often happened in the 19th century before effective trade unions existed. Combining together in trade unions to exert collective pressure on employers is a way workers can prevent their wages falling below the value of their labour-power. Put another way, it is a way of ensuring that they are paid the full value of what they have to sell. This is the usefulness of trade unions to the working class but they can do no more than this. They cannot substantially increase the living standards of their members under capitalism but they can ensure that wages are not reduced below the subsistence level.

Trade unions, then, are defensive organisations of the working class which, in order to be effective, must recruit all workers, on the basis merely that they work for wages in a particular industry or trade and not on the basis of their political or philosophical views. This means that they are not, and cannot be, revolutionary organisations since they will be composed of non-socialists as well as of socialists. In fact at the present time, when the working class does not yet want and understand socialism, the overwhelming majority of trade unionists will inevitably be non-socialist and hence non-revolutionary. This was so before the First World War too. This was why it was absurd to expect, as did the syndicalists, the trade unions to act in a revolutionary way for this was to expect non-revolutionaries to behave as revolutionaries.

To end capitalism the great majority of workers must have first come to want and understand this change since the new socialist society which will be established in place of capitalism can only function with the conscious and active participation of its members—something the syndicalists did not accept. They imagined that they, as a conscious minority, could lead the discontented mass of workers in a general strike against capitalism. This would inevitably have been defeated with many workers being killed, especially as the anti-political stand of the syndicalists meant that the state, which controls the means of coercion, was to be left in the hands of a government representing the capitalist class.

Although the sincerity of the syndicalists’ desire to end capitalism cannot be questioned, their understanding of the future society to replace it can be. In suggesting that society should be organised on the basis of trade unions—“the trade union [. . .] will in the future be the unit of production and distribution, the basis of social organisation”—the syndicalists were merely projecting into socialism the industrial and professional divisions of workers which exist under capitalism. Since socialism is based on the social ownership (= ownership by society) of the means of production, the trade union ownership proposed by the syndicalists was not socialism at all but a modified form of sectional ownership.

The First World War revealed that not only were the bulk of CGT members not revolutionary but that they were patriotic. From this time on began a process of collaboration with and integration into the state by the trade unions which continues to this day, with the unions represented on many governmental institutions at national and local level and receiving subsidies from the state for certain of their activities. Trade unionism, in other words, has dropped its pretence at being revolutionary, though the present CGT did not eliminate its paper commitment to “the disappearance of the wages system and of employers” till 1969. This has led some to argue that as the trade unions are no longer revolutionary they should not be supported by those who want social revolution, but should on the contrary be opposed. This is not a fair criticism nor a valid conclusion.

The trade unions are essentially defensive organisations with the limited role of protecting wages and working conditions and it is by this criterion that their effectiveness or otherwise ought to be judged. By this standard, although they make many serious mistakes (disunity and rivalry, collaboration with the state and with political parties), by and large the existing trade unions do succeed in protecting wage rates and working conditions against what Marx called “the never-ceasing encroachments of capital”. Our members do join the existing trade unions and work within them to defend wages and conditions. We do not criticise the unions for not being revolutionary, but we do severely criticise them when they depart from the principle of an antagonism of interests between workers and employers; when they collaborate with employers, the state or political parties; when they put the corporate interests of a particular section of workers above that of the general interest of the working class as a whole.

But even if the unions made no mistakes of this sort, what they can achieve for the working class under capitalism is very limited. They can—and do—enable workers to get the full value of their labour-power, but they cannot stop the exploitation of the working class. This exploitation is inherent in the wages system and can only be abolished along with it through the conversion of the means of production into common ownership under the democratic control of the whole community. But this requires political action based on socialist understanding by a socialist political party for which the trade unions, with their limited defensive role, can never be a substitute.

Adam Buick

Between the Lines: A very silly season (1986)

The Between the Lines Column from the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

A very silly season

The MPs' summer holiday — a modest break of ten weeks or so — is known by the media hacks as "the silly season". Without leaders to observe and interview the TV reporters are traditionally short of "news" to feed the working class. So, when a giraffe gets its neck stuck in the railings in Chessington Zoo or a tramp is found dead with a 1911 copy of The Tatler stuffed down his pants (the best place for it) it is several hundred times more likely to be "news" when the MPs are on holiday than when momentous things are happening in parliament — like when a Welsh Nationalist broke the arm off the Speaker's Chair.

Silliest of the silly TV "news' stories of the summer of '86, far outclassing even the policeman from Shropshire who handcuffed his wife and couldn't find the key to unlock her, or the expert in memory improvement who forgot to turn up for the Wogan show, was the case of the elderly parasite and the fish bone. It was on a Saturday in late August when the news broke: a silly ITN newsreader with a very serious facial expression announced to the nation that "Her Majesty, the Queen Mother has been taken by helicopter from her castle in Ayrshire to a hospital in Aberdeen after complaining of discomfort in the throat caused by what could be a fish bone eaten last night". The bulletins (and they went on throughout the evening and all the next day) went from bad to worse. On were brought throat specialists and fish specialists and bone specialists. Then we were shown a film of that awful, awful occasion only four years ago when the same woman had another fish bone stuck down her gob and had to stay in hospital overnight. It was excruciatingly silly TV, even for the silly season.

Not long after — or was it before? one loses touch the ITN Silly Squad was despatched to film Mrs Thatcher going in and coming out of a hospital, there to have an operation to stop her fingers from pointing in the wrong direction. Oh, where would we be without live TV coverage to keep us so closely informed about such events? While viewers were given minute by minute coverage of the case of the recalcitrant fish bone, no TV coverage was given to a speech delivered by economist, Professor Alan Williams (Guardian, 2 September) in which he stated that kidney patients in need of expensive dialysis treatment should be denied it because hip replacement operations are cheaper to perform and worthier of the money spent by the NHS. "We should not shrink from following where the logic of that approach leads us that hospital dialysis should be restrained and total hip replacement expanded." What sort of social system is it that can allow workers in urgent need of dialysis treatment to suffer and perhaps die while it can glory in the news that when its arch-parasites have a bone in the throat or a pain in the little finger no treatment is too good, no helicopter fast enough, to satisfy their needs. If it was a fiction it would be silly, but as social reality it is sick.

The triumph of scientific analysis

For four weeks Channel Four ran a series (Wednesdays. 8.30pm) entitled The Triumph of Capitalism. Each week a chosen expert (who does the choosing? who does the excluding?) was given thirty full minutes to sit in front of the camera and examine the success or otherwise of the capitalist system. Three out of the four chosen experts were firmly pro-capitalism. This is what is known as balance. Had the three supporters of capitalism presented serious defences of the system as it is. we could have devoted space to examining their talks. In fact, the three defenders of capitalism neither understood the economic laws of the profit system nor attempted to explain how it could ever function without the anarchy and social devastation which it so evidently causes. Perhaps we should have expected nothing more.

The fourth programme in the series (Wednesday. 3 September) was presented by Professor Gerry Cohen, an Oxford Professor of Philosophy whose book, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A defence would be of interest to readers. Rarely, if ever, has the case against the capitalist system been presented in so eloquent and logical a manner on British TV. Cohen, through a process of rigorous historical and logical criticism, exposed the system as one of unearned minority privilege and legalised robbery. He pointed out that capitalism, far from setting out to satisfy needs, seeks above all to satisfy profit accumulation and this occurs at the expense of needs. Gerry Cohen did not go on to propose a socialist alternative (fortunately, considering a previous effort by him to do this on a TV discussion programme), but he did deny the alleged inevitability of capitalism and the oft-asserted impossibility of revolutionary social change. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that as far as his analysis went, and with the exception of minor theoretical points (for some reason he began by referring to workers selling their labour and only later used the Marxist term, labour power). Cohen's presentation could have been given by a member of The Socialist Party. Workers could do with more TV education like this — it compensates for the fish bones.

Steve Coleman

Blogger's Note:

A number of Professor Gerry Cohen's books were reviewed in the pages of the Socialist Standard. To read the reviews, click on the dates below.:

• Aug 1979: Karl Marx’s Theory of History by G. A. Cohen
• Feb 2002: If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? By G. A. Cohen
• Dec 2009: Why not socialism? By G. A. Cohen
• Jun 2011: On The Currency Of Egalitarian Justice. By G.A. Cohen

South African domination (1986)

Book Review from the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Apartheid's Second Front: South Africa's War Against Its Neighbours by Joseph Hanlon. (Penguin 1986).

As South Africa once again dominates the news, Hanlon's study provides a valuable addition to the analysis of the situation that exists there. South Africa's aim of domination within this area involves a mixture of military, political and economic action against its neighbours to create a buffer for the system of apartheid. South Africa's destabilisation policy has involved it in a war which has not hit the headlines but which has since 1980 "cost more than 100.000 lives and £10,000 million, and has made at least one million people homeless". This is part of the nightmare of South Africa. The aim of the war is to force dependency on South Africa by undermining the effectiveness of the economic organisation of the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC). Victims of that destabilisation have included Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi and Angola. South Africa also sees itself as a crusader against what it believes to be the rising tide of "Marxism" and for this reason it is prepared to back Unita forces opposed to Angola's so-called Marxist government. Lesotho and Swaziland are totally surrounded by South Africa and use the rand as their currency Along with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are also part of the customs union with South Africa. This is a system administered by South Africa in which there is free flow of goods within the four states with high tariffs on imports. Effectively this ensures South African domination because most businesses are located in South Africa and the high tariff rates necessitate purchase of goods from South Africa. SADCC attempts to relieve this reliance on South Africa by an integrated development including coordination and transport but all the neighbouring states are still integrally linked to South Africa. One aspect of this dependence can be seen in energy. South Africa is energy deficient but it still dominates. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland purchase all petroleum products from South Africa which also supplies significant amounts to Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia even though that oil is as much as 50 per cent dearer than world market prices. Similarly about 50 per cent of SADCC imports and exports go through South Africa although this is partly guaranteed by the fact that South Africa has bombed Angolan and Mozambiquan railways so that they could not carry traffic to and from ports in those countries.

The benefits to the South African ruling class of its destabilisation policy are fourfold. They ensure "security" insofar as they involve punitive attacks against ANC bases and escalate the notion of an outside threat. The creation of chaos and instability in neighbouring states allows South Africa to claim that alternatives to the apartheid system are less successful economically. The fact of economic dependence does not permit of a more aggressive policy against South Africa. Chaos elsewhere also makes South Africa appear as a bastion of stability in an economically backward area. Hence they can cry out against sanctions because, as Hanlon argues. “P. W. Botha talks of South Africa bringing 'salvation' to the neighbouring states, and of the west preventing this by actions against apartheid". The irony is that South Africa claims that it is being destabilised by the actions of its neighbours, by supporting the ANC and calling for boycotts and sanctions. It also justifies South Africa's destabilisation programme as retaliation. This includes arming rebels in Mozambique, Angola, Lesotho and Zimbabwe and cutting food supplies, as in Mozambique, Zambia and Lesotho in order that the indigenous populations would direct their frustrations at the individual governments. There have also been varied economic destabilisation tactics that have included limiting access to South Africa's railways, restricting migrant labour, closing borders, curbing imports, regulating exports and cutting electricity. This ensures South Africa's regional dominance, making the neighbouring states "a buffer against sanctions — just as Pretoria hopes to make them a barrier against liberation movements" This is why South Africa is opposed to SADCC which would free the neighbouring states from such reliance.

South Africa sees itself as the regional power of Southern Africa in the same way that USA operates in Latin America and USSR in Eastern Europe. Its incursions into neighbouring territories have been many and as Hanlon points out "commandos have raided seven of the neighbouring capitals and tried to assassinate two prime ministers". Only Malawi and Tanzania have escaped military insurgence. South Africa funds Unita, Mozambique National Resistance, the Lesotho Liberation Army and dissidents in Matabeleland in Zimbabwe. This adds to the claim that majority rule does not work.

There has been verbal support for SADCC from USA. Britain and West Germany but these countries have been less favourable to the notion of breaking with South Africa. Actual support for SADCC has come from countries without substantial investment in South Africa and have included Scandinavia, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium, while the USA, Britain and West Germany are more concerned about "their existing investments. markets and sources of minerals" in South Africa. Destabilisation may be a short term answer to South Africa's paranoia but it requires markets for its products and chaotic economies are not such markets. Developing capitalism in South Africa will bring divisions based on class rather than racial differences and a population capable of acting as a market. Hanlon's argument is that, although limited in their effect, sanctions, boycotts and disinvestment should be pursued against South Africa. Sometimes this is a facade pursued by countries, as is the case with Japan who bans investment but allows licences and technology transfer "so Japan is now South Africa's second largest trading partner and Japanese firms have 40 per cent of the South African market". For Britain and USA there has been a reluctance to impose sanctions, not that this is a point of principle (USA has wide ranging sanctions against Poland and Britain has done the same to Argentina). Hanlon argues that Britain must be prepared to suffer as a result of imposing sanctions and that this is a moral question. For Hanlon it is also a belief that this might constitute a long term investment for future majority rule might not look favourably on a Britain that was unwilling to take up such a moral stance There has been a high price to pay and SADCC in its report to OAU in mid 1985 said that between 1980 and 1984 destabilisation cost SADCC member states a total of £7,000 million as a result of war damage, higher transport costs, sanctions imposed by South Africa, production and export losses and caring for the many refugees. SADCC calls for sanctions even at the risk of its own suffering. The case that sanctions against South Africa will cause harm to the "frontline" states is the latest that South Africa has created to ensure its continued existence. It forces dependency as an act of calculated cynicism. Hanlon's answer is to replace one form of exploitation by another in the hope that capitalism without South Africa and apartheid will be an improvement. The dilemma for capitalism is the extent to which South Africa can survive with limited markets. For western capitalism the question of sanctions is one in which vested interests must be weighed against the possibility of future interests. In these economic arguments morality has a very minor role to play As for the majority black community they are merely the pawns calling for a voice in a world of rival capitalist interests.

Philip Bentley

Letter: Sexual preferences and socialism (1986)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sexual preferences and socialism

Dear Editors.

I would like to congratulate Haringey District Council for deciding to promote a "homosexual and lesbian awareness" programme in the schools they are in charge of.

I am 19, gay, and when at school, it was a dirty word, known as being gay. This is because I lived in a 1920s Tory area of St. Anne's near Blackpool, where you are outcast if you are anything but middle class, own a house, two cars, have two children at private school and vote Conservative.

People like that don't realise times have changed, and that people today should be able to have confidence in their sexual orientation, and be able to be open in their sexual preferences.

All I can hope for is that Labour win the next election, so that these shackles can be broken, and gay people can be fairly treated in confidence.

"UNHAPPY SOCIALIST”

Reply:

The continuation of the profit-system depends on the uncritical social conformity of the majority. Great pains are taken, from an early stage in our lives, to discipline us into being "normal" and to treat abnormality with suspicion and often with contempt. As "Unhappy Socialist" observes, the sort of normal aspirations which we are conditioned to accept involve getting a house and a family and settling down, frequently to a routine of grin-and-bear it. This is largely a very modest and unimaginative way to have to endure your life but even this modest goal presents serious financial and domestic problems for most people who bite the boring bait.

The main type of normality which workers are encouraged to adopt is that which makes them good wage-slaves. Unquestioning obedience to authority, dull resignation to a class-divided society, a view of human nature as inherently selfish and the requirement to see present society as the final stage of historical development, are all part of the mental make-up of a "normal" person. Normality. though, is a permeating precept. As a result, all sorts of unorthodox people are herded together by conventional wisdom (conditioned ignorance) and branded as abnormal. Even if their ideas or conduct do not directly attack the class system, they are labelled with disapproval with varying degrees of contempt from "eccentric" to "subversive". Some groups may not threaten the existing structure of normality in a way that could be seen as dangerous to capitalism's basic needs but they are despised because they refuse to be bound by convention. Some of the vehement tirades against the itinerant hippies recently chased by the authorities from one county to another were examples of this. Some infringements of normality may not endanger the class system, but from the viewpoint of the ruling class (whose ideas are in n the main put by the mass media) assaults on conventional conduct are to be strongly discouraged.

Human beings are capable of enjoying a wide range of sexual behaviour. But the variety of sexual expression which is subtly promoted by the way we are socially conditioned is that which results in Mr Normal marrying Mrs Normal and. after working hard for someone else, settling down to produce two little normallettes who will be encouraged to grow up and repeat the same pattern of behaviour. The only social environment in which human sexual experience will be likely to develop freely, unconstrained by prejudice and poverty, is a genuinely classless society: socialism. Because of the prevalent and routine frustrations of everyday life for workers under capitalism and the limited creative pleasures open to most people, sex has become a rather frenetic and obsessional preoccupation with many people. The sexual part of our behaviour might well be less frenzied or important in a more imaginatively creative world. It will more certainly be beyond the realms of taboo and insecurity which it often occupies today. In any event, for as long as the majority permit the continuation of a social system which causes most people to live in poverty and insecurity, there will be the risk that one or other minority groups will become a victimised scapegoat for social problems.

The Labour Party stands only to continue to run the profit system. If it attained power as the government. it would do as it has done in its eight previous administrations and preside over chaos, poverty and discontent. As with any type of government. it would need to foster a certain sort of normality and however "progressive" its legislation. the problems of class-society would continue to arise. History demonstrates that "enlightened governments" which profess to make life comfortable for workers often, when their policies have failed to deliver the goods (as is necessarily the case), leave a trail of bitterly reactionary attitudes in their wake. Perhaps Neil Kinnock was perversely trying to avoid such a future problem by actually aiming to get power over workers on the very basis of having such views when he recently said:

I'm a father, and no matter how much I try to convince myself towards the course of enlightenment. 1 know damn well that, put to the test. I'm what people would call a reactionary (Everywoman, August 1986)

We shall not enjoy a properly liberated society while we are trapped in the social system which consigns the majority to lives of impoverishment, "normality" and alienation Instead of hoping for yet another Labour government to run capitalism, we urge our correspondent to become a socialist and act for a democratic society.

Editors.

Letter: Sri Lanka (1986)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sri Lanka

Dear Editors,

I would like to draw your attention to a mistake in the article on Sri Lanka in the August issue of the Socialist Standard. The article states that the Tamils were brought to the island, then known as Ceylon, from India during British rule to work as cheap labour on the tea plantations. In fact, this group of "Indian" Tamils account for only about 1.2 million of the total Tamil population on the island. They lived until recently mainly on the plantations in central Sri Lanka.

The remaining 1.4 million Tamils live largely in the North and East of the island. They trace their history in Sri Lanka all the way back to the fifth or sixth century BC. when it is believed the Sinhalese began to settle on the island. By the time the Portuguese colonialists arrived in the 16th century AD. two separate kingdoms — Tamil in the North and Sinhalese in the South were well established. During the British colonial period these two kingdoms were brought under a single administration for the first time. At the time of Independence the idea of a separate Tamil state was regarded as rather extreme by most Tamils. Nevertheless the Tamils were concerned about their future status in an independent Sri Lanka, as they were considerably outnumbered by the Sinhalese.

The case of the Indian Tamils is quite different. They have had no share in the ancient history of either the Ceylon Tamils or the Sinhalese on the island. When they arrived in Sri Lanka they were scarcely better off than slaves. They were resented by the Sinhalese as they were settled on estates in the heart of the Sinhalese area. As the plantation economy boomed they found themselves marginally better off than the Sinhalese peasants in the area. The estates often provided them with some medical care, education and housing. They were disliked also by the Ceylon Tamils as they were mostly low caste Hindus living in abject poverty and dependent on the estates.

However, by the time of Independence they just outnumbered the Ceylon Tamils. They held considerable electoral sway in the central area of Sri Lanka, as they outnumbered the Sinhalese in these areas. Their vote ensured that eight Indian Tamil MPs went to parliament in 1947. In 1948 the Indian Tamils were disenfranchised and deprived of Sri Lankan citizenship. The Indian Tamil MPs were replaced by Sinhalese MPs This action gained the approval of the Ceylon Tamil leaders as well as the Sinhalese.

Since then there have been several agreements with India to repatriate several hundred thousand Indian Tamils and readmit the rest to Sri Lankan citizenship. These measures have been slow, largely unsuccessful, and have only added to the sufferings of the Indian Tamils. Conditions on the estates have deteriorated and the Indian Tamils live under conditions of considerable hardship.

However, it was not until 1977 that the two separate Tamil groups started to join forces. In that year violent anti-Tamil activity was directed at the Indian Tamil estate workers for the first time. This drove many of them out of the central area of Sri Lanka to the North, where they sought refuge with the Ceylon Tamils whose leaders by now were agitating for a separate state. Here they continue to be harassed by the state forces seeking out terrorist suspects.

KM

London

50 Years Ago: The Catholic Church and the Spanish Workers (1986)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Forefront among those who glory in the rebellion, justify the rebel atrocities, or seek to blacken the Government with misrepresentations are the Catholic Church in Spain, the Pope, and the bulk of the prominent Catholics in England along with their Press. The Universe has vied with the Daily Mail in gutter journalism. The Catholic Bishops, like Bishop Amigo of Southwark, have assisted in a widespread campaign to whitewash the rebels. Bishop Amigo was able to discover that they and their Moorish mercenaries “are fighting for God and their country” to prevent its "total destruction" (Manchester Guardian, September 4th). The Catholic Tablet, wholeheartedly on the side of the rebels but above the disreputable behaviour of such papers as the Universe, was nearer the truth when it admitted (August 1st) that the rebellion was begun by the rebels for "economic and class reasons" and could be broadly described "as a class war." The Tablet, however, was more far-seeing than Bishop Amigo, and has backed the rebels with a certain amount of misgiving: fortunately, a well-founded misgiving, for the civil war is going to do the Catholic Church in Spain more harm than 30 years of propaganda. Whether the rebels win or lose there are millions of Spanish workers and peasants who will never forget that when they tried to climb out of hideous poverty the Catholic Church helped the landowners and military leaders to grind them down again, by force of arms and with the aid of Moorish troops and every device of modern warfare.

[From an article, "The Catholic Church and the Spanish Workers", published in the Socialist Standard, October 1936.]

SPGB Meetings (1986)

Party News from the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

There were so many meetings advertised in the October 1986 Standard that I had to split the party news post into two. And I still didn't even get to include everyone listed in the label section. Apologies to Janie Percy-Smith, Cliff Begley, Steve Coleman, Pieter Lawrence, E. Hardy, Carl Pinel, Ralph Critchfield, Enfield & Haringey Branch, Islington Branch, Doncaster  . . . did I leave anyone out?

SPGB Meetings (1986)

Party News from the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

There were so many meetings advertised in the October 1986 Standard that I had to split the party news post into two. And I still didn't even get to include everyone listed in the label section. Apologies to Pieter Lawrence, Steve Coleman, Paul Bennett, West London Branch, Salford, Leeds, Manchester Branch . . . did I leave anyone out?

Rogues, Liars and Fools (1986)

From the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The general election is coming and the dinosaurs of capitalist politics are making their way to seaside towns, there to think up ways of winning votes from wage slaves. Out will spew the cliches and the promises and the rhetoric of reformist hope. Into the homes of the working class, via TV and press, will come the speeches of sterile minds locked into a system long past its historical usefulness. Capitalism is outdated: it is out of line with what we could produce to satisfy needs, with how we could live if only we threw their system onto the scrapheap.

At the party conferences those who believe in capitalism — the utopian form which they think will result from their schemes — talk themselves into beliefs which are defied by experience and logic. The Tories proclaim that all we need is a few more years of Thatcherite toughness. The Liberals giggle among themselves, consoled with vague hopes about forming a different kind of government — with the SDP to lend a bit of extra indecision to their confused outlook. Then the Labourites — nice, new slick Kinnocky types —make speeches about how it will not be easy under them, but at least the suffering will be administered by men who know how to look like they care.

At every Tory conference at least one nutter is allowed up to give the troops what they want: whipping soccer louts (back to public school perversions for a few backbenchers) and giving the school kids a few more Victorian values to screw them up. Anything to please the old ladies with blue rinses: after all, the silly old ducks will be leaving their fortunes to the Smith Square coffers before too long. At the Liberal conference they usually put up at least one philosopher each year: invariably a bearded chap from Yorkshire who drones on about fairness in the rural areas and better bus services for the disabled. Liberals clap and think of Gladstone who by all accounts was a right old swine. Every year the Labourites allow up one — sometimes more — r-r-r-revolutionary who yells about Clause Four and betrayals by the leadership and dire warnings that the kids in Liverpool can only take so much. These are the exceptions, allowed to get near the microphone so that the believers can be heard.

Most people who attend party conferences are followers. Their political function is to clap, cheer and. on special occasions, give standing ovations. On very special occasions — like the cabinet being almost blown up they're allowed to offer standing ovations before the speech has even been made. Saves listening to it. These are the political fools: the men and women who have been conned by hopes for capitalism. Some of them lose their foolish illusions and stop clapping; more of them will. You can't listen to politicians for very long without having a few doubts.

Apart from the fools there are the rogues. The climbing boys of politics — nothing to do with chimneys, but twice as dirty. Their task in life is to get power. Not power to share or power to help or power to teach, but power to dominate the powerless. They look at it this way: it's a filthy bloody rat-race out there, so I had better aim to be the top rat. Life in a capitalist political party is not. as many outside them believe, mainly about distributing leaflets and debating policies. Such trivial pursuits are left to the fools. The real struggle in politics is between the rogues: the committee manipulators; the infiltrators; the rule-twisters; the gasbags who know how to squeeze a few votes out of someone else's misery. To be a successful political rogue involves back-stabbing, petty and less petty corruption, and deviousness turned into an art form or a perversion. If you want to succeed in politics (as opposed to being a following fool, which is free and open to any sucker) have no illusions about principles or honesty or decency. They are not the qualities required for winning the race to become a governor within capitalism — they are the characteristics required for losing it.

Then there are the liars: the ones who pretend. These political know-nothings are either the victims of bad memories or. more often, they live in the expectation that workers are suffering from a collective loss of memory. There are Labourites who talk about the good old days of social justice when hospitals never closed down and it was a pleasure to be a wage slave. Or the Tories who tell us how much better off we are now that Britain has had seven years of "sensible'' government. We are expected to swallow these myths, like kiddies who are told that if they go to sleep early on Christmas Eve Santa will deliver the goods. The liars are only happy when workers are half-listening, half-observing, half-remembering. Then they can catch us with their speeches, crammed to the top with well-flavoured deception. The fools like it; the rogues use it; Kinnock, Thatcher, Owen and Steel are doing "very nicely, thank you" out of it. The workers have nothing to gain from putting up with it. Let them have their sterile conferences and immerse themselves in the dogmas of an anachronistic social order. The conscious working man or woman will see through the illusion, and seen through by enough of us it will not be there.

Steve Coleman