Editorial: A missed opportunity (2004)

Editorial from the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

The American workers have spoken. They have made their choice. Unlike many on the left, the Socialist Party has always stood by the simple principle of assuming that when voters vote for a party, they do actually support – however grudgingly or partially – its policies. We accept that millions upon millions of American voters voted for the wrong choice – the incredible, unbelievable choice, of another four years of being ruled by a bluffing, blundering buffoon in the White House. Almost 110 million Americans voted for one or other multi-millionaire to be their elected Monarch.

Our comrades in America did their best to dissuade them – members in the United Kingdom here wrote letter to American workers asking them not to vote for the billionaires. But the result was a resounding vote for capitalism, for war and its continuation, for despoliation of the environment. It is, frankly, patronising and ignorant to assume that millions of American voters, after months and months of debate and discussion voted the way they did because they are stupid.

We have to credit them with wanting what they voted for, with supporting the policies of the capitalist class. In a more or less free election, when they had the opportunity to raise their voice they failed to do so, and so must bear the responsibility for their choice. It is the sons and daughters of American voters who will be sent to fight in a boiling desert, and live the rest of their lives with the scars of battle. It is the sons and daughters of American voters who will have to rise at dawn and walk miles to work. It is the sons and daughters of American voters who will have to watch their partners suffer poverty heaped upon bereavement because they have voted to allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Obviously, it is difficult to make a change. It requires patience, organisation, effort – but millions of Americans were able to put all that effort into electing one of the millionaires. The existing politicians may throw hurdles in the way, may have more money to spend, but all those advantages rest on the essential acceptance of the current system of society by the vast majority

We must not, though, imagine this support for capitalism is confined only to American workers. Billions of workers across the globe keep voting for capitalism because they continue to believe its illusions and aspirations. It remains the job of socialists to continue to try and shatter those illusions, while the leftists weep into their beers because their millionaire lost.

Although we are – to be utterly blunt – a pathetic minority now, that does not mean we must give up hope. That so many millions of workers support capitalism today, does not mean they will do so tomorrow. America itself has changed out of all recognition in its two hundred years of growth, and will change again. Across the world there are countless examples of sweeping changing to political landscapes from one election to the next. Until then, all we can do, is turn to our fellows and say “There is a better way”.

Political freedom offers the best means to make that change, and the tools are to hand were the workers to take them up. George Bush and John Kerry are irrelevances, because no politician can be better than the system they administer, and socialists need to draw the discussion back to the things that really matter.

News in Review: Disobedience campaign (1960)

The News in Review column from the November 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Disobedience campaign

It would appear that true to their policy statement most of the CND leaders have completely disowned Lord Russell’s proposals for a civil disobedience campaign. According to Lord Russell the proposals are an appeal to the conscience and intelligence of all men about the dangers of mass extermination. What concerns us is the kind of society reflected in these measures to flout authority. The real tragedy is that at election times the overwhelming majority vote for the retention of Capitalism and consequently for most of the policies which go with it, including the H-bomb. For this reason the Socialist is not being cynical when he makes the remark: “You got what you voted for.”

To those CND supporters still undecided as to their next move it could be pointed out that by supporting any kind of civil disobedience they are fighting and will continue to fight the effects of the present system rather than abolishing it altogether and replacing it with a new and much less frustrating society.

Right to Strike

Patrick Neary has been released after spending six weeks in prison. He was the leader of the recent seamen’s strike, and was sent to jail because he did not comply with a court order which told him (in effect) to give up all connection with the strike. Some newspapers have claimed that he was imprisoned not because he was a striker, but because he disobeyed the court order. This is to reject the substance and catch at the shadow. The reason Neary went to jail was because he had been elected chairman of the strike committee, and had therefore emerged as the figurehead of the strike. The shipping companies wanted to remind the seamen of the Merchant Shipping Act. under which any striking seaman can be sent to jail. As far as the mass of strikers were concerned, the companies were perhaps afraid of having them all sent to jail, for fear of repercussions: and so decided to call in the state machine (which after all they maintain to look after their interests) only against one man, the figurehead, Neary. Therefore Neary has had to endure for six weeks the vile indignities which are the lot of anyone in jail, because he took part in a strike and was elected chairman of the committee which ran it.

And what happened to the protests which we might have expected? The last war (our leaders told us) was fought to defend democratic freedoms. The right to withhold labour is a central democratic freedom. The alternative—sending men to jail because they refuse to work on the terms offered them by the capitalists—is slavery. But our ruling class had no objection to Neary's sentence. Their newspapers applauded it. Let us remember this the next time our rulers want our help to “fight for freedom and democracy."

Kennedy v. Nixon

BBC television has given up an hour of its time to show one of the debates between the rival candidates for the Presidency now being staged in the United States. It isn't clear why, unless it wants to demonstrate to British workers that there would be no point in emigrating. For the debate showed that politics have reached much the same stage over there as they have here. There are two great parties contending for the support of the working class. One of them holds that the system as it now stands is as near to perfect as anything ever devised by man. The other, which has the support of the unions, wants one or two reforms, which would do nothing whatever to change the class basis of society. Each of them has a programme and a policy, the essence of which is that each would run capitalism better than its rival.

In one respect the parallel is even closer. Over here we have become used to the Government of the day (whether Labour or Conservative) attacking any claim made for higher pay made by members of the working class, and treating any strike or threat to strike as if it heralded the end of civilisation. And then at each election, the Government, with superb effrontery, brings out any figures of higher pay won by the workers against the strenuous opposition of that very Government, as if it alone was responsible (and, at the same time, usually skates over any figures showing how inflation has left the workers in much the same position as they were before). In the televised debate Nixon, who has been vice-president for the last eight years, performed this very trick. He brought out the figures of wage increases as if he individually had led the workers in all the struggles which must go before the smallest pay rise. And no doubt if Kennedy wins this time, he will re-appear in four years using exactly the same argument which Nixon uses now.

The Referendum

The South African government has been given a majority vote in favour of a republic—a majority, that is, of white voters, as the vast mass of the population (the Africans, Indians and Cape Coloureds) in this referendum, as in all elections, have no vote. This winning of the referendum has, no doubt, pleased Dr. Verwoerd and his Nationalist supporters, but not all white South Africans are so pleased, although Dr. Verwoerd hoped that the creation of a republic would at last end the bitterness and hostility existing between the Boer South Africans and the English-speaking South Africans, which has remained since the Boer War. But this has not, so far, happened, and one of South Africa's leading industrialists, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, is frankly worried that the Republic may have a harmful effect on industry, should it not be readmitted to the Commonwealth, partly because of loss of the imperial preference.

Suicides

From a recent meeting of the British Medical Association at Middlesbrough, comes further evidence of the anti-social consequences of competition and production for profit. Dr. Sargent, physician-in-charge of the Department of Psychological Medicine at St. Thomas's Hospital. raised the matter of the 5,000 suicides which occur in this country yearly. According to Dr. Sargent, many patients who go on to commit suicide do so after wrong courses of treatment often resulting from confusion created by drug manufacturers in their publicity campaigns. Recently, advances have been made with a new group of anti-depressant drugs. “Unfortunately intensive competition between drug manufacturers to capture their share of an enormous potential market had resulted in excessive claims being made for them and wrong groups of cases suggested for their use," said Dr. Sargent.

Clearly the human considerations of treatment of the sick are secondary in the drive towards commercial success. Even so, anti-depressant drugs can at best only hope to treat symptoms. A far more satisfactory way of preventing suicides would be to establish a society based on more harmonious social relations and which takes no toll of the individual in terms of emotional stress.

Nigeria changes

Nigerians living in London marked Nigeria's coming to independence by publicly wearing their colourful and roomy national costumes. Was it worth celebrating? At the most, Nigeria will develop into another minor capitalist state; and we have seen enough of those to know that they have no more to offer their workers than any of the older established powers. Dr. Michael Okpara, the President of Eastern Nigeria, stated in the region's Assembly on 8th October that Nigerians would rather lay down their lives than lose their newly won freedom. At a guess this is a correct estimation of the loyalty of patriotic Nigerians who, like any other politically ignorant workers, are wide open to the propaganda of their masters.

But Dr. Okpara's statement gives the lie to those who pretend that the emerging capitalist countries are basically different from those whose power they have replaced. All over the world, workers are periodically called upon to die for the protection of their master's interests—and always they are told that they are dying to defend some high minded principle. British workers, for example, have fallen for this for a very long time. Now, the Nigerians are getting the same treatment. With, presumably, the same results—bloodshed and tragedy.

Blowing their tops

Mr. Khruschev had a rare old time at the United Nations. Hugging Fidel Castro, making violent speeches, banging his desk and shouting. He even heckled Mr. Macmillan, which gave the British Prime Minister the chance to show how an Old Etonian deals with that sort of thing in the House of Commons. Such bad behaviour, it was reported, upset Mr. Eisenhower, who cancelled any intention of shaking hands with, or talking to, the Soviet Premier.

Now diplomatic conferences are not like chats over the garden wall, when boorishness can cause a man to be bad friends with his neighbour. Capitalist powers do not split on points of etiquette—their disputes are over rival economic interests. International politicians know better than to lose their tempers as openly as Khruschev did—unless it suits their purpose to do so. And all of them will willingly hobnob with people guilty of worse than bad manners. If the immediate interests of their capitalist class demand it, they will talk to, shake hands with, embrace, pose with, other diplomats who are little better than murderers.

The disputes of capitalism have always involved a large measure of humbug. The stakes are high—and no trick barred. A dirty game.

Between the Lines: I'll take the Whitehouse (1988)

The Between the Lines Column from the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

I’ll take the Whitehouse

ITV opened its autumn season with a blockbuster (for which read: expensive, short-run soap opera) called I’ll Take Manhattan. It was the usual story of highly suntanned men making love to dollar signs and women who failed the audition for Dynasty or Dan Quayle's past. In between endless bouts of what the Sun calls bonking, these blokes compete over who can be the richest swine and own most of New York.

As unbelievable and tasteless tedium, such soap bubbles fade into insignificance when compared with that bigger-budgeted soap opera which has been dominating the US media in recent times. The great battle for the right to preside over American capitalism, between the Democrat with the permanent grin and the Vice President who has spent the last eight years as the chief assistant to Washington DC s village idiot.

The media dominates the US election. It dominates it in a manner that turns conventions into variety shows, speeches into prolonged smiles peppered with cliches and ideas into temporary interferences in the struggle to say least and win most support. The media campaigns of both parties in the US election are such that no socialist opposition, even if it was numerically big enough to mount a campaign against them (which at the moment the World Socialist Party of the United States is not) would be in a financial position to even begin to compete equally in an attempt to persuade the US workers of the case for the socialist alternative.

Instead of any serious attempt at presenting society as it is or offering solutions to its manifold problems, of which the wage slaves of the USA are far from free, the election advertising which is put out concentrates almost entirely on fascistic leader imagery. As in the implausible soap operas, the audience is urged to suspend disbelief and devote their minds entirely to superficial issues of personality. Thus it was that while Congress voted millions of dollars to arm the Contra terrorists, supported by both Bush and the Republican and Bentsen, Dukakis’s running-mate, the media "news" was about whether Bush's partner, Quayle. had once slept with a Playboy model when she was working as a hired "political lobbyist".

Instead of there being any debate about why one in four US children are now living below the official poverty line, the men with the media agenda were more interested in finding out how it was that Quayle. the super-patriot, managed to do the sensible thing and, like many other rich young kids of his class, dodge the Vietnam war where workers were sent to be mutilated and murdered.

Nobody elects the owners or controllers of NBC. CBS or ABC. Yet it is widely acknowledged in the USA that if they want to destroy a Presidential candidate they can. With them lies the power to tell the millions of American workers what "the real issues" are. Approximately half of the American workers will respond by not voting. It is bad enough having to watch tripe like I'll take Manhattan. without being told that you have to appear as an unpaid extra in it.

I’ll take Downing Street

While Hollywood beefcakes were pretending to take Manhattan and political half-wits were trying to take the Whitehouse. poor old Neil is still trying to storm Ten Downing Street. Panorama (BBC1. 9.30pm, 5 September) was all about the Labour Party’s current policy review exercise. Who ever said that good old tragedy was dead?

The programme exemplified much that is the pathetic tragedy of the reformist Labour Party. There was Tony Benn addressing a small rally of believers who had come to hear the rhetoric of radical change. The noises he made were good ones; some of it sounded like selected paragraphs from the Socialist Standard. It was, of course, the unselected passages which let him down and make him essentially no more than a useful frontman to be used by Kinnock and the rest in order to appropriate the hope of workers who should be using their energies destroying capitalism, not trying to run it. There was John Prescott who believes that Labour Party policy is fine and the world would be a much happier place if only the Labour Party had an extremely opportunist Deputy leader who comes from Hull and has no particular ideas about anything and is called John Prescott. Roy Hattersley. looking more than ever like a sad parody of himself, dribbled on about the importance of developing the Labour Party's ideas, by which he meant that more people should read his extremely dull book about why individuals would be more free under a "mixed economy".

There was even a two-second shot of a couple of Socialist Worker sellers standing outside a Labour Party meeting telling the Labourites how they have betrayed the workers once again. Of course. Socialist Worker urged workers to vote for these Labour betrayers in 1987, as they did in 1983, 1979, 1974 . . . The tragedy of the Panorama programme was that it showed the consequences which the Labour Party has brought on itself by 80 years of promising to reform away the inherent problems of the capitalist system without seeking to abolish the system itself. The simplicity of the socialist alternative — the need for a voice to be heard urging workers to abandon all illusions in reformism was not heard on the programme. The fact is that there are those seeking to change society and there are those seeking to change the seating arrangements in the Palace of Westminster and Kinnock's party has become so absorbed in the latter process that it no longer even occurs to them that whoever wins, the workers will lose under capitalism.

Your chance to be critics?

Right to Reply (C4. 6pm, 3 September) came from the Edinburgh TV Festival where four ’ordinary viewers" were invited to have their say about what's wrong with TV. In a half-hour programme, which included a five-minute introduction and several minutes of media controllers patting the "ordinaries" on the head, this big chance for the workers to have their say amounted to about five minutes each.

Of course, Channel Four chose who was to be invited to come along and criticise them and — surprise surprise — the Socialist Party member from Glasgow, who was told by Right to Reply that they would probably want him to come along, was eventually dropped from the programme. In the event, the four "ordinaries raised some pretty ordinary criticisms which, even if acted on. would not change the fundamentally undemocratic, pro-capitalist. life-distorting. minority-controlled nature of British TV output.

This column will continue to expose TVs crucial role as an agency for capitalist propaganda and manipulation of news, ideas and images. We shall praise them when, as occasionally happens, they tell the truth and offer some enlightening material for the consumption of our class. (In that respect, we can only be pleased to see the repeat showing of the excellent documentary, Fourteen Days in May and the follow-up documentary shown last month.) But we shall not desist from demonstrating that between the lines of most of what is not shown on TV is a poisonous intellectual diet which workers absorb at their peril.

Steve Coleman

An American Analysis of The Bi-Centennial Bust! (1976)

From the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

American capitalism in this year of Bi-Centennial celebration might well be summed up in a word: turmoil. Certainly, to base one’s estimates entirely upon reports by the media and to accept the superficial analysis of capitalist-dominated thinking, is to provoke the question : is American society disintegrating before our very eyes ?

For here is a nation based upon Law—we are assured —that is seemingly a Mecca for outlaws. Here exist a system of government and a political philosophy that shine as a beacon to the rest of benighted mankind, the most brilliant and the fairest system in the world of these or any previous times. Every American school-child has been made aware of this by the authors of the approved texts. And every last one of the horde of immigrant workers from Central and South America and the islands of the Caribbean (not to mention the steady stream of those from so many other lands) have heard of it, if not from their children, then certainly from other sources of “information” that abound in this “land of abundance.” Even the “wet-backs” who cross and re-cross the borders of this Promised Land, aided and abetted by employers of cheap, unskilled labour, always on the lookout for still cheaper human energy, have heard the glad tidings of America, the Land of the Free (and those who work for them).

And despite the gilt-edged assurances of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the entire American system of doing things, the turmoil exists and seems to accelerate with the passage of time.

But do not be deceived. There is nothing unusual about the troubles and woes of capitalism in America, today. Concerned supporters and radical opponents to the contrary notwithstanding, the system functions normally and there are at least two obvious tests one can make to verify this assertion : (1) Compare it with its own past by checking newspapers of the past in the microfilm department of your Public Library; (2) Compare it with what goes on, today, in the rest of the world wherever capitalism—in whatever form—is the order of the day.

And yet, one cannot be too careful when undertaking such comparisons. For it is the superficial that is readily seen, especially when observing the situation, via the media, on a world basis. It would seem that there is much more “law and order” in other nations than is the case in America, especially in the dictatorship countries, much less turmoil than in these United States. But it is not safe to make such an assumption for at least one good reason, viz., there is no country where the press (and other media of propaganda) is as highly developed, as a “Fourth Estate,” as in America. The Lords of the Press in this country have been able to maintain a large degree of independence from national government and what it assumes to be national (capitalist) interests.

More so than in other nations, even in the nations of the “Free West,” is this the case. Just one example is needed: publication of “classified” government material in any other country would earn for its publishers a cell in the slammer, if not the execution block. Yet, the US Constitution guarantees that there shall be no prior restraint on the freedom of the press and this right of individual capitalists over the rights of other individuals, or even at times the interests of the total national capital, as interpreted by the government, has been upheld in the high courts. Even ordinary cases before the courts—right up to murder—can be and are “tried in the newspapers” and defendants either convicted or acquitted on the basis of stories in and attitudes created by the newspapers.

The fact is, then, that all of the sores of capitalism (and they are many) are reported and sensationalized by the media in America to perhaps a greater extent than any place else in the world. And there is another aspect about reporting that should not be overlooked. That aspect is the penchant for distortion. Newspapers and TV Newscasts are, besides a major part of the head-fixing industry, commodities themselves produced for sale on the market (to readers and viewers) with view to profit (from advertisers). Especially is this true in a country such as the United States of America where outright Government ownership is not present either in the press or the Airwaves. The message, as taken by some, of turmoil-to-the-point-of-disintegration, then, should be inclusive of a large grain of salt.

★

With the foregoing in mind, let us now look at America in this Bi-Centennial Year as it really is. It is certainly not a land in which some 220 millions enjoy a common heritage or—at least—a common interest. (Nor is this so any place else in the world). Neither is it in deeper-than-usual difficulty and ready to come apart at the seams. The first part of this estimate should be obvious to all but those unfortunates who are born blind, deaf, and speechless, and needs no elaboration. The second part can be made apparent through a brief look at class warfare and mass poverty in America over the entire period of its history; and the public libraries are well-stocked with all the documentation one would need, from old newspapers, to journals, to history books. From the rebellions immediately following the framing of the Constitution in 1787 until the continuing upheavals of these 1970s, class warfare has run rampant in this land, even when it is cloaked by racial overtones.

As for the fanciful estimates of uninformed radical activists and the fears of far-right patriots that capitalism in America is being destroyed from within, the facts indicate otherwise. This does not mean that America might not, in time, be toppled from her position of world dominance by another power or combination of powers. This is possible even if it may not seem probable in the immediate future. But the working class of America can hardly suffer economic loss from such an eventuality. For working class standards are really not tied to a nation’s position of power vis-a-vis other nations. Latest figures show per capita income (by means of which living standards are generally estimated) in America are not first, but fifth, despite her occupying the No. 1 spot in world power. Nor can the British workers, for example, look back with nostalgia to those times when Britain dominated the world and wish to return to their living standards of those “good old days”.

So let us take a hard look at the actual standards of the American working class in this year of America’s colossal 200th birthday party. And let us go to the capitalist Press for some statistical facts, rather than the fiction it so dearly loves to spew on the subject of American working-class affluence. As reported in The Western Socialist (Boston, USA) in its No. 5, 1975 issue:

In a full page spread in an issue of The New York Times, USN & WR (US News and World Report) goes after advertising. And in blowing its own horn it inadvertently blows the whistle on the Great American Myth. We are presented with the picture of a smiling family of four on a sight-seeing trip, enjoying the ‘American heritage’ by actual contact. The caption accompanying the photograph reads: “If Peter Lloyd wasn't above the Buying Point, his kids would be reading about our American heritage. Instead of seeing it.’ And the ad goes on to spell out this American message. A chart depicting the details of ‘The Buying Point’ spills the beans and it seems that one exercises his patriotic urges in proportion to one’s income — which is something we knew all along, anyway, but which is something that makes news when revealed by the capitalist press.

The Report goes on to show, citing USN & WR, that one half the households are below the buying point. Further, that the lower half gets by on but 23 per cent of the national total income. Nor should we forget that a significant percentage of that upper half enjoys its buying power through the power of instalment buying (“hire purchase,” in Britain) and are forever precariously perched on a parlous precipice, warding off a plunge.

As the WS piece concludes:

For never forget, if we are all equal under the law, in America, it is a fact that some of us are more equal than others. Those whose income is above the buying point, and especially those who actually own America, the 5 or 10% at the top.

★

The American Bi-Centennial hoop-la is accentuated, of course, by the quadrennial race for the Presidency. Adding somewhat to the confusion is the fact that the incumbent, Gerald Ford, is the first us President in history who was not elected to the office. He was selected for the Vice-Presidency, by the then President Nixon, to replace Spiro Agnew who resigned rather than face trial on graft charges. When Richard Nixon followed Agnew into disgrace and retirement from office, Gerald Ford succeeded to the accoutrements of the Presidency. Because of this new element, the Republican Convention will be “open” with the incumbent enjoying no scissors-hold on the nomination. So the bad actor from California, Ronald Reagan, is making an all-out effort to save his country from disaster!

On the Democratic Party side, the race has narrowed somewhat as far as the various state-wide Presidential Primary elections are concerned. The main ingredient for capturing the White House, in these times, is money —piles of it—and those with money to invest usually place it on a more apparent winner. But a popular syndicated humourist, Art Buchwald, has observed that one needs a beautiful mouthful of teeth to be elected President of the United States and in that respect, at least, most of the candidates qualify—right down to Hubert Humphrey and Edward Kennedy whose shadowy figures bulk in the wings, awaiting a possible bolt from the blue.

But the most important fact of life for the working class in this proud year of capitalism in America is a sad one. There is no sign on the horizon of a meaningful opposition to the system that holds them in wage servitude. Any alternative being offered to the major parties, regardless of the designation, is but a variation of the theme: Capital versus Wage Labour with a government functioning as a capitalist class. There remains the need, in America, to build a genuine Socialist organization capable of presenting the case for a wage-less, price less, moneyless, world society, Let this not take another century !

Harry Morrison

Boston Local, WSP of US

Presidential Circus (1976)

From the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Where mindless buffoonery is another name for statesmanship, just about anybody could qualify as President of the USA; or as top political henchman anywhere in the world.

It must throw serious doubt upon the sanity of anyone who is prepared to be a candidate for one of the dirtiest jobs on earth. A job which involves being ready to command the use of H-bombs and other nuclear weapons, and to preside over the annihilation of countless millions of people. American Presidents have already either used nuclear weapons or considered using them. Every post-war President has pursued policies for testing and stockpiling H-bombs. Wars involving so-called conventional weapons are commonplace throughout the world. The influence and interest of American capitalism are concerned more often than not.

The job also means having a string of glib excuses ever ready to trot out as to why poverty, unemployment, slumdom, and crime continue to blight the lives of most Americans in one form or another. During the Primaries, and indeed right up to election day, evasion and cynicism are essential to survival. Of course, whoever wins will have to be doubly evasive and cynical once in office. It is as though under the influence of mass-hypnosis a primitive ritual were taking place, and serious adult discussion of major social problems was a taboo to be breached only on pain of extinction. Never mind what it’s all about, win the nomination. The object is to get elected. If that means wearing a gormless grin and a Stetson hat for months on end, so be it. The art is to be as sensitively tuned as possible to the rumbling of band-wagons, and not to be caught on the wrong one at the wrong time.

Anything in the way of fundamental principles would be a gross liability. Popular prejudice and mass political ignorance must never be offended. Candidates must strike the proper balance between being patriotic, religious and anti-Communist. Vagueness is vital, so that no-one can ever quote you as saying anything for sure.

Ideally, candidates need to personify as many of the myths associated with capitalism as possible. Be enterprising, successful, rugged, ultra-American, strong yet flexible. Insofar as behind those myths lie the realities of capitalism, “enterprising” means wheeling and dealing. “Success” means climbing on the backs of others. “Rugged” means knowing how to survive in the rat-race. “Ultra-American” means appealing to nationalism to achieve political ambition. Being "strong” means standing up to the recurrent crises of capitalism and not appearing to be too confused by the conflicting advice of your aides. To be “flexible” means hypocrisy, bending with prevailing winds and pandering to popular opinion, to lie and deal and double deal. On the basis of those criteria, Richard Nixon was a first-rate President. Perhaps the real reason why he was pushed out was because too much of capitalism was too clearly reflected in him.

A great deal of reverence is vested in the office of the Presidency. The President is regarded as a kind of national father-figure. Image-building of this kind is important to the capitalist class as a whole, for while the office and the person of the President are highly respected by the working class a useful camouflage is provided for the “normal operation” of the system.

They could, no doubt fill the post by placing a simple notice in the want-ads, but then some joker may apply who does not support war, or who won’t agree to play ball with the wheeler-dealers. So the circus and the sickening ballyhoo are indispensable to the final outcome. Even the also-rans play their part in stoking up the drama in what might otherwise become the non-event of the year. The whole thing is astutely stage-managed so that only personalities are seen. The miserable continuity of capitalism slips by unnoticed. We are expected to respond with breathless anticipation to the world-wide commentary, as they jockey for position round the three-ring circus donated by courtesy of Rent, Interest and Profit.

In the realms of personality, mediocrity is the order of the day. What the votes on polling-day really declare is not who shall be the next President of the USA; that is of little importance. They spell out loud and clear the readiness of American workers to go on accepting capitalism and their willingness to swallow the small-talk while the major social problems remain as glaring as ever. To reaffirm this fact and to take a sounding of any latent unrest is worth all the clowning and the expense to the ruling class. It assures them of the continuing “safety” of their system.

Anyone who thinks that Ford and Reagan (or any of the others) are not interchangeable should remember Johnson and Goldwater. Johnson campaigned as the man of peace who would pull out of Vietnam. Goldwater was for staying in and fighting it out. The American working class voted Johnson a landslide, but they got Goldwater anyway. It was not long before they were chanting “Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids you killed today?” When Reagan says he would send American troops to Rhodesia and Ford calls this “irresponsible” it does not mean Ford would not send troops to Rhodesia. It means that it is irresponsible to say such things during an election. Reagan said the troops would be for peace-keeping. Would they then leave their guns at home? What would-be President talks of sending soldiers anywhere to make war these days?

The whole situation has its parallel in every country throughout the world. Rival politicians jostle and manoeuvre to gain or hold on to power for the running of capitalism. The working class is taken in by a privileged minority who wield political power to preserve their domination of the means of wealth production and distribution. It is not that the American workers are more ignorant than their fellows elsewhere, just that their circus lasts longer.

Are we saying that elections are like circuses and should therefore not be taken seriously by the workers? On the contrary, it is because the real issue is not treated seriously that elections have all the farcical features of a circus. This does not discredit the democratic process of voting, it indicates the urgent need for workers to back their votes with class-consciousness. When they understand what is involved in changing society to the classless world of common-ownership, they will use their votes to sweep away the puppet politicians of capitalism.

Abraham Lincoln is often quoted as saying: “It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.” Whoever is elected the next us President certainly will not be deterred from trying.

Harry Baldwin

Editorial: Trump – what now? (2025)

Editorial from the February 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

On 20 January Donald Trump officially became president of the United States, much to the consternation of almost 50 percent of the US electorate, and many others around the world. When Trump lost the 2020 election, much relief was expressed by those who feared that he would have established some kind of dictatorship, stamping on all dissent and taking draconian measures against all ‘progressive’ forces. Similar fears are now being expressed.

He says he knows how to quickly resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict (even if he seems to have moved away from his earlier ‘single phone call’ boast). He has promised mass deportations of ‘unregistered’ people. He has vowed to counter attempts to limit fossil fuel and carbon emissions. He has proposed heavy taxes on imports from foreign countries, especially China. And he wants Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Will any of this happen? Whoever has to run the capitalist system in any country often sees their ‘best laid plans’ go awry, because capitalism cannot be controlled by governments. Trump’s desire to take over those other territories could only come to fruition if other global players inexplicably chose not to resist. And his mass deportation plans are likely to meet obstacles at local, state or international levels, making them no more successful than his previous plan to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.

His promotion of the fossil fuel industry may have earned him votes in the ‘rust belt’, but – with climate change implicated in multiple disasters including the recent Los Angeles fires – it could end up losing him support. If his confidence over the Russia-Ukraine war is based on cutting off weapons to Ukraine, he might find that Ukraine manages to get its weapons elsewhere, making him look impotent.

What would he say if such failures, or one of capitalism’s periodic downturns, lose him support? Some say he won’t care, because he will have established a police state that lets him rule unhindered. But advanced capitalist democracies like the US, and others such as the UK, Canada, Germany, France, Holland, Sweden, South Korea, etc, have well-entrenched mechanisms for preventing dictatorships. That’s true even if the would-be dictator surrounds himself, as Trump seems to be doing, with a cohort of compliant disciples who compete to express the most extreme views.

Examples of Trump’s puerile narcissism abound, for example, pinning the blame for the Los Angeles fires on the state governor, Gavin ‘Newscum’ Newsom. Expect further vilification of opponents by him and his best bro, the increasingly preposterous billionaire Elon Musk. Journalist Patrick Cockburn in the i Paper calls it ‘the most crazed administration in US history’. Another commentator calls it ‘the power of dumb’. Even so, it will still have to play by capitalism’s rules.

What has happened in the US seems aeons away from the kind of society we advocate – leaderless, moneyless, wageless, frontierless and entirely democratic. But even if the US election had voted in the ‘lesser evil’ (ie, the Democrats), that party would still have been obliged to run the system in a business-as-usual way, ie, in the profit-seeking interests of the tiny minority who monopolise the majority of the wealth. And so it will continue as long as most wage-slaves continue to support, or at least acquiesce in, capitalism and the profit-seeking force that drives it.

Editorial: Trump triumphs (2024)

Editorial from the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

So the ‘isolationist’ section of the ruling class has won control of political power in the United States. This was one of those rare elections under capitalism where the choice was not simply between two different management teams to implement the same basic policy. It was one, as over Brexit here, where there were real policy differences between two sections of the ruling class and where the issue was put to the mainly working class electorate to decide. As in Britain, the dominant section of the ruling class was outvoted.

‘Isolationism’ has been defined as ‘a political philosophy that advocates for a nation to avoid involvement in the affairs of other countries, especially in their wars, and only engaging in wars if attacked’. It has always been a trend in US history, explaining their late intervention in both the last century’s world wars. Since the end of the second of these, which resulted in the US becoming the dominant world power at the expense of Britain and France and their empires, ‘interventionism’ as the ‘world’s policeman’ has been the main feature of US foreign policy.

Will Trump end this? He has made it clear that he is not interested in continuing the war in Ukraine — a European war — but he still sees Iran and China as threats, to US commercial interests, respectively in the middle and far east. So, we can’t expect a complete retreat from the unashamed ‘American imperialism’ favoured by the Democratic Party and until recently by the Republicans too.

‘America First’ will have implications on relations between the capitalist states and trading blocs into which the world is divided. If Trump goes ahead with imposing tariffs on all imports, including from the EU, Japan and Britain, this would unleash a world trade war. If he puts US interests as a fossil-fuel producer ahead of the general world capitalist interest to try to do something about climate change this will hinder the already feeble international measures to deal with it.

What about the working class? Properly defined not just, as in American usage, those without a college degree but all those economically obliged to try to find an employer to get an income. They will remain in this same basic position and will still face the problems that the politicians on both sides promised to solve.

Why, then, did so many vote for him? It will have been, in the words of one of Bill Clinton’s advisers, ‘the economy, stupid’. Workers in the US, as elsewhere, have been experiencing the effects of more rapidly rising prices than in the past few decades and voted against the incumbent government which they mistakenly blamed for this (rather than capitalism). There will also have been the mistaken belief that Trump, as a perceived successful and tough businessman, was a good person to deal with it.

Mistaken they were, but they weren’t one reactionary mass voting for a supposed would-be dictator. They were voting for the price of groceries to come down. They will be disappointed in that Trump won’t be able to make them ‘prosperous again’. No government can make capitalism work for the benefit of the working class.

Socialist Sonnet No. 171: Drama or Farce? (2024)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog 

Drama or Farce?

 Viewed through red and blue tinted spectacles,

The two candidates perform as per script,

A political pantomime that’s gripped

The media at least. To raise the hackles

There’s the villain and his dastardly schemes,

With a reasonable heroine who charms:

Their parts deliver pathos and alarms,

While nothing in the plot’s quite what it seems.

With faux audience participation

People are moved to laughter, tears and rage,

But know they will never be centre stage;

This drama is not of their creation.

Both actors appear sincere and intense

Enough to fascinate the audience.

D. A.

Editorial: Fireworks on November 5? (2024)

Editorial from the November 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

As we go to press the US presidential election is approaching its conclusion amid a febrile atmosphere of fear and mutual loathing, with each side trolling the other during a punishing schedule of rallies in the decisive swing states, and Trump-backer Elon Musk offering to pay $1m a day to petition-signers in Pennsylvania.

‘What happens on 5 November could change the world we live in,’ pants the Guardian, reflecting the breathless fascination of the world’s media for an election which may in truth have a significant bearing on tariff-versus-free-trade tensions playing out across world markets, as well as on Israel and the Middle East war, Russia’s war in Ukraine, the growing power of China, and implications for US carbon commitments. Many fear the consequences of a Trump victory. Many others fear the fireworks Trump may unleash if he rallies his fanbase to reject a defeat.

According to Pew surveys, domestic US voters are not overly concerned with geopolitical questions or foreign trade, and even less with global warming. 81 percent of those polled say their main concern is the economy, which a barrage of Republican disinformation has represented as a failed basket-case under Biden. This isn’t so, objectively speaking. The economy is in fact very healthy, at least for wealth owners, but for many workers it’s a catastrophe of low wages and high prices. Both things can be true, of course. A healthy economy of desperate workers is capitalism’s ideal operating condition.

Many US voters probably grasp, at some deep level, that they don’t matter, their views don’t count, and their needs will go unmet. The Democrats make no apology for standing primarily for the urban, college-educated, white-collar ‘middle class’, by implication writing off the rural, non-college, blue-collar majority as a rabble and a lost cause. If capitalist democracy is a rigged circus anyway, some will think, why not elect the most outrageous clown, if only to wind up the establishment and the liberal woke opposition?

From an outside perspective, this vicious race to the bottom looks frankly surreal, framed as it is partly by America’s privately owned and heavily polarised news media, with Fox touting Trump and CNN touting Harris, and partly by their peculiar libel laws, disguised as ‘free speech’, in which anyone ‘has the right’ to slander and tell lies about anyone else without the legal obligation to substantiate or retract.

Unlike the recent UK general election, there is no foregone conclusion here, with polls showing Trump and Harris neck and neck. But we can certainly predict that, whoever wins, and failing a global environmental disaster or nuclear war, American workers will not see much if any difference. Governments can’t control markets anyway, regardless of ideologies. They are like rollercoaster riders, hanging on for dear life as capitalism hurtles through its booms and slumps, powered by its own insatiable frenzy. The main effect of capitalist elections is not to bring about real change but to promote the illusion of change while the runaway acceleration of exploitation remains unaddressed and undisturbed.

So, whichever way it goes, the working class won’t win. There is no way to win, except by abolishing capitalism in favour of truly democratic global common ownership. Otherwise, all the glamour and fireworks are merely sound and fury, signifying nothing.

A plague on both their houses (2024)

From the October 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

This issue is published before the US presidential elections on 5 November so we are unable to comment on the result. But we can analyse the campaign and what is at stake.

Most elections under capitalism are simply about which band of professional politicians shall occupy executive and ministerial posts. In other words, about a change of personnel to continue with the same basic policies. This was the case in the recent UK elections. On some occasions, however, the capitalist class are split on some key economic issue and the only way this can be settled is via the ballot box.

In Britain, this was the case over whether or not the British state should remain part of the European Union. One section of the capitalist class wanted to withdraw to avoid EU regulation of their financial activities while another section, the majority, wanted to stay in.

In a capitalist political democracy the only way of settling such conflicts of interests within the capitalist class is to put the matter to the electorate to decide, an electorate overwhelmingly composed of workers. The rival sections of the capitalist class each spend millions in propaganda to try to get workers to vote for their candidates. The section that wins gets its way. The government is formed by their political representatives who have a mandate to implement that section’s policy. In Britain those in favour of leaving won a referendum and a subsequent general election, so Britain left. Had the vote gone the other way Britain would have remained in the EU.

In such elections there is something more than a mere change of personnel at stake — for the capitalist class, though not for the working class, whose interests are opposed to all sections of the capitalist class and who are not required to take sides.

The current presidential election in the United States is one such example. The basic split in the capitalist class there is the old one between those who favour free trade and those who favour protectionism, which has foreign policy implications. Harris represents that section which favours the status quo and support for existing international bodies set up to promote freer trade. Trump represents those who want to protect US manufacturing industry from outside competition by imposing a tariff on all imports. Harris wants to continue the war in Ukraine and bombing Gaza. Trump just wants to bomb Gaza.

If the election was a contest as to which candidate has the least unpleasant personality Harris would be the lesser evil. But that’s not the issue. It’s which section of the US capitalist class shall get its way, a matter of indifference to workers and of equal opposition to both by socialists.

Because it is the working class electorate that will decide, both sides have to spin their policy in a way that will dupe workers into supporting them. Thus Trump courts the Christian right and other social conservatives while Harris presents herself as a champion of liberal values. Trump’s appeal is mainly to whites, Harris’s mainly to voters of colour. Trump mainly to men. Harris mainly to women. But none of these is the real issue, even though how voters react to them will decide which section of the US capitalist class gets its way.

The US system for electing the president is peculiar. In other countries with elected presidents, the candidate who wins is the one who gets the most votes, whether in a first or second round. In the US this is not necessarily the case — it is the candidate who wins the most votes in an electoral college composed of members representing the states that make up the union, whose number broadly reflects the electorate of each state and who (except in a couple of small states) vote as a bloc. When Trump won in 2016 he got fewer votes than Hilary Clinton but more in the electoral college. This was because Clinton won easily in California and New York but this didn’t increase her representation in the Electoral College. Who wins here is decided by who wins in a number of key ‘swing’ states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia but also smaller ones like Arizona. This is not fully democratic but is the procedure that has evolved in the United States for deciding who shall chair the executive committee of its ruling class.

Under the US constitution, the president cannot get their way unless their party has a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives is elected on a normal democratic basis from constituencies of roughly equal size. Only one-third of the Senate is elected every two years, a constitutional arrangement put in place by the Founding Fathers to prevent a majority for any radical proposal (such as land reform) getting its way for at least six years.

The Democratic Party leaders got Biden to withdraw as they were afraid that, if he stayed as their candidate, they risked not winning a majority in the House of Representatives and Senate, and so not being in a position to block what Trump might do that would be against the interest of the US capitalist class as a whole. In fact, their strategy is just as much aimed at this as at electing Harris as President so that, if she loses, they will still be able to block Trump doing something the section of the US capitalist class they represent doesn’t want, such as abandoning Ukraine or starting a world tariff war.

Trump is portrayed by some of those who support Harris as a ‘fascist’ who wants to install himself as dictator. This is an exaggeration for vote-catching purposes. A more sober assessment is given by one of Trump’s economic advisers, Stephen Moore of the notorious right-wing think-tank The Heritage Foundation. When asked what Trump would do if elected President again, he said that ‘Trump would be pragmatic in office and focus on the needs of business to drive economic growth’ (tinyurl.com/2n4ftxp3). Perhaps not so different, then, than what the new Labour government here has said is its approach.

Cooking the Books: Harris in Blunderland (2024)

The Cooking the Books column from the October 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Believe me, as president, I will go after the bad actors and I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food,’ Kamala Harris declared in a speech on 16 August, adding: ‘My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules’ (tinyurl.com/7c373bda).

Price gouging is not a term employed this side of the Atlantic where the equivalent would be ‘profiteering’ or ‘rip-off’. Basically, it’s when a firm or individual selling something to the general public takes advantage of some temporary shortage to jack up the price and reap an extra profit beyond what they would get in normal times.

What Harris was promising appeared to be to bring in legislation to stop the price of food rising, a people-pleasing promise when there’s a cost-of-living crisis.

Actually, when you look at the small print, all she was promising was legislation at federal level to prevent this when a State of Emergency had been declared such as for a forest fire, a hurricane or some other disaster. It wouldn’t apply in the case of a supply chain problem or a temporary shortage arising from some other economic or industrial cause. In any event, many of the states of the US already have such legislation.

In her first interview after officially becoming the Democratic Party’s candidate, Harris went further and promised not simply to stop grocery prices rising but to actually bring them down:

‘Prices in particular for groceries are still too high. The American people know it. I know it. Which is why my agenda includes what we need to do to bring down the price of groceries’ (tinyurl.com/5eyfpf7m).

She didn’t explain how she was going to do this. A federal act to punish ‘opportunistic companies that exploit crises’ won’t do it. Nor will naming a raft of measures an ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ as the Biden administration has already done.

These days ‘inflation’ is defined as a rise in some index of the price of a basket of consumer goods, whatever the cause. This can be caused by a depreciation of the currency through over-issue (the main cause since the 1940s) or by an exceptional rise in the prices of some key products in the basket of consumer goods (which was the main cause from 2020 till this year due to supply chain problems as a result of the Covid epidemic). In neither case would price controls work to stop ‘inflation’ any more than a command by King Canute stopped the tide coming in.

‘Inflation’, then, is the difference between what the index was at one date compared with what it was at a previous date. What this measures is the rate of increase. So, ‘bringing inflation down’ is reducing the rate at which prices are rising, not bringing prices down. Doing the latter would be ‘deflation’, which is what Harris seemed to be promising.

This is theoretically possible, but it would require a change of policy on the part of America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, which currently aims to keep the rate of increase in the general price level at 2 percent a year (even if not very successfully in the past few years). In other words, that prices, including the price of groceries, should rise at this rate every year.

Since it is unlikely that the Fed will abandon this policy or that she will pressure them to do so, we can confidently predict that a President Harris will not bring down the price of groceries. Anyone who votes for her because she has pledged this will find that they have been ripped off.

Editorial: Instant recoil (2024)

Editorial from the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Outrage and condemnation poured forth from the forked tongues of world leaders at the ‘horrific and heinous’ assassination attempt on Donald Trump, which left him posturing bloodily but heroically unbowed, and soon plundering his spectacular PR gift for all it was worth (oh yeah, and y’know, sorry about the dead people, whatever). Biden once again failed miserably to rise to the occasion by describing the attempt as ‘not appropriate’. Smelling blood, press hacks were all too quick to drag up his embarrassing quote from only days before that it was ‘time to put Trump in a bullseye’. Things just couldn’t have got any worse for Geriatric Joe. After he’d staggered incoherently through a TV debate that left his supporters aghast and huge numbers of his own influencers publicly wanting him out, this rifle shot was the coup de grace. Biden duly quit, leaving lame-duck VP Kamala Harris with an impossible uphill battle and Trump the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut. His more wild-eyed acolytes even started wearing simulated ear bandages, as Trump’s bloodied ear raised him to mythic and, it would seem, unprosecutable status. They may bury him one day, but that ear belongs in a museum.

Some of the ‘outrage’ will have been for form’s sake. A lot of people might have privately wished the attempt had succeeded. Trump is a blustering renegade who can be expected to disregard facts or reason. His comments about a possible ‘third term’, in defiance of the constitution, have sown plenty of disquiet. His implied warnings about withdrawing support from NATO could spark a budget-busting arms race across the world as individual states look to their defences in the face of real or perceived threats from Russia or China. In practice though, the administration may well rein in his worst excesses.

Nonetheless, he is an abject and repulsive metaphor for capitalism’s screw-you ideology. Perhaps that’s why so many of the rich love him, and dismiss concerns about his MAGAlomania as Trump Derangement Syndrome. They don’t seem unduly worried that he might turn the powers of the state against them, if he decides he doesn’t like them. He’s one of them, after all. Meanwhile many poor Americans have somehow convinced themselves that this fraudulent, conceited, misogynistic man-baby is their best friend. Just like turkeys welcoming Thanksgiving.

The shooter, barely out of his teens and apparently a young conservative, tragically wasted his life for another delusion. Politicians, even populist demagogic ones like Trump, can’t change how capitalism fundamentally works, so shooting him wouldn’t make any difference. That’s thinking with the heart, not the head. He would just be replaced by someone else who, if not necessarily as personally repellent, would nonetheless still carry out the repellent work of managing the system in the interest of the rich, and entirely at the expense of the poor and the planet. And besides, socialists could never condone political murder. There really is only one solution to all this. If the collective misery of the 99 percent is ever to end, capitalism itself needs putting down.

Some Comments on the American Election (1956)

From the November 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

We take our elections somewhat more seriously than they appear to do in the United States. Here the stunts are a little more subtle, less reminiscent of circuses and music-hall shows. But there is something in the American way of life after all, for if we are going to have the farce every few years of “choosing” between capitalism and capitalism, let it at least be entertaining.

And no one can deny that the American elections are that. 

The “Choice"

In America the two major parties are the Republicans and Democrats, and it has been said that the difference between the two is that one is in power and the other is out. This is true in America even as it is in this country with the Labour and Conservative Parties. Tradition plays a large part in American support for their parties. The Democratic Party is traditionally “for labour,” although in practice this means little except that they can count on some support from the Trade Unions. Traditionally the deep South, with its violent opposition to any advancement for the negroes, is Democratic, but some Democrats of the North, who consider the Party to be “progressive,” are considerably embarrassed by the reliance that the Party places on its Southern support.

Personalities

Personalities are important in any election, so we should see who are the people hoping to get the votes in the present election.

The Republican candidate for President is, of course, Eisenhower. A man by experience not a politician, but a soldier, mainly useful to his Party because of his extraordinary popularity. He appears to be something in the nature of a figurehead in that, judging by his speeches, he does not show signs of having a great grasp of the problems that his government has to attempt to tackle, and his comments are usually vague generalities mixed with good will, such as when, speaking on the problems of de-segregation of schools, he said: "Here is a problem, charged with emotionalism, where everybody has got to' work hard with all of the strength he has, and I think that the more that work is done privately and behind the scenes rather than charging up on the platform and hammering desks, the better and more effective it will be.” This statement was in answer to a question as to his policy, and it will be seen that although be says quite clearly that we must all work hard to solve the problem, he does not suggest what the solution should be.

His running mate, for Vice-President, is Richard Nixon. A young man, with a reputation for ambition, and unpopular with both Parties, he would probably not have been nominated had not Eisenhower backed him.

On the Democratic side we have the Presidential candidate in Stevenson. He is the man who didn't want to be President, and who, in 1952, took a lot of persuading to agree to stand. This time it was easier. As one columnist said (before Stevenson agreed to stand in this election), it is a little difficult to play the reluctant virgin twice.

The reluctant egg-head

Stevenson has a great disadvantage in a politician in that he has a reputation for being intelligent. This is commonly known in the United States as being an “egg head.” and although in most countries intellectuals are looked upon with some suspicion, this is particularly so in the United States. In the last election Stevenson lost many votes because of his habit of using words of more than two syllables, but this time he is determined to overcome this disadvantage. In the recent Californian Primary election campaign he met "the common man ” on street cars, shook hands, kissed babies and young ladies, and spoke in a way that the people could understand. It worked, although it is said that Stevenson looked most uncomfortable in his new role. One of the minor aspects of his background that could affect the voting is that he has been divorced. Although be has not remarried, it is thought that some Catholic voters would feel unable to vote for him for that reason.

The Common Man himself

The Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate is Estes Kefauver. He is the man who wanted to be President, but has settled, for the moment, for the chance of being Vice-President. Kefauver goes in for all the gimmicks of elections—only more so than anyone else. He has put hand-shaking on an assembly line basis, and has worn more funny hats than any other American politician— his favourite being the coon-skin hat. Kefauver is a contradiction—a man who goes in for more electioneering tricks than the others, but a man who is generally liked by the public—especially in the farming areas, and disliked by other politicians. One voter explained that he liked Kefauver because you felt that if he came by when you were raking manure in a field, you felt sure that he was the sort of man who would take off his jacket and start raking beside you. On policy Kefauver is somewhat vague. One columnist described his attitude thus: “When asked precisely what he stands for, he is likely to hesitate, ponder painfully, and finally come up with some such phrase as 'a place in the sun for the farmer,' or 'the best interests of the plain people of this nation,' or ‘an even break for the average man."’ (Time, 17/9/56).

The two most important internal issues are: (1) The Farm Crisis, and (2) De-Segregation.

The Farm crisis has arisen partly from the encouragement that was given to farm production in wartime and from the unfortunate fact that since the war the harvests have been good! This means that in order to avoid swamping the market with foodstuffs, which would decrease the prices and the profits, the Government has for some years guaranteed the farmers certain prices, and has purchased surpluses which have been stored in larger and larger quantities. This has in time produced other quite serious problems, such as where to store the surpluses when all available warehouses and the holds of the “moth-ball" fleet aw packed full? This is what each party is trying to answer. The Republican answer is quite simple. Pay the farmers, they say, to take land out of production and allow it to lie fallow for a time. Thus, less land will be “in production," and consequently less food will be produced, and the Crisis (!) will be mitigated. The Democratic answer is the continuation of the present policy, except that greater guarantees should be given to the farmers.

It will be seen that neither of these policies attempts to deal with this basically farcical, as well as tragic, problem of capitalism. What a problem it is to have so much surplus food! Simple—make sure you have less in future. These are the policies propounded by those who are fond of saying that Socialism would not work because there would not be enough to go round under Socialism. If America attempts to sell off the surpluses at cheap prices abroad, they are liable to precipitate a crisis in another country (as was threatened recently in South America).

Segregation

Recently the Supreme Court in the U.S. gave judgment that segregation of white and coloured children in American schools was contrary to the Constitution. This provoked riots in the Southern States recently when the school year commenced and some coloured children tried to take their places in white schools. The Southern States are in most cases determined to avoid compliance with the Supreme Court ruling, and are in many cases attempting to devise laws that will achieve the same end (i.e., segregation) in an apparently legal manner. On this subject both parties are most cautious in making statements. At the recent Democratic Conference the following statement was adopted; “Recent decisions of the Supreme Court relating to segregation have brought consequences of vast importance to our nation as a whole and especially to communities directly affected. We reject all proposals for the use of force to interfere with the orderly determination of these matters by the Courts . . . (the Supreme Court's decisions) are part of the law of the land." An attempted addendum that “We pledge to carry out these Supreme Court decisions,” was rejected.

Earlier in the campaign the Republican Party also was loth to commit itself on the racial issue. However, within the last few weeks they have been more outspoken. Some commentators have suggested that this is due to the fact that the Republicans have resigned themselves to the fact that the Democrats are firmly entrenched in the South, and that even if the Republicans courted the Southern votes with opposition to de-segregation, they would not have much success. It is interesting to observe, however, the reasons given for support for advancement of the negro. Nixon, speaking at Louisville on the 27th September, was reported in the New York Herald Tribune as follows: “The U.S. cannot afford the cost of discrimination. The loss of negro intellectual resources fully developed amounts to $15,000,000,000 a year in terms of the gross national product, now running at a $400,000,000,000 rate." (28/9/56). Thus, no mention is made of any ideals of freedom or justice for the negro population—merely the economic loss suffered by the country's capitalists.

Policy?

Generally, the Republican Party in this election is, as Ike says, “relying on their record," which is “prosperity." This means, of course, prosperity for big business, for, as Stevenson says, “There are ugly patches of poverty and insecurity which still deny dignity, even decency, to the lives of almost one-fifth of all American families."

Stevenson’s answer to the problem is that if his party was in power things would be different, but when we examine the proposals that he makes for changes in policy, it is clear that his programme differs in no essential manner from that of the Republicans.

Western "Democracy"

So this is the much vaunted “two Party system" that is recommended by British and American politicians to countries with more complicated party systems, such as France and Italy, and to totalitarian countries such as those behind the iron curtain! From the point of view of the ruling class, there is much to be said for it. Given two parties that oppose each other but whose policies do not differ fundamentally, the people are likely to spend their political energies arguing the toss between the two, without realising that there is a practical alternative to the system of capitalism.

Our View

What has a Socialist to say about these parties and their personalities and policies?

What is clear in America, as in Britain, is that for the worker (and this includes the many who like to consider themselves “middle class") there is little to choose between the parties, and the only arguments are as to which can run capitalism in the more efficient manner.

A Socialist examines the record of those parties which have claimed to govern in the interests of the mass of the people. Any objective analysis of the past shows that all these attempts have failed. Why have they failed? Is it for lack of good will, corruption, lack of knowledge or intelligence or honesty? These factors crop up continually in politics where there are rich plums for the successful, but the reason for consistent failure by all contenders to save Capitalism is that the nature of Capitalism itself is that it is a class society, which can only be run in the interests of the ruling class, the Capitalists.

Some Election Slogans

Do you want the threat of war to continue and possibly become a fact? Do you want the continuance of poverty while food surpluses pile up and goods accumulate which the poor cannot afford to buy? Do you want a continuance of the insecurity which means that even if you have a job now, you may be unemployed tomorrow if there is a slump? Do you want to ensure that the housing problem will remain unsolved? Do you want to make sure that your children will have a life much like yours, with all these problems that will crush the humanity out of them, make them automatons, and take the joy out of life?

In a word, do you want Capitalism?

Of course, these aren’t the words that are used to ask for your votes. But this is what, in fact, is offered you at each election, and what is being offered to the American elector now.

To the voter in America or elsewhere we say—there is a real alternative. With your help we can establish Socialism. Without it we, along with you, will continue to have all the problems of Capitalism, whichever party is in power.

Socialism will be a world-wide society in which the means of production will be held in common and used for the benefit of the whole of society. It is profit and property which cause wars and poverty. It is Socialism that can make these problems things to read about in history books.

L. B.

US elections: The lesser-evil fallacy (2020)

From the October 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

As the American presidential election draws closer, progressives such as Noam Chomsky are making their message to vote Biden very much more vocal, declaring Trump is so demented and deranged that a president already displaying symptoms of senility and dementia is preferable and so working people must ignore Biden’s ignominious past record. Unlike 2016, there is now no debate whatsoever about who the lesser evil is. The claim is not that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party has actually converged into one on many issues (even if not identical) and that they share so many policies that the choice is between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

Our principle is to abstain from voting for either evil and offer neither a mandate to rule. Working people are required to register their rejection of capitalist candidates. Both Trump and Biden are staunch champions of the capitalist system and apologists for Wall Street and the Pentagon. November’s election is a contest about who will preside over the ‘executive committee of the ruling class’.

The lesser-evil argument is rampant these days. Biden is presented as an ally of African-Americans and other minorities. Trump is depicted as the authoritarian autocrat, suppressing liberties and repressing resistance. The working class should not support either of the presidential candidates this year, as neither represents the interests of the working people of the United States. Both would continue the assault on the living standards of working people, to boost corporate profits by cutting social services and take back reforms won through hard struggle over the past years. The working class should reject the ‘Big Business’ candidates and their shared programs of economic austerity and war preparations. There is no such thing as a meaningful choice when it is to pick between cholera and typhoid.

The lesser-evil fallacy serves only to keep the voter chained to the duopoly political system and its two parties. Voting in this election will only hold back the process of forging an independent workers’ movement. Workers have had the lesser-evil strategy for many decades and bitter experience indicates that it hasn’t worked, and even less chance than ever will it succeed today.

Biden is not opposed to capitalism but out to save capitalism from Trump. His campaign is not based in the working class or on any working-class struggle but upon an imaginary gentler, kinder capitalism. As a politician Biden adopted blatant anti-working-class policies that should shame and condemn any ‘socialist’ endorsing him. Biden may not be as openly racist as Trump yet he has a history of flirting with segregationists and he has shared with the right wing similar positions on immigration, law and order and foreign policy.

Not voting in the presidential election is not a matter of principle for socialists. The working class can use the electoral process as part of its struggle for socialism to assume political power and capture the institutional machinery of the state. The Socialist Party holds that there is nothing more dangerous for our fellow-workers than endorsing a class enemy. As genuine socialists we want the working class to become conscious of itself and realise its power to change society. It is the working class versus the capitalist class. Socialism cannot be achieved by electing capitalist candidates but rather by fighting capitalists collectively.

Socialism seeks to eradicate the basic causes for war, poverty and environmental damage which it knows are the products of capitalism. No matter the outcome of the election, no matter who wins, the continued existence of capitalism is assured, none of the consequences of the profit system will be abolished. The Socialist Party stands for socialism now and not later through any electoral bargaining with our class foe. The purpose of the Socialist Party is to promote socialist consciousness and organisation and that will not be accomplished by entering into alliances with any capitalist politician. Biden is not a lesser evil, despite the pronouncements of liberals such as Chomsky and others. Any person who does not tell this truth isn’t worthy of the name of socialist. There is only one party in the USA that expresses the interests of our American fellow-workers and that is the World Socialist Party of the United States.

ALJO

Blogger's Note:

Chomsky has replied to the criticism of him in this article:

“ Some truth to it, but wrongly put. I’ve never adopted the curious new concept of “lesser evil voting” and have argued strenuously that even raising the notion, as is done here, is a sellout to the establishment. For the left, politics is activism, daily. Every once in a while an event comes along called an “election.” A genuine leftist asks whether some candidate is so awful that it’s worth taking a few minutes to vote against them, and if it is, does so, and the goes back to work.” (10/01/2020)