What price democracy? (1992)

Cartoon by George Meddemmen.

From the September 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the collapse of what we were encouraged to believe was communism in eastern Europe, another clutch of nations are undergoing the birth pangs of what passes for freedom in the so-called western democracies.

Unquestionably, it is better to live in a society where there is some degree of democracy than in one where opposition to the regime is not tolerated. The question is, however, how democratic are the democratic countries and how much benign repression is concealed by the illusion of freedom?

We have all heard the boast that America is a classless society and that any man or woman, whatever his or her origins, can become the nation’s chief executive. That no-one is debarred from the office of President on the grounds of being a cheat, a liar or a fool, is demonstrated by the history, past and present, of US Presidents. On the other hand, neither a woman nor a black person have had the distinction of being selected and, while it is possible that the colour and sex prohibition may be overcome in the future, the likelihood of someone who is not immensely rich succeeding to the Presidency of the United States is extremely unlikely.

In the struggle for electoral victory in the US Presidential elections money is a primary factor. It is not expensive, of course, to advise the voting public about the real issues that concern their future; but it does cost the most fantastic amounts of money to obscure the reality of both the present and the future. All the work of programme preparation, the prime media time, the wages and salaries of artisans and specialists in all sorts of hype and media trickery, conning with paper hats, raspberry blowers, millions of posters carrying asinine slogans, telling lies, using private detectives to look for dirt with which to expose an opponent. The disgusting circus that passes for democracy at Presidential level is very, very expensive stuff in which there is no place for ideas or concepts that cannot be backed by multi-millions of dollars.

Of course the election of a President is a two-horse race. We don’t even hear about the other candidates nor, indeed, do most Americans. There is no bar on socialists, or any other grouping, running for office—that’s the basis of the claim that America is a democracy—but without the massive wealth to buy the organisation, media time etc. that the Republicans and Democrats can deploy, that claim is patently fraudulent.

The system is not necessarily fashioned to repress the free expression of ideas but that is what it does. Western capitalism uses the power of money to benignly repress the general dissemination of ideas with even more efficacy than eastern state capitalism repressed ideas with terror. In the latter, the means used to suppress inexorably created their own reaction; in the former, since all are theoretically free to express their ideas and are gagged by lack of money, the public—conditioned to accept the economic logic of people even dying because they do not have the money to buy the food, shelter or medical care they need—can easily accept the financial suppression of ideas as being consistent with the democracy of the market.

Power of money

The same two-horse race as takes place between the Democrats and Republicans in the US takes place in Britain; here the runners are the Conservative Party and the Labour Party—with the so-called Liberal Democrats anxious to supplant one or other of the runners.

In Britain—especially following the revelation that one of the biggest press barons was a despicable crook who even stole from his retired workers—it would be freely admitted that, as in all the other so-called democratic countries, the press is owned and controlled by unscrupulous racketeers who have the power to influence millions of people every day. But it would be argued that at least the more influencial electronic media is largely free of undemocratic practices. Unlike the United States, where politicians and political interest groups can buy radio and TV lime, the electronic media here is allegedly protected against undemocratic abuse by rigorously enforced guidelines.

In fact these guidelines are even more repressive of genuine democratic practice than the American system. While it is true that in the United States those political parties serving the political needs of the capitalist class can buy the most potent means of controlling and conditioning masses of people and that this is the opposite of democratic, it is also true that interests outside the big parties can buy such exposure for their ideas as their necessarily meagre finances allow. In Britain, minority voices are denied access to the mass communication media except, of course, if they can muster amounts of money far greater than would be required for a modest campaign on American TV or radio!

In order to get an insignificant amount of broadcasting time on BBC or ITV in a general election, a political organisation must put up at least £25,000 as deposits for 50 candidates. On top of this a reasonably credible campaign in support these candidates would cost another £125,000. Any crackpot thesis, providing it is legal—and the rubbish that the major parties pul out on TV shows legality is no guide to sense!—can get the maximum amount of time if its sponsors can raise about £300,000 in the form of deposits for candidates in every coastituency. This amount of money buys it the right of access to the public through the medium of television and radio just as surely as it would in the US if it was paid over directly to the TV companies.

It has to be added, lest anyone is surprised that British democracy is so cheap that, after the deposits have been paid, about another £1,500,000 would be required to field a modest campaign—indeed, one press report claimed that the Tories invested in excess of £20,000,000 in buying the opportunity in the 1992 General Election to govern Britain.

So much for living in a democratic society. The cash nexus that controls capitalist democracy means that new ideas and concepts that do have, or may have, merit in solving the terrible and intractable problems of capitalism are frozen out of the pseudo-democratic system by the power of money. That, of course, is why problems like poverty, insecurity, homelessness, crime and wars, are intractable—because mass public examination of new solutions or different approaches to our problems are not permitted by those who gain wealth, power and privilege out of the very system that creates these problems.

Struggle for democracy

The "justification" for this anti-democratic system of closed loop capitalist "democracy" that ensures that the public is comfortably insulated from knowledge of any sane alternative to the present system of social lunacy, is the argument that the financial bar precludes all sorts of nut-cases from getting involved in elections. Of course, the amount of money spent in procuring a percentage of the vote at elections also acts as the means of measuring what access, if any, those outside the mainstream parties have between elections.

It is certainly no accident that, despite the fact that political fare is a sought after and, normally, ongoing part of television and radio programming, it is a rarity for anyone outside the mainstream panics to be seen or heard on British TV. Nor does the absence mean that there is a dearth of minority political opinion or spokespersons prepared to pul such opinion. No, it means that the utterly anti-democratic "percentage of the vote" thesis is working a treat for British capitalism.

But the argument itself, that nut-cases are kept off the air—apart from the fact that it is an essentially anti-democratic argument that makes money the arbiter of political sanity—falls down in practice. Apart from the Monster Raving Looney Party and the mass of candidates who fought the General Election on a policy of conquering problems by thinking they are not there, there are the orthodox inanities of Major, Kinnock and Ashdown.

Real democracy, of course, is impossible to achieve within a system of social inequality; the essence of real, informed and fully participative democracy can only prevail in a truly socialist society. Still, to establish the majority socialist consciousness that must necessarily underpin Socialism, it is important to struggle for our voice to be heard; for the limping democracy of capitalism to become more than a mere numbers game for pollsters and politicians. That is not to say that the struggle for a wider degree of democracy must precede the struggle for Socialism but, rather, that the struggle for democracy is an integral part of the struggle for Socialism.

Richard Montague

Chapter Five: Reforms At Election Time (1984)

From Samuel Leight's book, The Futility of Reformism

About 2½ weeks prior to the Mid-term General Election, during a televised speech on October 14, 1982 President Reagan, our leader at the helm, in a supposed non-partisan report on the economy, urged:

“We can do it, my fellow Americans, by staying the course.”

Meanwhile, below decks, the working class were at the oars and 11.6 million unemployed American workers were overboard in the high seas attempting to survive.

The candidates were all united on one basic issue—capitalism was unquestionably acceptable, but adjustments were needed and proper leadership was necessary. The reformist programs verified that the system was in no jeopardy whatsoever. The “leaders,” all apparently endowed with superior talents at problem-solving, masqueraded as opponents representing different ideologies that professed disagreements but maintained an unspoken alliance on fundamentals. The political stage-setting was customary; all items were concerned with the running of capitalism, while none stood for the interests of the working class.

Both the Republican and Democratic Parties echoed the same refrain of cutting down the federal deficits, keeping a hold on taxes and limiting governmental powers. A third candidate for the U.S. Senate race in Arizona came from the Libertarian Party. He sported an unconventional beard and ponytail, but appearances are no indication of revolutionary thinking. The Libertarian Party’s main thrust is to reform capitalism by attempting to curtail government interference until it eventually declines and is no longer needed. However, as they are not suggesting a replacement with socialism this notion becomes outlandish wishful thinking.

There were a total of 237 statewide ballot measures in 42 states with the Nuclear Freeze as the most common issue, followed by the Environment with four Western states seemingly concerned that the landscapes should not be sullied with discarded cans and bottles. Crime was also a prominent topic, and there were 27 ballot items dealing with taxes.

The State of Arizona had various measures on the General Election Ballot, submitted for voter approval or rejection. They ranged from establishing deposits and refunds for certain beverage containers, to a “nuclear freeze” proposal allied to a declaration of a “Peace Sunday.” The nine propositions were all described in a Publicity Pamphlet issued by the State of Arizona, typical of political trivia that was presented country-wide. The nuclear freeze issue was subsequently approved in 8 out of 9 states, with Arizona being the sole dissenter. Other specific issues included the regulation of ambulances and ambulance services; prohibiting bail for persons charged with or convicted of a felony who pose a danger to society; an amendment relating to the compensation of state elective and judicial officers; tax exemption for certain property in slum or blighted areas; the composition of the State Board of Education; establishing a system of permitting registration of voters at the time and place where they apply for a drivers license; and a recommendation by the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers to increase the salaries of Legislators.

All these propositions, were they to be approved or disapproved, bear no relevance to any of the real problems that beset propertyless workers, beleaguered with unemployment, insecurity, poverty and war. They constitute an enticement to the unwary to become involved in piddling non-issues.

The text of Proposition 201, dealing with the Nuclear Freeze issue, reads as follows:

“Be it enacted by the people of the State of Arizona:

Section I:Text of Transmittal. The governor shall prepare and transmit on or before December 1, 1982 the following communication to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and all members of the United States Congress:

  ‘The People of the State of Arizona recognizing that the safety and security of the United States must be paramount in the concerns of the American people, and further recognizing that our national security is reduced, not increased, by the growing danger of a nuclear holocaust between the United States and the Soviet Union which would result in millions of deaths of people in Arizona and throughout the nation; do hereby urge that the Government of the United States propose to the Government of the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides.’

Section 2: Peace Sunday — The Governor of the State of Arizona shall declare the last Sunday in May of each year to be Peace Sunday for the purpose of remembering those who died in combat, and to encourage the people of the State of Arizona to work for peace.”

Proposition 201 was accompanied by various arguments “for” and one “against.” The pro-argument given by the Phoenix Chapter of Business Alert to Nuclear War was unbelievably insensitive and tasteless with its heading in bold print: “Nuclear War And The Arms Race Is Bad For Business.” Immediately following this absurdity the first sentence reads as follows:

“The most profound result of accelerating our nuclear arms race is the eventual destruction of our people and our society, along with our business-economic system.”

Granted that the sequence in the sentence places “people” before the “business-economic system,” but to even mention the destruction of the system, and to apparently mourn its passing, in the same context of a catastrophe that could eliminate humanity, gives an insight into the warped approach that some supporters of capitalism possess. To discover such sentiments within a government publication would pre-suppose a sympathetic reaction from the powers-that-be. Of one thing you can be sure—socialist attitudes were not aired. Many religious groups were in evidence along with various bodies and individuals all clamoring for peace; arguing that with the present build-up of nuclear weapons “enough is enough,” and “the freeze is the first step.”

The argument against a Nuclear Freeze has been the assertion from President Reagan and his supporters that the U.S.S.R. is ahead of the U.S.A. in its nuclear power, and they want a verifiable reduction in arms to equal levels, prior to a freeze; coupled with the problem of appropriately being able to monitor Russian weapon development.

The whole question is insoluble, impractical and a complete waste of time. First, the colossal build-up of nuclear armaments has already been accomplished, it is a fait accompli. A so-called freeze will do absolutely nothing to diminish the potential for destruction that already exists. Second, the cause of war is inherent within capitalism—this is a chronic condition that is both irremovable and incurable as long as the system survives. Given a society organized as a gigantic market place, wars will continue to be fought over private property and related issues when diplomacy and negotiations fail. The big question is: will the “small” wars continue on a daily basis, as they have for decades, or will they be interrupted by a worldwide nuclear disaster? At the present time the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R. have the capability of destroying life on earth many times over. We are therefore being asked to sanctify the existing nightmare by calling a halt to further advancement of the madness, but at the same time doing nothing to eradicate the cause of the problem. If it were possible to introduce a so-called nuclear freeze tomorrow the conditions that could activate World War III would still remain—in fact, they always will until the system is removed. Incidentally, it was estimated in 1976 by the authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute that within nine years about 35 countries will be able to manufacture atomic weapons. China joined the nuclear “club” in 1968; Britain, France and India are “members,” and many other nations may already have the weapons in their possession. The situation, therefore, becomes a global one, not limited exclusively to the two major powers, or for that matter within their control.

A “freeze” on nuclear armament production would be “bad business” for certain arms manufacturers; good business for the capitalist class as a whole who would be saved substantial tax sums. It would not change the status of the working class one iota. The possibility of both classes being wiped out by a nuclear war would remain undiminished, freeze or no freeze.

Crying out for peace, joining in peace marches, creating peace movements, deploring the nuclear build-up and writing pleading letters to heads of governments, are all activities that are useless from a practical standpoint because they ignore the cause of war. They are always fully manned by the reformists and supporters of capitalism—the culprit that is never properly identified or condemned, except by the socialist. Ironically, many of the “peace proponents” in the past have broken ranks when wars occur, willing to justify their change of policy under the banners of newly discovered ideals and revitalized nationalism.

The reformists, disregarding the causes of war and the true nature of capitalism, have permitted an unprecedented arsenal of the most horrendous weapons to be created. Then, after the stock-piles acquired a grotesque over-kill capacity, they once again ply their trade with fresh reforms that will preserve the creation but hopefully would prevent its further growth. Should the so-called freeze ever take place the world would still be left as a sitting target because the nuclear weapons would not have been deactivated but would still be ever-ready to fulfill their original function should the buttons be pressed. Capitalism has so far not been able to satisfactorily solve the disposal problem of ordinary nuclear waste, let alone the elimination of nuclear armaments which are firmly established as a supposed deterrent, akin to mutual terror, ora first-strike possibility.

It can be assumed that a nuclear war, should it erupt, will not be started as a result of democratic procedures, but will occur either through a surprise first strike initiative or through some kind of miscalculation or technical error—unlikely, but still a possibility, “Peace Sundays” and “Nuclear Freezes” notwithstanding. Further, according to the 1982-83 edition of Jane’s Weapons Systems, a London-based military survey, war in space is now feasible and aircraft-launched anti-satellite systems are the latest developments in the U.S. and Soviet arsenals, likely to destabilize the balance of power. Add to all the foregoing the existing “conventional,” germ and chemical warfare weaponry and the very contemplation of reformism as a practical solution becomes illogical and pathetically incomprehensible.

 II

Candidates for political office nation-wide discussed other issues that included unemployment, social security, crime and violence, a balanced budget, the environment, military affairs, abortion, prayer in the schools, water needs and education. Most of these questions ultimately involve decisions related to, directly or otherwise, the allocation of funds, the determination of priorities, together with the collection of revenues to defray expenditures. They are business matters concerned with the running of capitalism. When workers become involved in such considerations they abrogate their own interests in favor of their masters’.

Unemployment, referred to elsewhere, defies the rhetoric of the politicians together with the ingenuity of the professional economists. In times of world recession it assumes an international character that affects the majority of the countries, especially those that find themselves dependent upon each other for trade. The malady does not limit itself to national borders and therefore solutions are not discovered fortuitously by the candidates at election time. Capitalism always runs its course, controlling the performance of the administrators more than they would care to confess.

“Social security” is a misnomer for the reorganization of the misery and poverty of the elderly. Most receive meagre allowances at the age of 65 and, on average, survive for only a few years afterwards. The fund has reached a financial crisis with an expected need for new revenues of between $150 billion to $200 billion through the next decade, as reported by the Social Security Review Commission in November, 1982. Assuming that the system is kept afloat, it guarantees the recipients a sub-standard poverty level for their few remaining years.

When one considers the legal theft that occurs when workers produce surplus values for which no payment is given, and the legal violence unleashed by the state machine when wars are prosecuted, the illegal acts of individuals, deplorable as they might be, are put into proper focus. To discuss the pros and cons of handgun control, for example, and at the same time condone a society that can produce a nuclear war, which could destroy untold millions, is nothing short of political madness displaying topsy-turvy priorities. The imposition of stiffer penalties for crimes, the expansion of jail facilities, the attempts to control drug smuggling, are all doomed for failure. They deal only with the effects of a system that spawns anti-social behavior patterns caused primarily by antagonisms, conflicts and situations related to insecurity, poverty and private property. A study conducted by the Center for Applied Social Research at Northeastern University in Boston was published in an issue of the journal Crime & Delinquency in 1981. The study of capital punishment in New York from 1907 to 1963 indicated that the number of homicides increased slightly in the month after an execution was carried out. The researchers called the implication of their findings “ominous.” Of course, the evidence has always confirmed that punishment has never been an adequate deterrent to acts of personal violence and crime. Socialism cannot be expected to immediately eradicate 100 per cent of all forms of violence. There would certainly be no comparison, however, between the violence produced by capitalism as compared to the anti-social acts of a small minority, in socialism, who might well be genuine cases requiring medical attention, possibly hangovers from the previous era.

The Reagan administration has conceded that deficits in the Budget could crest between $150 billion to $200 billion for fiscal 1984. The politicians clamor for a balanced budget but the problem remains. This is not a working class issue—workers are challenged enough attempting to balance their own budgets, let alone those of the ruling class. It’s their system—let them figure it out, while we introduce a replacement!

Years ago the military sahibs of the British Empire, ensconced in their comfortable clubs, would delight in theoretical discussions of military maneuvers relating to past and present wars, sometimes using cruets and silverware to simulate the movements of armies. The technology of destruction has now escalated to the nuclear age. Their modern-day counterparts in the U.S. are now engrossed in the analysis of theB-1 bomber program, the contemplated MX missile horror, together with a host of other major weapons systems. Working class participation in such matters is tantamount to becoming involved in grandiose schemes for their own possible future demise. Alongside of these deadly considerations, incongruous concern is shown for “the environment” with the proper monitoring of air standards and the extension of cleanup deadlines. The reformists are intent on both a “strong America” and “a clean one.” We can only hope that the first aspiration does not, at some time, negate the second.

Abortion is a non-political issue as far as the socialist is concerned—a personal matter between the individuals, their medical advisors, and their conscience. It is presently being used by the politicians to suit their own purposes of demagoguery and hypocrisy. When politicians and priests evoke a supreme reverence for life by opposing abortion, they contradict their professed compassion and become charlatans with their support of wars and their acceptance of the conditions that give rise to them.

The educational system is under continual surveillance because it has the responsibility to produce potential workers equipped with the ability to function properly in a highly complex and technological society motivated by the profit incentive. In addition, pupils receive a nationalistic indoctrination that proves beneficial for military recruitment purposes and the prosecution of war. Currently, a minor furor has developed amongst candidates as to whether organized prayer should be allowed in schools. The socialist opposes all the supernatural, man-made fantasies of religion wherever they may occur, either inside or outside the schools. To the extent that the working class become socialist, religion will be rejected; socialist parents can then be relied upon to rebut any religious nonsense that the schools might offer.

The Los Angeles Times reported October 24, 1982 that 50 school officials recently met secretly with Attorney General George Deukmejian, the Republican candidate for Governor in California, who subsequently was returned to office. One might be deservedly skeptical of such anti-democratic procedures. However, Deukmajian did spell out to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that:

“Teacher strikes are illegal, and I will work to keep them so.”

Quite obviously the good governor is not a strong union man; neither apparently does he favor open public meetings, irrespective of the issues under discussion.

For the fourth time George Wallace was re-elected Governor of Alabama. It is interesting to recall that this apparently “reformed” segregationist and racist emerged on the national scene in 1963 when he personally blocked the school house door in an attempt to prevent federal officials from enrolling a black student in the previously segregated University of Alabama. A majority of black voters must have forgiven him, because without their support he would not have won as easily as he did, 60 per cent to 40 per cent. Apparently, in this instance, one past generation must surely have learned a lesson about bigotry which, sad to relate, was soon forgotten by another.

The final outcome of the election from the 66 million voters on November 2, 1982 was that the Democratic Party picked up 26 House seats and 7 governorships, with no gains in the Senate. One oilman, seeking re-election, spent $14 million, and lost; another shopping center tycoon $7 million, and lost; and other candidates also spent massive sums of their own money to no avail. Money is therefore not the automatic key to political victory. As is usual a large bloc of voters abstained from voting, and one wonders why. Were they apathetic, apolitical, disillusioned, or perhaps in need of a new, revolutionary presentation? We can but hope so. One thing is certain. The only clear message that the American working class who voted gave, was: carry on with capitalism. However, nothing is static, the future lies ahead, and the working class have a mission yet to be accomplished.

The 1984 U.S. General Election found eight Democratic Party presidential candidates competing with each other. One would reasonably assume that as they all belong to the same Party, they would more or less be in agreement with each other on basic reformist proposals. Superficially, at any rate, such is not the case. Once again, the ambitious leaders must convey the impression that they as individuals possess the talent, knowledge and charisma to solve problems that have defied their predecessors for well over two centuries.

In a three-hour, nationally televised marathon debate on January 15, 1984 at Dartmouth College, they peddled and argued the same old, time-worn hackeneyed issues. Proposals for reducing budget deficits were aired—but these were vague in content, without specific price tags. Cuts were favored for the military and agricultural programs, as well as holding down health care costs; a raise in taxes was suggested and additions for selected social programs. “Defense,” or rather armament strategies, were debated; a consensus agreed that a woman should receive strong consideration asa running mate. Apparently there was more agreement than controversy on the nuclear weapons freeze issue. The candidates criticized the U.S. military position in Lebanon, but no one volunteered exactly how to get out.

Walter Mondale, the front runner and former vice president, said that he would have a strong and effective policy to deal justly with all workers, businesses and farmers (my emphasis). Does such puerile, evasive nonsense deserve comment? At one point in the debate Mondale was challenged by one of his Party opponents who said, “You cannot lead this country if you have promised everybody everything.” Mondale denied he had done any such thing. Then he added, I think most pointedly, “America is nothing if it isn’t promises. That is what America is about.”

With some modifications, that is what reformism is all about— unfulfilled promises, wasted energy, and prolonged futility.

The Socialist Forum: The £150 election deposit. (1931)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader asks if we would favour the abolition of the £150 deposit which Parliamentary candidates have to find before being allowed to run, and if Socialists in Parliament would try to secure its abolition.

The first point to consider is whether or not the obligation to deposit £150 is a barrier to the spread of Socialist knowledge. It certainly is true that the present law does prevent the Socialist Party from running candidates at Parliamentary elections, but the importance of this disability must not be exaggerated. If there were any constituency in which Socialists had become so numerous that they were somewhere in the neighbourhood of a majority, there would be no risk of losing the money and the problem of finding £150 for a few weeks would not be insuperable. The extent of the disability is, therefore, that we are at present deprived of an opportunity of putting forward a candidate and thus making the most effective use of the elections for propaganda purposes.

The second point concerns the actions of Socialists in the House of Commons towards the abolition of the present restriction. But surely it begs the question, since the Socialists in Parliament could only have got there by showing that the obstacle of the deposit can be surmounted. By that time some of the capitalist parties will, perhaps, be feeling the pinch and want the deposit abolished, not for our sake, but for their own.

Voice From The Back: Profits And Oily Words (2006)

The Voice From The Back Column from the December 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

Profits And Oily Words

You have seen advertisements by oil companies that express concern for the environment and claim they fight global warming. It is of course a fraud. “Britain’s leading scientists have challenged the US oil company Exxon-Mobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change. In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence.” (Guardian, 20 September) Capitalists are only interested in profits, they don’t give a damn about your children or their children’s future. That is capitalism.

A Toxic Society

The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimate at least 90,000 people die every year of asbestos related diseases but that didn’t stop the manufacture of the obnoxious material. “Chrysotile asbestos, a known human carcinogen, will remain off a global “watch list” of toxic substances for at least two more years after countries led by Canada blocked consensus in United Nations talks on Friday. … Canada, whose French-speaking Quebec province is a major asbestos producer and exporter, led opposition to its addition to the list, according to environmentalists tracking the talks. Canadian officials say puting chrysotile asbestos on the list would be tantamount to banning international trade in it and threaten jobs.” (Yahoo! News, 13 October) 90,000 deaths a year is a mere inconvenience compared to a couple of bucks for the owning class who make their money from death and disease. That is why we are socialists, also some of us once worked in shipyards, where they used asbestos, and we have difficulty breathing.

Cut Price Killers

“BP, the British oil group, had a “check-book mentality” towards safety and was aware of maintenance backlogs and unsafe equipment at its Texas City refinery years before the fire there in 2005 in which 15 workers died, according to findings from US safety officials. .. Safety was compromised by a succession of budget cuts … The company implemented a 25 per cut on fixed costs between 1998 and 2000 which adversely affected maintenance expenditure at the refinery.” (Times, 31 October) In order to compete inside capitalism firms are constantly trying to cut overheads. In this case leading to the death and injury of many workers. That is how capitalism operates. Nasty aint it?

Gangster Talk

The recent electoral losses of the Republican Party in the USA have led to the Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld quitting his post. His political demise led to newspapers running articles on him. Here are a couple of his past statements that were quoted. “Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war” and “You get a lot more with a kind word and a gun than you do with a kind word alone.” (Times, 9 November) It is significant that this last statement of Runsfeld was a quote from the gangster Al Capone. We can understand why a US Defence Secretary would have admired a murderous gangster chief, after all they both lived in a capitalist society based on violence.

Bull In A China Shop

The media mogul Rupert Murdoch has been making strenous efforts to break in to the Chinese market, but in 1993 he made a mess of it by stating, “Advances in the technology of telecommunications are an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere.” The Chinese took this threat seriously and imposed strict rules on satellite dishes thus depriving Murdoch’s Star TV of the huge Chinese's potential audience. “The following year Star removed BBC World Television from its Chinese service, in a move that was regarded by many as a sop to the Chinese government.” (Observer, 12 November) Last month Murdoch was in China trying to sweet talk his way in with government officials. When it comes to making money democratic views take a back seat with capitalists like Murdoch. What is suppression of political ideas, imprisonment, torture and death compared with more money to a billionaire? Very little it seems.

An American Myth

Supporters of the profit system often site the USA as a good example of how democratic capitalism really is. They give us the old homily about “log cabin to White House” although today it should probably be “trailer park to White House”. It is of course a complete fallacy as the following item about the recent mid-term election illustrates. “This election proved that it pays to spend big(ger). The average House winner burned through about $1 million on the stump – and the candidate who spent the most won in 93% of House races. The most expensive victory was, oddly, one of the Dems’ safe bets: New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who won a second term with 67% of the vote – and $35.9 million.” (Time, 20 November) Forget the myths, for a lot of Americans it is “trailer park to trailer park”.

Running Commentary: Costly votes (1982)

The Running Commentary Column from the December 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

History was not made by the high level of debate, nor by any prescience of the voters' decisions, in the recent American elections but records were broken by the amount of money laid out in the candidates' campaigns.

Something like £150 million was spent in this massive effort to persuade the American workers, against what should have been their better judgment, that capitalism would be good for them under Republicans or Democrats. Some staggering sums were afforded by the candidates themselves.

A Democrat in Minnesota spent a total of $8 million, half of which he paid himself. In Texas a Republican spent $12 million — and was not elected. But most spectacular of all. in the battle for Governor of New' York State, Republican Lewis Lehrman’s election expenses came to $15 million, half of it from his own pocket.

Lehrman was another loser, at least in the election. In other ways he is a winner; "I will." he announced, "go out to work and make the money back." He was only fooling because his millions came not from his own work but from that of his employees, whose exploitation yielded the profits which enabled Lehrman to make his flamboyant bid for power in New York.

Expensive election campaigns, which imply that only the rich can mount an effective contest, make a lot of people fear for democracy. Such anxieties miss the point, which is essentially in the fact that millions of New Yorkers voted for the big spending Lehrman and millions more for Cuomo, the Democrat victor, who also spent millions of dollars in the election.

Workers who are enlightened about capitalism, who are aware of the impotence of its politicians to run the system in the interests of the people, are unimpressed by gaudy, costly electoral stunts. Such workers are. in the end, the only certain guardians of democracy.

The fact that at present working class voters are so misled as to support candidates like Lehrman and Cuomo is not a measure of how much money was spent in their campaigns but of the low level of workers' consciousness.

Such good chaps (2024)

Book Review from the November 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Good Chaps. By Simon Kuper. Profile Books. 2024. £9.99

This is effectively the sequel to Kuper’s excellent Chums, reviewed in the September 2022 Socialist Standard. The focus this time is the idea that English gentlemen (and it’s usually men) have always been trusted to follow the rules and ‘play the game’, this being an intrinsic tenet of a public school and Oxbridge upbringing. Kuper catalogues how in recent years this seems to have gone very badly awry.

In the 1960s and 70s, these types started to get rather pushed out of politics and the upper echelons of the civil service and other professions, though far from disappearing entirely. Under David Cameron (Eton and Oxford) they started to reassert their natural right to govern again, but with a twist – this being that the gentlemen’s code they had abided by in earlier eras had largely been eroded by the type of ruthless competition that capitalism promotes, and the narcissism and inflated egos that go with it. It found ultimate expression, of course, in the tawdry and shambolic government of Boris Johnson (Eton and Oxford).

Of particular interest to Kuper is the financial base to this political superstructure – exemplified by the buccaneer capitalists that massaged Johnson’s ego so thoroughly and who have sought influence through the connections to which they can buy access. Many of these have been arriviste Mayfair hedge-fund managers and private equity tycoons – the same types of people behind the likes of Reform UK and GB News (often people bizarrely casting themselves as ‘outsiders’ to the traditional City of London and media establishments). And of even more interest still, many in these circles have been Russian oligarchs. As ever, Kuper sums up this type of development beautifully:

‘The moment Russians became British citizens, they were allowed to give to political parties. From about 2012 through 2022, they were the foreign nationality that topped the list of British political donations. Naturally, they gave to the ruling party rather than the powerless Opposition.

The Tories were delighted. It was as if extraterrestrials had stepped out of a spaceship on Parliament Square and inexplicably begun handing them money. The Russian you met over whiskies in 5 Hertford Street was charming. Of course he wasn’t working for the Kremlin! Don’t go all Le Carré on me. And if you did make the effort to perform the most basic due diligence on where his money came from, well that might get in the way of taking it’ (p.94).

Kuper details many instances of Russian donations and influence to the Tory Party. To cite just one example, these include Lubov Chernukhin, whose husband became – at the tender age of 32 – deputy finance minister under Putin and later chair of the Russian state development bank. By 2023, she had donated £2.4 million to the Tories and was a member of the Party’s secretive ‘Advisory Board’ which was restricted to mega-donors who were entitled to monthly meetings with the Prime Minister and Chancellor. This is just one of several instances of this type and in case you are wondering, the embarrassing connections with the father-and-son press magnates the Lebedevs are also described in all their glory.

As the Tories fell from grace in the last couple of years (and some of the Russian connections became embarrassing after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine) the money started to dry up. There’s an interesting chapter on how Labour started to hoover up significant donations before the General Election instead, including from David Sainsbury, Dale Vince and Gary Lubner (of the family that own Autoglass and who reportedly gave £5 million alone). Kuper says Labour’s donors tend to have more of an obvious ideological affinity with them (rather than being people who will simply cosy up to whoever is in power) though it will be fascinating to see whose interests ‘the government of service’ will effectively serve – even if rather more indirectly. We think we can guess.

Dave Perrin

A Socialist Searchlight. (1931)

From the June 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Can a Catholic be a Socialist?

Pope Pius XI, addressing a gathering of “pilgrims” on Friday, May 15th, declared that “no good Catholic can be a good Socialist.” This is, of course, the familiar and natural view of the Catholic Church, and one with which the Socialist fully agrees.

The Pope’s words were reported in all of the London daily papers on May 16th, with one exception—the Daily Herald. The reason for this deliberate omission of a piece of news is obvious. The Labour Party has a large number of Catholic supporters whom it does not wish to offend, but at the same time it does not wish to make a formal declaration of opposition to Socialism. The Herald’s line, therefore, is to pretend that Socialism and Catholicism are not incompatible. On a previous occasion when the Socialist Party’s attitude on the question had been misrepresented by the Editor of the Herald, he declined to allow us to state our position in his columns. The Herald under its new Editor and new proprietors evidently follows the same policy of avoiding discussion.

But although the Herald did not publish the Pope’s statement at the time when it was made, they published some comments on it. On May 22nd their Rome correspondent sent a reassuring message, in which he quoted the Pope’s Under-Secretary for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs as saying that the Pope quite understood the position of the British Labour Party and had no intention of attacking them. The Under-Secretary said :—

“For instance, we know there are bishops and many Catholics in England who belong to the Labour Party.

This fact may be easily explained by the special situation of the Labour Party, many points of whose programme coincide with those of Catholic Syndicates, and which also admits in the political field class collaboration, as is proved by the present Government.”

In other words, the Catholic Church is not opposed to the Labour Party because that party is not a Socialist party. This point of view received confirmation from Sir James Sexton, a Labour M.P. who is also a Catholic. He explained (Daily Telegraph, May 18th) that the Labour Party’s aim is not Socialism, but “what I might call the nationalisation of essential commodities, such as water, gas, the railways, mines, and so on.”

It is because Socialists do not want nationalisation or state capitalism that they do not support the Labour Party. For the same reason, Catholics who are opposed to Socialism can, and do, join the Labour Party. Readers who are interested in the whole question should read our pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion.”

* * *

The Bank Rate and the Workers. 

On September 26th, 1929, the bank rate was raised from 5½ to 6½ per cent. This meant that the industrial capitalists who had to borrow money from the banks would have to pay a higher rate of interest, and it was only to be expected that they should howl with rage. By pretending that the question was one that concerned the workers, they were able to get many influential members of the Labour Party and the I.L.P. to join the chorus of protest. Maxton and Tillett were two of the decoy ducks; and the late Lord Melchett was particularly vociferous among the employers. The protest was based on the claim that a high bank rate would mean more unemployment and less money for wages. If the theory were a sound one from a working-class standpoint, a fall in the bank rate ought to cause a reduction in unemployment and an increase in wages. It has not caused either.

The bank rate was reduced on May 1st, 1930, to 3 per cent., and on May 1st, 1931, to 2½ per cent., but unemployment, instead of going down during 1930 and the early part of 1931, mounted up to 2½ millions—upwards of a million more than it was when the bank rate was at 5½ or 6½. The same period has witnessed a rapidly growing volume of wage reductions. One case is of special interest. The late Lord Melchett was chairman, and his son (the present Lord Melchett) a director, of Amalgamated Anthracite Collieries, Ltd. This company, helped, no doubt, by the fall in the bank rate, increased its profit from £289,000 in 1929 to £443,000 in 1930. Did it then increase the wages of the miners it employs? On the contrary, it reduced their pay, in keeping with the lowered pay of South Wales miners generally. What have Messrs. Maxton and Tillett to say to that?

Another point of interest is that the present 2½ per cent. rate is the lowest since 1909. Was unemployment low in 1909, and were the workers well off? On the contrary, the rate of unemployment in 1909 was 7.7 per cent., which (except for 1908, when the unemployment rate was 7.8 per cent.) was the highest rate of unemployment since 1886, and was higher than in any succeeding year until 1921. It was also about this time that Mr. Lloyd George endorsed the statement that about a third of the population were in a state of perpetual poverty.

The bank rate is a question which matters a great deal to the industrial and financial capitalists in their mutual relations, but one which matters nothing to the workers, who by one section of the capitalists no more and no less than by other sections.

* * *

The pot calls the kettle. 

The Labour Party’s Secret Funds.

For years the Labour Party has denounced the Liberals and Tories for having secret funds and for soliciting donations from wealthy men. As soon as the Mosley Party was launched, some of the Labour Party ministers used this line of attack against Sir Oswald Mosley. Mr. Tom Johnston, Lord Privy Seal, said that the Mosley Party had spent from £30,000 to £40,000 on a poster display, and that the money came from secret sources. But while Johnston is only a recent recruit to the inner circle of the Labour Party, and possibly did not know very much about its affairs, Mosley is an old hand, and promptly replied with a similar attack on the Labour Party. Speaking in the Drill Hall, Ashton, on Monday, April 27th, he said (Manchester Guardian, April 28th) :—

"Now I am going to say something about the cant and humbug talked by the Labour party. They say I refuse to publish a list of my individual subscribers. I do, and the Labour party also refuses to publish their list. I refuse because if I published it subscribers might be subject to intimidation.

Would you like to see the appeal sent to me and other rich men by the Labour party for their secret funds? It is sent out to rich men, and rich men alone. That private and secret fund is never published. I don’t blame the Labour party for it, but I do blame them for coming on the platform and pretending they get their funds only from the workers.”

The Labour Party has not replied to Mosley on this point.

The political correspondent of the Daily Mail wrote as follows (April 29th, 1931) :—

“Socialist leaders are unwilling to reply to an allegation made by Sir Oswald Mosley in a speech at Ashton-under-Lyne that the party has a secret political fund which is replenished by subscriptions obtained from rich men, and details of which are never published.

Why should we advertise that man? was the only reply of one leader, when asked to confirm or deny the statement.

The late Mr. Bernhard Baron, the tobacco millionaire, was a regular and generous contributor to Socialist election funds. Wealthy and titled members of the party also make substantial gifts.

In the Lobby yesterday the absence of a reply to the direct charge was accepted as confirmation of a general suspicion that, like other parties, the Socialist party in office is not so hard up as it used to be when in opposition.”

Of course., when the Daily Mail writes “Socialist” it means the Labour Party.

* * *

The value of insurance shares. 

In the midst of the investors’ complaints about the hard times they are going through, the Economist (May 2nd) publishes a list showing the current values of the shares of 25 insurance companies.

£1,000 invested in insurance company ordinary shares in 1913, after receiving high rates of dividend in the intervening period, would now, if sold, fetch, on the average, £3,207, i.e., more than three times the original sum invested. One thousand pounds invested in the General Accident Insurance Co. would now fetch £8,000 ! In the company whose shares have risen least of all, the original investor could sell out and receive more than 30s. for every £1 invested in 1913.

* * *

Religion is the opium of the people.

Did Kingsley Forestall Marx?

A writer in the Freethinker (March 22nd, 1931) claims that the Reverend Charles Kingsley, Canon of Westminster, preceded Marx in describing religion as the opium of the people. The writer in the Freethinker appears to be mistaken.

This is the passage in which Kingsley deals with the subject :—

“We have used the Bible as if it were an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded–a mere book to keep the poor in order.”

The above occurs in “Politics for the People,” published in 1848.

Marx’s famous phrase was published four or five years earlier. It was as follows :—

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feelings of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

This passage is taken from an article entitled “Introduction to a Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right,” published in 1844 in the “Franco-German Year Book.” The translation is by Eden and Cedar Paul, and is given on pages 57 and 58 of “Karl Marx,” by Otto Ruhle (Allen & Unwin).

It will be noticed that the two writers, Marx and Kingsley, used the same telling comparison, but in rather different senses. Kingsley appears to be protesting against the use to which religion has been put; while Marx was accounting for the hold that religion has on the minds of the oppressed.

* * *

Miss Jennie Lee on the uses of trade unions. 

Miss Jennie Lee, M.P. at the I.L.P. Annual Conference at Scarborough on April 5th, spoke against a resolution which proposed that the I.L.P. should leave the Labour Party. The Labour Government, she said (Times, April 6th), “stood for Imperialism and capitalism, and rested on an amalgamation of Conservative and Liberal elements,” and she was “sick and tired of being entangled in Liberalism and compromise” (Manchester Guardian, April 6th). Yet, in face of that, she thought that the I.L.P. ought to keep in with the party of Imperialism and capitalism and go on making her sick and tired, because “at present the Labour movement had strong Trade Union backing, and they (the I.L.P.) had not” (Manchester Guardian, April 6th).

It is, of course, very noble of Miss Lee to go on sacrificing her feelings in this way, but it is not entirely irrelevant to point out that Miss Lee is very much dependent in her constituency on the support of the Miners’ Federation. If she were to oppose the capitalist programme of the Labour Party and lose its support and that of the Miners’ Federation, she would have to say good-bye to her Parliamentary seat and her present prospects of a political career. But it is no new thing for Miss Lee to oppose Socialism for the sake of cadging votes and support. She had chosen that path when first she set eyes on Westminster. When she was elected at North Lanark in March, 1929, her election address contained no reference whatever, direct or indirect, to Socialism. It even contained no mention that she was the nominee of the I.L.P. She fought as official Labour Party candidate and gave prominence to the fact that she accepted the programme of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, thus committing herself, incidentally, to the queer doctrine that while the royalty-owning capitalist is an exploiter, his brother capitalist who invests in mining shares is not ! She backed all of the silly—and in some cases harmful—reforms of the Labour Party, and it was admitted by one of her prominent supporters that there was little to choose between her programme and that of her Liberal opponent. Mr. P. J. Dollan, of the I.L.P. National Administrative Council, writing up the election campaign in the New Leader on March 15th, 1929, said of the Liberal candidate (also a woman), “She is advocating a Radical programme which would have horrified the late Lord Oxford because of its similarity to most of the Labour reforms now commonly advocated.” What, in fact, won Miss Lee the election was the backing of the Miners’ Federation. Hence Miss Lee’s determination to “sacrifice” herself by staying in the Labour Party, with the Trade Union votes and Trade Union funds, rather than oppose the party of “Imperialism and capitalism” and lose her seat in Parliament.

The delegates at the I.L.P. Conference overwhelmingly endorsed the official policy, urged by all sections of their National Administrative Council, of staying in the Labour Party. The motion to disaffiliate was rejected by 173 to 37 (see News-Chronicle, April 6th).

* * *

The Over-Population Myth.

Professor T. E. Gregory gave an address at Manchester University on February 2nd, 1931, on the subject of population and production. The following extracts are from a report published on February 3rd by the Manchester Guardian : —

“He pointed out that up to the war we had all been largely influenced by the teaching of Malthus, and had feared that our era of prosperity could not last if the population continued to increase. In 1920, after the war, this pessimism had greatly increased. “I confess,” he said, “I was a “pessimist of that kind myself. Indeed, we were all pessimists in those days, from Mr. Keynes to the editor of the Manchester Guardian.”

But since 1920 there had been a curious alteration in theory and in the facts. Great importance as a social factor could be placed upon the birth control movement and its increasing recognition. Again we were clearly caught up in a phase of expanding production. Production was increasing more rapidly than the population of the world. Between 1913 and 1928 the world’s population increased by about 10 per cent., the world’s production of food-stuffs by 16 per cent., and the world’s production of raw materials by no less than 40 per cent. Thirdly, there was every chance that the population of this and other European countries would become stationary and even decline. We were, approaching the ideal postulated by John Stuart Mill—the ideal of a stationary state in which there would be no further increase in population”

The Editor of the Manchester Guardian made the belatedly wise comment that the “more production” campaign engineered after the War by the Government, the employers, and the Labour leaders, was apparently unnecessary.

We would draw particular attention to the fact that while all the economists and newspapers and politicians, including Professor Gregory, were flatly wrong on the question of over-population and the need for more production, the Socialist Party, correctly guided by its Marxian theories, ridiculed the Malthusian nonsense over 20 years ago and showed up at the time the true nature of the post-war campaign to get the workers to work harder.

Just to show that experience does not teach him anything, the Editor of the Guardian complacently dismisses capitalism’s constant over-production in relation to the demands of the market as “growing pains”!

Edgar Hardcastle

Greasy Pole: Money, Money, Money . . . (2008)

The Greasy Pole column from the January 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was a bit like an archaeological dig as enthusiastic excavators exposed, one layer after another, not the remains of some prehistoric wanderers but the identities of Labour leaders who had been offered and in some cases accepted, donations to help their campaigns in contravention of the rules of their party and, even more to the point, against the law which their own government had introduced. Day after day the incriminated names emerged from the soil of Westminster: Gordon Brown and Hilary Benn (who both refused): Harriet Harman and Peter Hain (who both accepted). Then there were the people outside the Commons but who, as party officials, must have known what was going on and how troublesome it could be but who apparently did nothing to stop it ; people like Labour’s funds organiser John Mendelsohn (who put up a defence so feeble as to be incredible) and Party Secretary  Peter Watt (who could find nobody to say how blameless he was and why he should not under any circumstances be required to leave his job over so insignificant a peccadillo so had to carry the can and resign). After the Honours for Loans affair, which so bitterly flavoured the final months of the Blair government, another such scandal was the last thing on Gordon Brown’s wish list.

Illegal

The law in this matter is clear; in the case of any donation over £200 the party must record the full name and address of the donor, who must be a registered voter in this country. If the amount is over £5000 these must be reported to the Electoral Commission. In view of this it is not advisable for a donation to be accepted unless the source of it is known to the party. What is not acceptable under the law is that the donor’s identity should be obscured by the money passing through the medium of another person. This was what happened with those generous gifts from David Abrahams, a man who has been variously described as one of the party’s strongest supporters and their third largest financial backer.  While there is no question about his support for Labour and the fortune he has given to the party, there are other aspects about Abrahams which are rather less clear.

To begin with there is his name; to the tenants of some properties he manages in Newcastle he is known as David Martin. Then there is his age, variously given as 53 and 63. When he was resisting being deselected as the Labour candidate in William Hague’s seat in Richmond Yorkshire he presented himself as a married man with a young son. Perhaps he did this under the impression that an image of domestic stability would help his case but there were serious doubt about this, aggravated by clashes between him and a divorced woman who asserted that he had more or less hired her and her 11 year old son to pose as his family. Not surprisingly, when he was re-adopted (by one vote) by the Labour Party in Richmond a group of party officials resigned in protest. Abrahams has explained the confusion over his identity by saying that he is a very private person, although a party activist thought him “the pushiest person I ever came across” and to an MP he was “The kind of person you sometimes see at conferences and such – hanging about and wanting to shake hands with everyone”.

The Builder

For all his cunning and survival skills Abrahams was less than totally discreet in his choice of people to conceal his identity by acting as channels for his gifts. One woman, who professed herself puzzled by the matter, said she was a lifelong Tory; another was his secretary. But the most exciting material for the scandal-excavating media was Ray Ruddick, said to be a director of Abrahams’ property company but who works as a builder, and leaves his ex-council house each day in a battered old Ford Transit.  Ruddick is reputed to have given £140,000 to the Labour Party during the five months since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister but what he said about it was: “I can’t stand Labour. I can’t stand any politicians…I’m off to the bingo to see if I can win that sort of money”. This penetrative comment dragged the matter down to the appropriate level of a farce – but one which seemed to have brought Labour’s spin machine almost to a standstill, unable to respond in the customary manner of diverting attention onto their opponents.

All political parties must be preoccupied with money and the bigger the party the more immediate and desperate their preoccupation. A lot of design, effort and organisation must be devoted to the task of, essentially, persuading millions of people that all the evidence available to prove the impotence of those parties must be disregarded so that they are willing to trust again policies which have been massively discredited. To convince voters of the usefulness of choosing between one hopeless way and another  requires a big effort and a lot of money and the parties, steeped as they are in capitalism’s obligingly acquisitive morality, do not need to be too choosy about how they come by it. For them, custom, rules and laws are there to be broken if by that they can win advantage over their rivals for power. What this means is that Labour are not alone in financial manipulation; the Tories and the Liberals have similarly disreputable histories.

Dodgy Tory Finances

The source of the funding of the Tory party is as prudently obscure as it needs to be –and it goes back a long way. Most infamously, in 1993 the businessman Asil Nadir fled to Northern Cyprus, out of the clutches of any extradition treaty, to escape prosecution arising from him defrauding  the Polly Peck company of some thirty four million pounds. Since then he has often told of his desire to return to England to face the music.  If he does so he may well be greeted by some old Tory friends, anxious that the years in exile have not stunted his generosity which, just before his hurried departure, ensured that he gave them £440,000. More recently a Berkshire company going under the name of Bearwood Corporate Services has been a generous, if selective, donor; it is owned by Bearwood Holdings which is itself 99 percent owned by an investment company entirely owned by Lord Ashcroft, previously Conservative Party treasurer and now Deputy Chairman of the party. The Bearwood contribution did not go to Conservative central office but to individual parties in marginal constituencies. But the effects were uneven; in the 2005 election of a sample of 15 seats six were held by Labour, six were won (2 of them gains) by the Tories and three  (one gained) by the LibDems. There are questions about Ashcroft’s legal status as a donor, connected to his complex financial affairs and whether he is disqualified from donating by really being domiciled in a tax haven.

Another large corporate donor was IIR Limited, a company dealing in conference and training facilities. This firm’s donations were registered with the Electoral Commission but they said that they were made personally by their chairman Lord Laidlaw. In fact Laidlaw is a tax exile, Scotland’s second richest person; he sold IIR Ltd, for £7 million, in 2005 and is one the four biggest donors to the Tory party. 

And so it goes on; what is abundantly clear is that the finances of the big players in the political game are anything but clear and open and accessible. The wealth of people like Abrahams and Ashcroft originates in the exploitation – the wage-slavery – of the working class, who are deceived by the political parties so generously financed into supporting the social system which keeps them in their inferior position. That is the motivation for the millions of pounds which, through a variety of labyrinthine accounting methods, finds its way into the coffers of the Labour and Tory parties and others like them. Through their exploitation and their votes  for these parties at the polls  workers are paying to keep themselves subjugated.  

Ivan

Voice From The Back: Cold and skint (2010)

The Voice From The Back Column from the December 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cold and skint 

One of the illusions that seems to persist about capitalism is that in Britain it is gradually getting a little bit better, but the facts contradict that notion. “The number of households struggling to afford to stay warm has more than doubled in the past six years according to official figures. An extra 2.5 million homes have gone into fuel poverty since 2004, a report by the Department of Energy and Climate Change said. Homes are defined as living in fuel poverty if they have to spend more than 10 per cent of their income to maintain a minimum temperature of 21C in their main living area.” (Times, 15 October) “Almost two-thirds of older people in Northern Ireland cannot afford to heat their home through the winter, it has been revealed. The fuel poverty rate among people aged over 60 is up 15% on four years ago and now stands at 60.5%, according to the latest House Conditions Survey. The study conducted by the Housing Executive shows that the situation is even worse for older people living on their own – with almost four-fifths officially designated as living in fuel poverty.  (Independent, 28 October) Amidst all these bureaucratic figures one thing is obvious, during the last six years more working class kids and old folk have had to go to bed shivering. This is progress?.

Big bucks ballot

Defenders of American capitalism are fond of claiming that it is a model of  democracy in action. It is however a strange sort of democracy wherein money is the real dictator. Take the election campaign of Meg Whitman for the California Governorship. “With nearly two weeks to go before the election the eBay billionaire’s campaign to become chief executive of California has already smashed all records. At $140 million (£89 million) it is the most expensive non-presidential campaign in American history and the deepest any candidate has ever delved to fund their campaign.” (Times, 25 October). There is nothing unique in large corporations pouring millions of dollars into election campaigns, but in this case we have an individual spending a grotesque amount that represents about $8.24 for every one of California’s 17 million registered voters. Her opponent has spent a “mere” $20 million, that is just over a $1 a voter. Surely this is a weird sort of democracy.

 

Profits before safety

In their ruthless pursuit of bigger and bigger profits the owning class care little for human life or the pollution of the planet, but even by their standards the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico illustrated a complete contempt for humanity in capitalism’s efforts to cheapen production costs. “The companies involved in drilling the BP Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico were aware that the cement they used to seal the well before it blew out was unstable. That is the conclusion of a US presidential panel investigating the reasons behind the April 20 explosion and ensuing oil leak. Both BP and the US company Halliburton had received test results on the cement showing it to be unstable – but neither acted on the data.” (The Week, 29 October) All the companies involved are trying to shift the blame for the explosion  on to each other, but the truth is that capitalism by its very nature causes such disasters. Capitalism, lets face it  – is a disaster!

Another illusion goes

One of the illusions about capitalism that its supporters are always proclaiming is that it is a ruthlessly efficient society that rewards honesty and punishes double-dealing. It is not a view shared by the capitalist class themselves as illustrated by this recent European Commission report.. “The European Commission has fined 11 of the world’s largest airlines £799 million for their part in a conspiracy to fix the price of cargo shipments. British Airways is among the carriers to be fined and has been ordered to pay a 104 million euro (£90 million) penalty.” (Times, 10 November) The capitalist class are fond of lecturing workers about honesty, but when extra profits can be realised they are not adverse to a bit of sharp practice.

Party funds: Paying for political favours (2002)

From the September 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

On 7 August, the BBC’s on-line news was reporting Peter Mandelson’s call for state funding for political parties. This was on the back of the release of the Electoral Commission’s latest register of donations, which showed that donations to the Labour Party had fallen by 83 percent over three months. The same article also revised the estimate of the Labour Party’s debt. Rumours that they owed £6 million had been floating for weeks previously (the same figure was actually also leaked the previous year); however, the BBC were estimating that the debts might be as high as £8million.

Political parties exist because there is a need for them. They are not, as the common view has it, simply groups of like-minded individuals coming together for the sake of tribalism and a shining ideal, but are, as our own declaration of principles observes, an expression of class and material interests. As capitalism has developed, and social activity has been subjected to ever greater atomisation, complexity and division of labour, so too has the workload for the ruling class in maintaining its system. The state arose from this need of a privileged property-owning class to co-ordinate between themselves and ensure that the property system is properly maintained.

The amount of work involved in administering capitalist society means that it cannot be handled personally by the capitalist class themselves. They require other people to do that work for them, and thus require a political structure which enables them to enforce their general interest and ensure that the state workers who staff this structure do not turn against them. The main means they have for ensuring this are the funding of political parties and the election of some of the administrators.

This control needs to be exercise by the capitalist class collectively, in a sort of arms length way, to avoid individuals or firms being able to monopolise these positions and engage in what economists call “rent-seeking”, that is, using corruption to rake in money through bribes and kick-backs. Where people can cling onto positions of political power corruption sets in, as can be seen in Japan and Italy, where perennial coalition government meant that there was a job for life for incumbents and correspondingly limited promotion prospects for others. To keep the cost of administering society from becoming burdensome to capitalists, they need to ensure competition and turnover for the places of responsibility.

Maintaining control

This is one reason why advanced capitalist states need political democracy, as a means of applying a form of competition for the posts in the state administration. The regular change in state personnel through elections means that incumbents have little opportunity to exploit a monopoly on their position; and the intense competition for their posts ensures that they are pressured into fulfilling their function without rent seeking.

This has led to the emergence of what could be more or less described as firms, which compete for votes. They sell their brand of politics through advertising, and then hope that the results come in as votes. These political firms are themselves complex associations of people, employing many intellectual workers to come up with products (policies) and ways of marketing them. Part of the reason for these political firms, aside from the physical act of distributing the party’s message, is that the complexities of modern administration require equally complex bodies to analyse and control the system.

As the size and complexity of the system of state administration grew, so inversely did the capacity of the tiny number of politically active members of the capitalist class to securely influence it. It is in their interest, then, to ensure that a relatively potent layer of influence remains in as small hands as possible. This conflicts with the need for competition for posts, a contradiction which the capitalist class try to resolve through liberal democracy, in which a relatively small number of public posts are up for open competition and election, and the holders of these few posts in turn control the personnel of the state.

The structures of state prompt the elected politicians’ attempt to maintain a monopoly of power. Though they argue that they and not the lay members of their party have been elected to serve the public interest, this position has its real basis in the fact that once in office politicians are dependent upon other politicians for their continued ascent and advancement. Their interest lies in standing with each other and asserting the authority of office.

The few nationally elected politicians are then expected to exert influence over the whole state bureaucracy. Whilst the UK government does have numerous quangos appointed by politicians, it also has a standing civil service, which is supposed to obey the ministers without question. A permanent bureaucracy, however, means that individual civil servants are dependent upon its internal hierarchy for their advancement. Thus, the internal values of the civil service become the means of success, rather than adhering to the values of ministers. This sometimes brings civil servants into conflict with ministers, who cannot sack them. Whilst its permanency gives its stability, it does act as a partial break on ministerial ideas.

The solution New Labour has tried has been the appointment of special advisers, civil servants dependent upon ministers for their jobs and advancement. This had led to conflict between the special advisers and the permanent bureaucrats. The most high profile version of this was the Jo Moore saga, in which the civil servants fought a guerrilla war to remove a special adviser.

Whether it is special advisers or permanent civil servants, ministers find themselves more dependent upon their office and its associated staff than with the party machine that brought them to power. The Socialist Party has always argued that leaders and followers will inevitably betray each other, because they come together with different ideas about where they are going. The leadership system relies on a difference between the information given to leaders and led, which means the two sides are not co-ordinated in their aims and actions.

Rich private donors

This situation is complicated by the interests of the people and organisations which maintain the material basis of these parties. In the 18th and 19th centuries, politicians had funded their own careers from their own means. As the political system expanded, however, the material independence of politicians has become untenable, and so they require coalitions of social forces to build movements.

For the Tories historically this was think-tanks and bosses’ organisations, for Labour, the unions. These people provided the cash necessary for keeping the political parties up and running. The flow of their supplies of money provide a counter-balance to sheer democratic forces within the parties, ebbing and flowing with disapproval or approval over policy. It is this basis which means that political organisations represent specific economic interests. The funding organisations will only give if they see a benefit (even in general).

That these donors have an interest to defend, separate from the pure electoral interest of the political party, means that they too need intellectual workers to define and promote their policies for administrating capitalism. They can then use access to the media to promote their rival ideas and harass the government.

Seeking a middle way between failed Social Democratic reformism and free-market Toryism, Tony Blair broke Labour out of the previous convention and went into competition with the Tories for getting funds from rich individuals and capitalists. Donations from individuals would free the politicians in the party from organised interests and from the membership of the party at large. The scale of this can be clearly seen from the returns made by the Labour Party to the Electoral Commission for its donations. In the first quarter of 2002, it received £2 million from Lord Sainsbury (who happens to have been ennobled and raised to the cabinet by Tony Blair). Likewise in the second quarter, they received £200,000 from Bill Kenwright, owner of Everton Football club.

This competition for private donors, however, means that the respective parties accuse each other of sleaze and bribery, the very corruption political democracy is meant to prevent. When it was a case of the Capitalist United against a party purporting to represent a clear trade union interest, not a peep was raised about the funding of the Tory Party, but now Labour are in on the act, the press is filled with stories about donations to Labour from capitalists like Ecclestone, Mittal, Hinduja, Desmond, etc. Hence why some sections of the Labour party and our masters in general, are beginning to look at state funding as a means of drawing dependence away from specific individual capitalists but to their class as a whole.

Another cause for the floating of this idea is that individual donors have been put off by the publicity attendant to making a donation, as well as certain donors feeling disillusioned with the government. In the first quarter of this year, Labour received £3.4 million in donations, £800,000 of which came from unions, and £2.5 million from individuals (including Lord Sainsbury). In the second quarter this slumped to £500,000 with £180,000 coming from unions and £346,000 coming from individuals.

Part of this reduction is also down to reductions of donations from trade unions, (such as the GMB, RMT and FBU unions, which are all examining the use of their political funds) although it is clear that their donations continue to be the basis of the day-to-day running of the Labour party at large. Indeed, the Guardian (9 August) reports that unions voted to give Labour £100,000 as an emergency grant to cover day-to-day costs in the face of the current funding crisis.

Desperate though they are to escape from the interests of the trade unions, the Labour leadership find themselves having to go back to them to keep the machinery of their party afloat. The unions form the basic material basis for the existence of the extended Labour Party. It is this that Mandelson wants to bring to an end, as it limits the party’s capacity to manoeuvre between capitalist camps.

The importance of this is not the day-to-day worries of the Labour Party, which can be surmounted temporarily, but to see that vast amount of effort put into maintaining the capitalist political machinery. The interests of a tiny number of property holders run counter to the existence of real democracy. Socialists have long argued that the capitalists’ need for an elected machinery, that necessarily requires the active involvement and support of the workers, means that we can organise as a class to take control of that machinery to bring an end to their system.

Since we would not be sending leaders and reformers into office to administer capitalism, we would not find ourselves subjected to a tiny handful of leaders, but would, rather, subordinate the machinery of state to the will of the vast movement of conscious socialists through our delegates, so that its repressive aspects can be wrested from our masters’ hands and its useful administrative aspects converted for the purpose of making a social revolution.

Pik Smeet