Graveyards. (1916)

From the August 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Whether we look at the manifestations of the capitalist system of society from a historical standpoint, or view the effects of its workings at the present time, there is every reason why the system should be abolished. Apart from the fact, that it has given birth to and developed the means of production so that it is possible to produce wealth in abundance, capitalist society has since its inception a record worse than which it would be almost impossible for the human mind to conceive. For years now the workers, who alone produce the world’s wealth, have had a greater struggle to exist, in spite of the marvellous increase of wealth production due to improved machinery and methods. Not only is it true that the workers are in greater poverty relatively to the amount of wealth produced, but they are beaten, broken, and done to death in their struggle for a dull, monotonous existence. Factories, mills, mines, and the like are veritable death-traps, “accidents,” poisoning of one kind and another, and consumption finds victims by tens of thousands.

We know that of recent years the Press has published the heart-rending news of explosions in mines with their great loss of life, and that the customary enquiry has produced evidence proving beyond honest dispute that had the mine-owners taken reasonable precautions the terrible loss of life would have been avoided. We know that Lloyd George, at the behest of the ship-owners, raised the load-line of ships so that the owners might get greater profits at the expense of seamen’s lives. It is hardly necessary to refresh the memories of our readers with reference to railway disasters and the appalling waste of railwaymen’s and passengers’ lives.

After every railway disaster the usual enquiry of the Board of Trade official takes place ; the scapegoat is invariably an employee. The railway directors escape all blame. In the “Nineteenth Century Magazine” for June appeared an article on railway administration in Great Britain, from which is quoted the following scathing criticism.

“What is the Board of Trade record in this connexion ? It is shameful. Our percentage of killed and wounded on railways is nearly twice what it is in France. After every accident, there is the same heartless mockery, The same condemnation of a perfectly innocent engine-driver or signalman, found guilty of being human, of having failed to do the duty the human machine is not capable of doing : a duty which it is biologically impossible for him to carry out with the requisite degree of certainty. It is the duty of the Board of Trade official, as specified by Act of Parliament, to enquire into the cause of railway accidents, and advise and enforce the proper remedy. The Board of Trade official knows that the cause of 90 per cent. of railway accidents is one locomotive running into another, and he knows that the remedy is to instal apparatus which would render the recurrence of such accidents a physical impossibility. He knows that the engine-driver or signalman as the case may be, who has been guilty of the inevitable biological lapse, is as innocent as the policeman who stands at his elbow in the dock. He knows that the really guilty persons are the railway managers and he himself: the railway managers because they have neglected to make the inevitable accident an impossibility, and he himself, because he has neglected to employ the authority vested in him by Parliament to force the adoption of the necessary preventive measures. The procedure in these so-called Board of Trade inquiries is nauseating in the extreme. The real points of importance are purposely avoided. Why does not the Board of Trade official enforce the remedy he knows so well ? The explanation is obvious enough. He knows that the installation of preventive measures will mean a legitimate expenditure of railway money on a large scale, and that this will deplete some railway dividends, and absorb others altogether. He knows that this would cause an immediate outcry from the railway shareholders en masse, that real enquiry would follow, and that the miserable sham in which he is a partner would be at an end. He therefore orders a fresh copy of the conventional report he has made so many times before, to be made. It only differs in the matter of the date, and the figures of the killed and wounded, and the place at which the disaster took place. He sheds the same number of crocodile tears as he did on the previous occasion, and takes his directorship of one or more railway companies on his retirement from Government service (Italics mine.)

Think it over, fellow workers ; read it over yet again, and I have no doubt as to the result of your serious deliberations. During the processes of production and distribution thousands of men and women are hurled into premature graves in the greed for profits, while thousands of the wealth producers every year are maimed or become physical and mental wrecks as the result of the awful conditions under which they are compelled to labour for a bare existence. The capitalist class are only concerned with the acquisition of dividends, and are indifferent to the prodigious waste of human life that is ever resulting from their avarice. The writer hardly feels disposed to give the reader a further dose of the horrors of the ghastly struggle on the Continent ; but no more convincing evidence could be adduced to show the cold-blooded, murderous nature of the ruling class.

Not content with the systematic butchery of the workers in the “piping times of peace,” the master class, whenever their material interests are seriously threatened by their rival capitalists of another nation, do not hesitate to force the whole of the manhood of the toiling masses who are capable of shouldering a rifle and marching, into the armed forces to safeguard their interests and property. Many thousands will never return. As they die fighting King Capital’s battles they will be hurled unceremoniously into any hole as so much refuse, forgotten by their historic enemy—the ruling class.

Perhaps the reader would like to peruse the following, culled from the “Daily Chronicle,” 12.6.16.

“’Vorwaerts’ publishes an article headed ‘More than 700 Graveyards.’ The article refers to the battlefields of Galicia and to the efforts that are being made by the Austrian authorities to bring some order into the chaotic military burying places which lie scattered over almost the entire province. The writer reckons that between the town of Gorlice and the heights of Tarnovo no less than 419 graveyards have been cleared of their unsightly surroundings, and says that where possible natural beauties in the landscape have been utilised to lend dignity to the enormous cemeteries.

All along the Dunajec one proceeds from graveyard to graveyard thickly strewn over the entire countryside. Russians, Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, to the number of 40,000 are buried in the cared-for graveyards, a number which does not include, of course, those buried in masses in one grave. In West Galicia alone about 600 graveyards exist, and in other parts over 100. From the Dunajec eastwards the multitudinous graves of the Russians are seen stretching away into the eastern plains, an awful record of the death-grapple of last year.”

The reader will, of course, recognise that the same conditions apply with equal force to France, Belgium, and other areas where hostilities are in operation. The writer can almost hear the terrible shrieks of the Anti-Socialist in pre-war days: “Socialism will break up the home.” That agonised voice is strangely quiet while the homes of whole peoples are being laid in desolate ruin.

Need more be written ? We Socialists urge the workers to study their position in society, to understand the great and bloody struggle which exists between the capitalist class and the working class, and when they realise and understand these things, to join with us in the work of spreading the knowledge of the principles of Socialism, and organising our fellow-workers, consciously and politically, for the overthrow of the hideous capitalist system and its blood-soddened parasite class.

Only when capitalism is overthrown will society be able to free itself from the shackles that bind it, and men and women be able to lead a free, full, and joyous life.

C. F. Carter

These Foolish Things: They call it efficiency (1996)

The Scavenger column from the October 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

They call it efficiency

Railtrack, the owner of the track the country's trains run on, is busily getting into the privatised spirit by closing 62 signal boxes and axing 217 jobs. The jobs will go through natural wastage, as if that does not really count. Naturally the company is anxious to assure travellers that the cuts will not affect safety, implying that the surplus boxes were merely ornaments among the trackside furniture. Having fewer signal boxes, we are told, will give signalmen ‘a broader picture of the traffic on their line’. Financial Mail on Sunday, 4 August.

We call it murder

The collision on Thursday killed one woman passenger and injured 68 others . . . Despite concerns among senior staff, neither BR nor the network’s current owner, Railtrack, attempted to deal with the risk at the track junction on the line between London and Milton Keynes . . . Despite concerns, the potential risk was increased when the signalling was updated to a more sophisticated computer- controlled system four years ago .. . The enquiry into the Clapham rail disaster in December 1988, which killed 35, recommended the [Automatic Train Protection] device be installed all trains. But the scheme was shelved on cost grounds. Mail on Sunday, 11 August.

You pays your money . . .

One in eight buses and coaches examined by the Vehicle Inspectorate in roadside checks over the past year were defective. Some were so dangerous they were impounded, while in other cases the operators were given deadlines for repairs. Figures released by the Vehicle Inspectorate reveal an increase of 600 faulty buses and coaches over the year, bringing the annual nation-wide total to 4,338. Mail on Sunday, 4 August.

Real education!

Such is the importance of taking responsibility for one’s own financial future that the [Weinberg Committee) report is asking the government to consider making personal finance a core subject on the National Curriculum. Besides the stock market, Sir Mark envisages teaching in the use of credit cards, handling debt and using a bank account. This, the committee argues, is the only way of educating youngsters to cope with the steady whittling away of the welfare state.

Lacking education?

Jailing fine defaulters:

• Unpaid fines [in Britain) total £200 million, £31 million is written off each year.
• In 1994, 22,469 men and 1,454 women were jailed for non-payment—the highest number for ten years and accounting for more than a quarter of all new prison receptions. Each was inside for an average of seven days.
• Three quarters are unemployed and half had other outstanding debts, usually electricity, gas, telephone or council, tax. Two thirds had been in prison before.
• Most men had been convicted of motoring offences. A third of the women had been convicted of prostitution. Guardian, 11 July.

That’s the spirit!

“As managing director at Tarmac during the 1980s I used to dream about doing my competitors in. And as MD of British Telecom I dreamed of doing Bryan Carlsberg in. I will not describe the methods used.” Graeme Odgers, Chairman of Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

The Scavenger

Sting in the Tail: A Sordid Tale (1990)

The Sting in the Tail column from the October 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Sordid Tale

The history of British Labour governments is littered with sordid episodes. One of these was told on ITV's "A Marriage of Inconvenience" on 15 August.

In 1949 Ruth Williams, a white Briton, married Seretse Khama, a tribal chief In the British "Protectorate" of Bechuanaland. The neighbouring South African government, which had just imposed Apartheid, was outraged and demanded that the Labour government refuse to recognise Khama as legitimate chief.

Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister, was determined that Britain must have its own atom bomb but the American government wouldn't provide the necessary know-how.

But America was short of uranium which South Africa had in plenty, so the Labour government made a deal with South Africa to betray Khama in return for uranium which it would then swop for American atom secrets.

Khama was summoned to London to be subjected to threats, attempted bribery and finally banishment from Bechuanaland.

So the government that claimed to oppose Apartheid actually assisted it, while the cynicism and treachery they displayed would have shamed the hardest-hearted Tory.

The re-telling of this episode is a reminder that Labour governments will stop at nothing in their efforts on behalf of British capitalism.

Trotsky's "Marxism"

The 50th anniversary of Trotsky’s murder had his followers lavishing the usual praise on their hero.

In a letter to The Guardian (23 August), David Widgery of the Socialist Workers Party claimed, among other things, that Trotsky had applied Marxist analysis to 20th century events.

We deny this: What Trotsky applied was the bombastic crystal-gazing which had him writing in 1935, for example, that ". . . England is heading for a revolutionary explosion" only months before the Tories won their biggest ever majority.

According to Trotsky the sit-down strikes by French workers in 1936 "revealed the wholehearted readiness of the proletariat to overthrow the capitalist system", that capitalism in 1938 was in its "death agony", etc., etc.

History has proved Trotsky's analyses to be nonsense and his legacy to the working class has been to confuse thousands of them down the years.

Ryzhkov's "Marxism"

In the struggle for power inside the Communist Party of the USSR there appears to be a conflict between those who would immediately go over to a Western-style market economy and those who would have that change enacted more gradually.

Amongst the gradualists is the present Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov. But to illustrate the hypocrisy and deceit of the ruling élite  in the USSR his more gradual approach does not apply to his own personal ownership.

In the youth daily Komsomolskaya Pravada, it has been reported that Ryzhkov has bought his state dacha with one-and-a-half hectares of forest for the ludicrous sum of 47,000 roubles (officially £47,000 but in reality about one tenth that amount judging by the foreign tourist rate.)

With the thought of yet another coal strike in the offing perhaps Mr. Ryzhkov plans to have a good supply of firewood on hand this winter. Another example of "socialist" planning?

Off the Rails

During the enquiry into the Clapham rail disaster, which led to 35 deaths, the Westminster coroner Paul Knapman made a telling point about the cause of the disaster, when questioning the technician who carried out the faulty signalling work.

During questioning of Mr. Hemingway, Mr. Knapman said that he believed that there were four "core reasons" for the disaster — a lack of instruction; a lack of supervision; a lack of testing along the guidelines set out in circular SL-53; and "the general reckless haste, pressure, pressure, pressure" of the re-signalling work

The Independent 11 September

That the pressure was indeed intense is backed up by the information that Hemingway had had only one day off in 13 weeks, that he had no formal training and that the acting testing officer who had to check Hemingway's work had no formal training either.

The "core reason" for the Clapham disaster is of course capitalism. In a sane society based on production for use there would be no need to scrimp on safety measures.

Reformist "Progress"

The Gulf crisis has meant a big set-back for environmentalists in the USA.

Until now their pressure (aided by the low cost of imported oil) has enabled them to block further oil exploration, notably in Alaska and off the Californian coast.

Now the strategists who consider the long-term interests of US capitalism insist that America has become too dependent on imported oil and that more domestic oil production is in "the national interest".

The oil companies are using this situation to turn the tables on their enemy. One of their chief spokesmen stated:

The national security aspects in oil have been completely subordinated in recent years to the environmental concerns. Now the emphasis is coming back to the national security aspect. If there is a conflict between the two, it may no longer be resolved in favour of the environmentalists.

The Guardian 25 August

And the environmentalists' other bogey, the nuclear industry, has seized the opportunity to strenghten its case by pointing out that nuclear plants greatly reduce US dependence on oil imports.

On top of this come allegations that environmentalists are a threat to national security! Congressman Dannemeyer of California says:

The environmentalists party . . . is a greater security threat than Saddam Hussein could ever be.

Now that the "communist" menace has gone, maybe the environmentalists will be the next victims to be labelled "un-American". Stranger things have happened.

Down on the Farm

Riot police lobbing tear gas grenades at angry crowds — lorries hi-jacked — roads blocked by burning debris — a scene from Lebanon, South Africa or Palestine?

No. This is rural France as farmers protest at the import of meat and lamb.

Many of them face ruin as the price of lamb has fallen by 17 per cent, calves by 10 per cent and cows by 7 per cent.

Some "experts" blame the French government for cutting subsidies, some the import of cheap produce from Britain, others blame cheap imports from Eastern Europe. None of them apparently blame the real cause — capitalism with its production for profit. 

The spectacle of children starving — while farmers riot about the ruin that faces them as the meat mountain grows — is just another example of how essential it is that we scrap the out-dated system of society that produces everything for sale despite the desperate needs of the world's hungry.

Workers leave the running of society in the hands of "experts" at their peril.

Should the railways be renationalised? (2000)

From the November 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month’s derailment in Hatfield following on from the heavy loss of life in the Paddington rail crash has resulted in renewed calls from the Left for the re-nationalisation of the railways. But state ownership of the railways is in no-one’s interest, except, at times, sections of the ruling class

So far as the working class is concerned, the great privatisation/ nationalisation issue has always been a completely bogus one. Unlike socialism, which has never been tried, state ownership of whole or part of a country’s economy has been widely applied.

State ownership of Britain’s railways was first proposed in the 1840s, not as you might suppose by primeval leftists but by the Conservative Party as a means of putting pressure on the railway companies not to overcharge their fellow capitalists. On the continent there was another reason—militarism. State ownership allowed greater control over the flow of troops to internal or external trouble spots. This is essentially why the railways in countries such as Germany and Russia were state-owned from early on. In Germany the situation was admittedly a little more complicated: only the strategic routes were state run whilst private enterprises were allowed to own the less important routes. When Germany began its state-directed industrialisation project later in the nineteenth century the railways were a vital part of this. Gradually the state began to eat up the private companies as the scope of lines considered developmentally useful widened. In Britain, however, the state did not need to take over the railways in order to force capitalist development and, because of the geographical nature of Britain as an island, there was no urgent military reason either.

The early association of nationalisation with the Conservative Party, Bismarck, and militarism should logically have made clear to anyone its non-socialistic nature. It was comparatively late in the nineteenth century that nationalisation became a “socialist” demand. Fuelled by propaganda barrages from such witty and knowledgeable individuals as Robert Blatchford and his paper the Clarion, nationalisation was by 1900 firmly established as another name for socialism, even for Marxism. Sadly it remains so amongst the pseudo-socialists of the left such as Paul Foot and Socialist Worker. Marx and Engels on the other hand made a clear differentiation between the two. Engels could not have been clearer in his note in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific: “state ownership (. . .) was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously”.

Britain’s railways were nationalised as a result of the Railways Act of 1947, which became effective on 1 January 1948. “Old Labour”‘ will proudly tell you that this was solely an ideological decision of Attlee and his mates. However, the desire for post-war economic recovery (increased profits) was far more influential.

Two previous interludes of state control during the world wars had brought round the capitalist class to the practicality of the idea. Doubly so when the railways had been revealed as virtually bankrupt. In real terms it was vital that transportation essential for industry should function well. Under government control if necessary. Offered generous dividends from government bonds, the shareholders recognised a good deal when they saw it. As a “‘rescue package” state ownership also has an extensive history in the USA, Conrail (formed 1976 to take over the bankrupt companies of the Northeast, privatised in the 1980s and recently bought out by other private companies) and Amtrak (providing a subsidised intercity service since 1970) being the obvious examples.

The nationalisation experience

Socialists are, of course, concerned about profits versus safety issues arising from crashes. But what should not be credited is that nationalisation overcomes the need to make a profit. In fact, the fifty years experience of nationalised railways in Britain was a clear demonstration of the profit drive at work. And it is not much of an exaggeration to call this experience an unmitigated disaster.

The first ten years of nationalisation were almost wholly barren. This inactivity was ironic given that the private companies were planning extensive dieselisation and electrification projects which were cancelled by the government. Oddly enough, private ownership can be an advantage over state control: a private company can be induced to incur huge debts for capital projects on the grounds of anticipated profits whereas bureaucratic state control lacks this animating factor.

The second decade was hugely disastrous. By the end of the 1950s competition from road transport, especially in the freight sector, was beginning to bite. An investment programme was launched as a part of the 1955 modernisation plan, but this was slow to take effect. Further reductions in profitability in the early 1960s resulted in a rushed plan, associated with Dr Richard Beeching (chairman of the British Railways Board 1963-65). Essentially the Beeching Plan involved the concentrating of resources on city to city services and full trainload containerised freight. The number of passenger lines was drastically cut, leaving whole areas (e.g. Norfolk and Devon) virtually devoid of rail transport, and thus often severely affected by road traffic congestion. The result was that in Britain the railway network is thus considerably smaller than in comparable European countries. The railways were also virtually destroyed as freight carriers since the bulk carriers they were to have depended on (coal, iron etc) declined rapidly in importance after 1970.

For why? Profit. The railways were expected to pay, or at least not to make a loss. Subsidies were ruled out even then for “social” reasons until the late 1960s. Rural passenger routes and small goods carrying failed to show direct profitability (although it may be asserted that rural routes acted as vital feeders to the trunk routes). The only ray of light was the crash dieselisation programme. In classic Marxist fashion, however, economic factors, principally the increased cost of labour power, was the prime motivation behind this, rather than some airy fairy notion of a smutless service for passengers. During the 1950s and 1960s diesels cost about the same to run as steam engines, although the latter require far more maintenance. Especially during the Sixties real wages increased considerably, biting into profits and making labour intensive steam engines a liability. Like the electrification of the West Coast main line in the mid-60s dieselisation was introduced much later than technically it could have been and was hindered by the rapid nature of the change (some of the overlarge variety of locomotives were inadequately field-tested and proved unreliable in service).

The last thirty years have been pretty much dealing with what was left over from Beeching. Numerous lines have been electrified but compared with similar countries abroad the percentage of track electrified is much less (see chart below). This lack of progress is even more pronounced when one considers the considerable track mileage electrified on the third rail principle which is now generally considered unsuitable except for inner suburban journeys.

The British experience of nationalisation does not mean that state ownership cannot be effective and efficient in capitalist terms. Few supporters of re-nationalisation would back a simple return to the old British Rail. What is needed, they might say, is massive subsidies as practised in, for example, Germany and France until recent years. In both these countries the railway system is better in terms of extent and modernisation. Yet it is clear that such subsidies are not sustainable over the long term especially in Germany, with the huge costs of reintegrating the former East Germany burdening tax-paying capitalists, and have already begun to be reduced.

French and German capitalists have always stressed long-term investment, especially in infrastructure, rather more than their English (and American) counterparts. Their experience of railway nationalisation emphasises this. To a certain extent this has resulted in better and faster passenger services and increased freight use. However it should be stressed that this is a merely a difference in approach between different sets of capitalists, who, it should be added, are by no means a monolithic bloc.

Privatisation

Britain’s railways were privatised as a result of the Railways Act of 1993. Essentially, this divided the railways into two types of company: an infrastructure company known as Railtrack responsible for maintenance of tracks, stations and the like, timetabling, etc; and “Train Operating Companies” (TOCs) which actually provide the services and rolling stock. Franchises for running services were all awarded by the end of 1996. The rationale behind privatisation is simple. The government receives a lump sum which it can offset against taxation and can also wash its hands of responsibility when something goes wrong. Digging deeper we find that railway freight traffic is no longer considered essential to profit-making, due to the long-term decline in British manufacturing industry. While on the passenger side the railways have again become profitable due to a dramatic increase in traffic. As such a 1948-type nationalisation “rescue plan” is no longer needed.

Profit will always come before safety in capitalist society – nationalised or not

So far as safety goes deaths on the railways have not noticeably increased since privatisation (remember Harrow in 1952 was the biggest peacetime disaster). Certainly confusion resulting from the hacking of old British Railways into chunks (as suggested by one report into that disaster) cannot have helped matters. But the evidence points to the profit drive as the killer. In the case of the Paddington disaster, bi-directional lines had been introduced to give “greater flexibility” to operations. For “greater flexibility”‘ read “speed up”; faster trains mean bigger profits. Coupled with inadequate and insufficient signalling, a cost-cutting measure that was again brought in too fast to reduce costs, this was a recipe for disaster. Governmental action can affect the level of accidents, but the desire for profits favours the cutting of corners, so the possibility will always be there.

Capitalism means the lust for profits. It does not entail “fair competition” or any of that sort of wishy-washy apologetic mumbo-jumbo. By fair means or foul gaining monopoly is the order of the day. No doubt we shall see this in operation in the corporate world of railways in the years to come. Indeed this has already started; a cursory glance at a list of the real owners of the railway companies reveals a number of firms, such as Stagecoach, in control of more than a few. Government regulation can hinder this process but can never prevent it.

Nationalised industries are the property of the state, the executive organ of the capitalist ruling class; in effect they are under corporate ownership of the capitalist class as a whole. They operate under the same rules of profit and loss as privately-owned companies because they exist within a system where everything is measured in terms of money. In socialism all property will be owned by all. Since the people, not the state (which will not exist), will own everything there will be no need to buy or sell anything.

Being owned by all people in common, the railways in Socialism would naturally have different priorities. Instead of making profits the comfort, convenience and safety of passengers and staff would be paramount. In addition, a rational society would emphasis such points as their environmental soundness, particularly when electrical power is utilised.

Keith Scholey

“Everybody did what they could” (1999)

From the November 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Tuesday October 5th, at 8.11am, a Great Western express and Thames Trains commuter service smashed head on at a combined speed of 120mph just outside Paddington station. 31 people were killed.

Preliminary reports after the Ladbroke Grove train crash suggest that the Thames Trains driver passed a signal at danger, resulting in both trains being on the same track. The relevant signal—number 109—is the same one thought to have been involved in a near-miss incident in February 1998 when another Great Western express managed to brake in time to avoid a stationary London-bound Heathrow Express train. Rail sources have also reportedly acknowledged that “seven trains run by Thames Trains have, over the last 12 months, passed through signal 109 while on red” (Guardian, October 6). Such overshoots, known as SPADs (signals passed at danger) rose from 593 in 1997 to 643 in 1998. This does not automatically mean it is drivers at fault. Drivers have made a series of complaints about signal 109, pointing out it is badly situated and obscured by overhead cables and a pylon. Furthermore, train drivers are under pressure not to be late, to avoid their firms being fined by the train companies franchise director. And drivers work long hours while having to carry out repetitive button-pressing hundreds of times a day, and are therefore more prone to dangerous tiredness and boredom.

On the very same stretch of line two years ago, the Southall crash killed seven after a Great Western express jumped a red light and smashed into a goods train crossing its path. The firm was fined £1.5 million for breaking safety regulations after a court was told that one of the train’s key safety devices, the Advance Warning System which should have sounded a Klaxon before reaching each danger signal, was not working. In the court case, the judge remarked “There appears to be a conflict between profit and safety”.

Cost-per-file calculations

In 1989, the year after the Clapham crash in which 35 people died, its inquiry chairman Anthony Hidden recommended a failsafe system called Automatic Train Protection (ATP). It regulates train speeds, ruling out red signal overruns. However, capitalist “cost per life” calculations came up with a figure of £14 million to prevent each future death with ATP, and a total expenditure of around £1 billion to fit it throughout the network. Both the previous and present governments saw this cost as prohibitive, and in August this year, John Prescott opted for a much cheaper (£150 million) Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), which gave a more “acceptable” £2.5 million cost-per-life calculation.

Immediately after the Ladbroke Grove crash, John Prescott said that his decision to implement TPWS had “nothing to do with cost”. And speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on October 7, when asked who would pay for installing the far better system (which the deputy PM had suddenly become very keen on), Prescott simply replied “finance isn’t a problem”. Pressed a second time, he said “It could be industry. I don’t think it necessarily has to be a charge on government . . . It is not a problem”. This is not so. If the 25 train operating companies are made to pay around £2 billion at today’s prices for ATP (or any other more advanced system), this charge would have to be passed on passengers through raised prices. Additionally, huge state subsidies (£1.8 billion in 1997-98) paid to the train operating companies are due to be reduced to £0.9 billion by 2002-03. The combined extra financial burden could make rail transport far less competitive in comparison with private cars, coach and bus journeys, and deter many from using trains. That loss of competitiveness would mean a significant loss of profits, and since profits are capitalism’s priority, the fact is ensuring maximum safety on the railways would turn into a commercial disaster.

What capitalist solution to over-expensive or under-safe rail travel can we expect now the old British Rail network has been broken into 100 component parts by privatisation in the dog days of John Major’s government? Car drivers having to pay yet higher prices for petrol and diesel to force them to use trains? There has to be a limit to what millions of motoring will tolerate before voting against those imposing the charges. Asking Gordon Brown to pay up? Surely not after all Blair’s meritocratic free-market praise and rejection of “old” Labour. Raised wages and salaries to cover more costly fares? Most unwelcome for firms in an increasingly competitive global market. Could William Hague offer us a way out? Hardly. His willingness to take unemployment benefits away from anyone refusing to accept a lousy job shows considerable admiration for market forces. Liberal Democrats? Just another bunch of lookalike politicians. So what’s the answer? Let us take another look at what happened in the Ladbroke Grove crash, for not only was this a result of capitalism’s profits-before-people unavoidability, but a far better diametrically opposite way of living and working was suddenly revealed amidst the chaos.

Unforced co-operation

At Ladbroke Grove, socialists saw for a brief period capitalism’s habitual grip on people’s lives shaken off by a shared disaster, and humankind’s suppressed helpful co-operative nature suddenly came to the fore. Despite jagged mangled wreckage, fire and fumes that survivors had to escape from immediately after the impact, commuters who had been reticent strangers just moments earlier, disjointed by a competitive and individualistic marketplace, unselfishly acted to save and assist others. From getting ready to hurry off the express train and compete in a rush for the tube, taxis and buses to reach places of employment, instead, authoritative suits were removed to helpfully beat out burning clothing of others. Working women wearing heels teetered back and forth to support those more seriously hurt. Residents living nearby rushed over with ladders to reach down to the track to provide assistance. Workers at a Sainsbury’s store commandeered first aid supplies for lacerations, and bags of frozen food for burns. Staff at a school helped emergency services turn their premises into a makeshift field hospital. As one person said, “everybody did what they could”. Such abundant unforced co-operation for the benefit of all in need is how it should be; how it would be, but how it won’t be while profit-takers, their politicians, money mechanism, bureaucrats, rules and law enforcers act together to maintain capitalism’s divisive and exploitative system.

It is somewhat encouraging that every time a horrific rail, ship or air crash occurs, many people will now complain angrily to radio programmes and the press, that profit has yet again been put before people. This will almost always be true, but regrettably, come election time, this awareness and sanity about the danger of living in a profit-driven economy has usually been driven from voters minds by endless media coverage of wholly irrelevant policies on income tax, unemployment, minimum wage rates etc. And off a majority will go to mark their crosses beside some candidate who wants to govern capitalism. Such voting then guarantees yet another five years of business profit-making and cost savings having pre-eminence, thereby keeping going the conditions that will give rise to further money-related disasters.

However, with so many people now aware how much harm and misery profits can cause, the socialist alternative of the safest possible travel systems with no financial restraints whatsoever, and no over-worked stressed-out workers, appears more clearly as the way out. If people come to see that profits themselves only exist because a minority have unjust possession of what the majority need, and this dominant class exploit both with damaging anti-social consequences, then all that unfocused anger would linger, politicians’ gibberish and worthless promises would be ignored, and there would be ever-increasing support for common ownership of vital industries and other productive assets, along with politician-free democratic control over how these are used. This is genuine socialism. It has never existed anywhere. It would make restrictive and dangerous money completely obsolete. Take a little time to find out more about this people-first system before your next trip to the polling stations (or some other serious trip).

Max Hess