Cooking the Books: Per capita (2023)

The Cooking the Books Column from the February 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the beginning of December the media reported that Papua New Guinea’s population doubled overnight as researchers had worked out that it must be 17 million rather than 9.4 million. The explanation was that the population living in the remote highland interior, where people survive through subsistence hunting and farming, had been underestimated.

The new figure, the Daily Mail wrote, meant ‘the country’s per capita income is slashed by half, making the average salary around £930.’

This suggests that the population of Papua New Guinea had suffered a drastic cut in their living standards. In fact, it made no difference. People’s income was not affected at all. All that changed was the statistic for average income obtained by dividing the country’s Gross Domestic Product by its population. As the figure for population increased while GDP remained the same, the average fell.

This shows how the figure for a country’s GDP per capita can be misleading. In the case of Papua New Guinea, particularly misleading. GDP is a measure of the market price of all the new goods and services produced in a year and so does not take into account goods and services that are not marketed, such as those produced directly for their own use by the subsistence hunters and farmers in the country’s interior. They produce wealth but as this is not sold it is not counted when calculating GDP. Yet their number is taken into account for calculating GDP per capita. Logically, it should not be, but only those who receive a monetary income from which to buy what they need to ‘subsist’.

But even that would be misleading as not all the money income from GDP goes to wage-earners. A large part is the income of businesses as their profits. The Daily Mail is wrong in saying that the new population figure slashed ‘the average salary’. GDP per capita is not a measure of this. It is an average of all money income — profits and income from self-employment and government transfer payments as well, not just income from working for a wage or salary — divided by population.

According to Investopedia, ‘GDP per capita shows how much economic production value can be attributed to each individual citizen’ (bit.ly/2BJ7p2V). This suggests that it might be a measure of how much each person in a country contributed to the value of what is produced. But it is not that either. The whole of GDP is indeed attributable to what wage-workers produce in a year. But only a portion of that goes to them and their dependents.

The Economics Help blog says: ‘High real GDP per capita indicates citizens are able to purchase more goods and services’ (bit.ly/3QzLa2k). Not necessarily, as that will depend on how GDP is divided between profits and income from work. If GDP per capita goes up due to a higher proportion being made up of business profits, then ‘citizens’ might not be able to purchase more.

Per capita figures are misleading because they ignore that ‘the population’ includes owners of businesses which bring in a high total income as profits, which distorts the average making it seem that the individuals in the rest of the population get much more than they do.

It is not just figures for new marketable wealth that are distorted but also for other things such as water consumption and carbon emissions. Per capita figures for these, by attributing business’s contribution to everyone, give the impression that individuals use more water or have a larger carbon footprint than they actually do.

Party News: The Socialist Party's Summer School (2023)

Party News from the February 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

Work, in all its forms, is what keeps society running. At best, our own work can be interesting and creative, if we're not stuck in an unfulfilling role. Capitalism turns work into employment, with our job roles shaped by how profitable or cost-effective they are likely to be, more than by how useful or manageable they are. Even so, countless important tasks rely on volunteers and other unpaid labour.

Poor conditions and pay have pushed an increased number of employees to go on strike. But how effective can industrial action be when workers don't own or control the places we work in? Alongside the impact of the state and the economy on how we work, technology has had a massive influence, from the most basic tools to the latest advances in computing.

In a socialist society, work would be freed from the constraints of money and the exploitation of employment, and would instead be driven directly by people's needs and wants. This would entail workplaces being owned in common and run democratically. But how could this happen in practice?

The Socialist Party's weekend of talks and discussion looks at different aspects of work, and what they tell us about the society we live in. The event also includes an exclusive publication, exhibition and bookstall.

Our venue is Woodbrooke, 1046 Bristol Road, Birmingham, B29 6U. Full residential cost (including accommodation and meals Friday evening to Sunday afternoon) is £200; the concessionary rate is £100. Book online at www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/summer-school-2023/ or send a cheque (payable to the Socialist Party of Great Britain) with your contact details to Summer School, The Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN. Day visitors are welcome, but please e-mail for details in advance. Send enquiries to spgbschool@yahoo.co.uk.



"Sick and tired of wondering . . . "

From the February 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News: Socialist weekend at Yealand Conyers in Cumbria (2023)

Party News from the February 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

After unavoidable interruptions including a pandemic, Lancaster branch is once again organising a socialist residential weekend, from Friday 23 to Sunday 25 June, at the Yealand Quaker Centre in rural Cumbria. This is a sociable get-together for members and non-members in a nice hostel with dorm rooms and self-catering facilities, where we muck in together on the cooking and chores. The last time we did this was in 2019 and it wasa pretty enjoyable experience all round (see the report in the August 2019 Socialist Standard). The branch will bear the hire cost but is happy to accept pay-what-you-can contributions. You'll also have to fund your own travel arrangements. Spaces are limited to max 16 so if you'd like to take part please let us know at spgb.lancaster@worldsocialism.org.

Obituary: Ivan Corry (2023)

Obituary from the February 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are saddened to have to report the death in December of our comrade Ivan Corry at the age of 90. Ivan was from Dublin and joined the Socialist Party of Ireland (SPI) in his twenties. Like many who had passed through their hands he had an abiding contempt for the Catholic Church, compounded by the experience of priest-led mobs trying to break up SPI outdoor meetings as ‘godless communism’. He was part of the large-scale Irish emigration to England in the 1950s, including most members of the Dublin branch of the SPI. Some members found work in the car factories in the Midlands. Ivan went to London where he worked in his trade of upholsterer. He joined the Islington branch in 1956 and became an active member. In fact he was known right up to the 2000s for his exuberant and memorable appeals at Conference for the Party to be more active. When he was younger he had been one of a number of branch members who were amateur wrestlers (Ivan was actually the name he adopted for this and for his Party membership, as his legal name was Sean). On retirement he moved to Worthing on the south coast but continued to visit London from time to time.

Proper Gander: Dukes And Rebukes (2023)

The Proper Gander TV column from the February 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

The royal family get enough coverage in the media without a need for fictional retellings of its excesses. Netflix’s ongoing series The Crown has been the most prominent, reframing the dynasty’s recent history in whatever way will win the most awards. In what looks like a dig at The Crown’s pretentiousness, Channel 4’s Prince Andrew: The Musical makes a song and dance of the life of the now-disgraced Duke of York, the eighth person in line to the throne. Andrew is played by comic actor Kieran Hodgson, who also wrote the show’s deft, droll script. He portrays ‘randy Andy’ as smarmy and self-aggrandising, enjoying an extravagant lifestyle because he’s ‘Elizabeth’s favourite son’ and doesn’t have the expectations of being the heir.

The show takes us through Andrew’s life with jaunty musical numbers and real archive footage narrated from the character’s perspective. We begin with the 2019 interview with Emily Maitlis on Newsnight, which Andrew reluctantly realises didn’t put him in a good light, before rewinding to his younger years, believing that he was a hero in the Falklands War. His marriage to Sarah Ferguson is presented as a transaction from which Sarah sought to benefit, much like her later attempt at selling access to Andrew to an undercover reporter. A role as a trade envoy gave ‘air miles Andy’ opportunities to continue his jet-setting ways, no sweat. The frothy format of a musical is supposed to be an impudent way of telling his story, but jars when the subject of sexual abuse comes up. After Andrew’s association with convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein became known and he was accused of sexual assault by Virginia Giuffre (the latter glossed over in the musical), he ‘stepped back from public duties’. He reached a financial settlement with Giuffre which (in a logically puzzling way) did not include an admission of guilt. The programme risks minimising the seriousness of the allegations against Andrew by putting them in the frivolous context of a musical. In it, Andrew makes the point that he’s a useful scapegoat to take attention away from the wrongdoings of the rest of the royals.

The show was commissioned as part of ‘a collection of irreverent, thought-provoking and hugely entertaining shows that no other broadcaster would air’, according to Ian Katz, Channel 4’s Chief Content Officer. This may have felt like a last throw of the dice for the channel which at the time was planned to be privatised, a decision since reversed.

Prince Andrew: The Musical isn’t the only Channel 4 show to present the royals in a cartoonish way, being close in tone to The Windsors, a sitcom which has been running since 2016. In both programmes, members of ‘the firm’ are characterised too loosely to be particularly insulting. In the musical, Munya Chawawa portrays Charles as a stern boss who tries to keep Andrew in line, and who also unfortunately reminds us of his infamous ‘tampon’ remark. The late queen was immune from being lampooned in either show, though, not appearing as a character. While Elizabeth was treated with too much veneration in the mainstream media to attract much criticism, the caricatures of Charles demonstrate that there’s less reverence for him, even now he’s the monarch.

Prince Andrew is probably secretly relieved that media attention has largely switched away from him to his mother, brother and now towards the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The latter’s criticisms of the attitudes of other royals towards her were the focus of last December’s documentary series, Harry & Meghan. This was hyped up enough to attract Netflix’s highest number of viewers in the UK for the year, although how many really did endure its almost six hours of self-promotion from the estranged and bitter Sussexes? Harry has since courted even more attention with his tell-all memoir Spare and another round of interviews, for which he’s no doubt received a princely sum of money. But this hasn’t bolstered his popularity, as measured by YouGov’s Royal Favourability Tracker, which has reported a drop in support for him as well as for the monarchy as a whole. Harry’s salacious confessions about drug-taking, being knocked to the floor by William, having frostbitten genitals and killing members of the Taliban have chipped away some of the mystique which the royals have traditionally attracted.

Being born into a life of privilege has damaged Harry and Andrew in different ways, raising the issue of what kind of institution produces lives like theirs. Questioning this can only be a good thing if it’s a step towards a wider rejection of the social system which includes having a monarchy. If the figureheads for capitalism are so dysfunctional, what does that say about the system? Presumably, the House of Windsor is hoping that the pomp and pageantry of Charles’ coronation in May will push away recent bad press and declines in popularity. Even if it does to some extent, more pointedly, the spectacle will be in stark contrast to the privations much of the country will still be trying to cope with. The coronation will be a reminder of the gulf between how the vast majority have to live and the indulgences of the elite.

Mike Foster

J. Hunter Watts Explains His Vote for Masterman. (1905)

From the February 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The General Secretary of The Socialist Party of Great Britain has received the following communication :

94 Grove Park, Denmark Hill,

15th Jan 1905.

Dear Comrade,—”A lie that is half a truth is the worst lie of all” and it is a half truth to which the Socialist Standard gives currency this month when it says that I voted for a Liberal candidate for the constituency in which I reside and advised other members of the S.D.F. to do the same. A Jameson raider offered himself for election, and as I shall never either forget or forgive any instrument of the iniquity which robbed another of the little peoples of its national freedom I did my best to thwart the ambition of Rutherford Harris. As there is no way of voting against a man other than voting for his opponent I “supported” Masterman, though I know no more of the man than I know of the one who is said to reside in the moon. I shall repeat the offence at the next election even if the raider’s opponent is a circus clown.

Yours fraternally,

J. Hunter Watts.

* * *

Comrade C. Lehane,

Communist Club, 

107, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, W.C.”

The note to which Mr. J. Hunter Watts referred was as follows :

“In our last issue we dealt with the S.D.F., I.L.P., and L.R.C. members being induced to support the Liberal faction of the Capitalist Party at “Free Trade” meetings and we notice that H. Kirby deals with matter in “Justice.” He describes Mr. Masterman, the Liberal candidate for North West Ham, as “an adept at trailing Liberal red herrings before the workers’ noses.” But we would remind Mr. Kirby that when Masterman contested Dulwich, one of the best known members of the S.D.F., J. Hunter Watts, voted for him and urged other Social-Democrats to go and do likewise. Now, if Masterman was advanced enough for such a leading revolutionary Social-Democrat as Hunter Watts, surely smaller fry should follow such a good example ? Perhaps one of these days the S.D.F. will endeavour to pursue a consistent policy, but we are afraid it will then be too late for them to regain the public confidence,”

We now print a letter written by Mr. J. Hunter Watts to the then Secretary of the Peckham Branch S.D.F. during the election referred to.

“94 Grove Park,, Denmark Hill,

13th December, 1903.

Dear Comrade, Till after Christmas I have so many business claims on my attention (last Wednesday I was obliged to travel to Manchester and shall probably have to return this week) would you kindly intimate to the members of the Elocution Class that we will start work the first Wednesday in January. If convenient to them I would rather hold the class here because all my books etc. will be ready to hand but I leave it to their choice and I will come to the Branch Room if they prefer that rendezvous.

Though it goes very much against the grain to vote for a Liberal, it seems to me a duty to do one’s level best to prevent a Jameson Raider being sent to Parliament as our Parliamentary Representative so I intend to vote for Masterman on Tuesday, Would you kindly ask the members of our Branch to consider tomorrow night whether as individuals they can adopt the same policy though collectively it might be unwise to support Masterman. On Harris’s head rests some of the blood of the peasant farmers slain in defence of their national independence.

We cannot forget this !

Yours fraternally,

J. Hunter Watts.

The Secy. Peckham Branch S.D.F.”

We have no desire to misrepresent anyone, and we publish the whole of the correspondence in order that our readers may see that there is no foundation for Mr. Hunter Watts’ suggestion (or “half truth”) that we were not strictly accurate in our statement that he “voted for Masterman and urged other Social-Democrats to go and do likewise.” As a member of the S.D.F. Mr. Hunter Watts is supposed to believe that there is no difference between the various sections of the capitalist politicians, but by exhibiting a preference for one capitalist candidate he claims to know no more than about the man in the moon, but who, according to another S.D.F. member, is “an adept at trailing Liberal red herrings before the workers’ noses” against another whom he knows as an open enemy of the people, he shows that he recognises a difference, and that there are occasions when he thinks that the workers should vote for their class-enemies.

If Masterman was worthy of S.D.F. votes in Dulwich he is equally so in North West Ham. Here Ernest Gray, Conservative member and candidate, has supported Rutherford Harris and his friends fearlessly and openly, from the Jameson Raid to the Chinese Labour Ordinance. If individuals are to be singled out then “some of the blood of the peasant farmers” rests upon Ernest Gray’s head and he should be kept out of the House of Commons. The S.D.F. should vote against him by voting for Masterman. The blood of the murdered Featherstone miners is upon the head of Mr. Asquith, and the S.D.F. should try to keep him out of the House of Commons by voting for his Tory opponent. But Masterman as a member of the Liberal faction must support his leaders, of whom Mr. Asquith is one. And candidates who support the person responsible for that cruel and cold-blooded butchery should be kept out of the House of Commons, therefore, the S. D. F. should vote against Masterman.

Mr. Hunter Watts says that he will repeat the offence at the next election even if the raider’s opponent is a circus clown. Supposing Mr. Asquith is the opponent, Mr. Hunter Watts will vote for him and show that he considers the South African war more important than the class war here at home.

If particular incidents connected with the capitalist attitude towards the people are to be taken into consideration and capitalist candidates voted for or against because of them, where will it lead ?

Mr. Hunter Watts is apparently aware that there is neither wisdom nor logic in his attitude because he expresses the opinion that it would not be wise for the S.D.F. to do collectively that which he advises the members to do individually. But electoral action which the Body cannot take wisely and logically does not become wise or logical when taken by individual members.

The position is as illogical and contradictory as is that of the S.D.F. towards the L.R.C. Although the Body withdraw because it “might be committed to the support of candidates whom, by its rules, it was bound to oppose ; while it could not honestly accept aid for its own candidates unless it supported those favoured by the majority of the delegates” it yet allows its members all over the country to act as delegates to the L.R.C., and to do precisely that which the S.D.F. says it cannot do.

Mr. Hunter Watts, like many others, has allowed his emotions to get the better of his convictions. He may be unable to forget or forgive any instrument of the iniquity referred to, but neither the defeat of Harris nor the return of Masterman would restore freedom to the Boers any more than the defeat of Asquith would bring back to life the murdered miners. The instruments of both iniquities were the capitalist-class, acting in the interests of their class and against the interests of the common people, here and abroad. Capitalist politicians cannot be considered individually, but only as “all the rest, Tories, Unionists, Whigs, Liberals and Radicals who form a part of that hateful army of parasites which is permanently quartered on you and your children” (see S.D.F. Manifesto, General Election, 1895). Speaking at Canning Town last month Mr. D. Irving, also a member of the S.D.F. Executive, declared that “it does not matter a brass farthing whether Balfour or Campbell Bannerman reign at Westminster.” We agree. Let us be able to assert that neither shall do so by the votes of Socialists.

Editorial Committee.

A British Trust Gets Bigger. (1905)

From the February 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Distillers’ Company, Edinburgh, have intimated that they have concluded an agreement with United Distillers (Limited) of Belfast, whereby one-half of their shares will pass to the Distillers’ Company and make a further issue of capital to meet the purchase price. The United Distillers (Limited) belongs to three of the largest grain distillers in Ireland, and the purchase has been made by the Scottish company to complete their control of the production of raw grain whisky. The Distillers’ Company practically control the world’s markets now for this class of whisky, which is chiefly used by blenders. The existing capital of the Distillers’ Company is £1,920,000, and the new capital will make it £2,100,000.

_______________

The baking of bread by electricity should find considerable favour, not only on account of its economy and cleanliness, but because it would afford a rational means of utilising the electric power of a town at a time when it would not be required for lighting purposes—between midnight and midday. Should the process become general, it would be possible to abolish night-work for bakers.—”Commercial Intelligence.”

_______________

Inverary Castle, and the extensive shootings attached, have been sublet by Mr. A. F. B. Cresswell, with the consent of the Duke of Argyll, to Mr. E. D. Jordan, of Boston, an American millionaire, who comes into occupation this summer. Thus the aristocrat succumbs to the power of the almighty dollar, and the plutocrat reigns in his stead.

_______________

Last Monday it was announced from Middlesborough that there will be a reduction of 3d. per ton on the puddling, and 2½ per cent. on other wages in the North of England iron and steel trades during the months of February and March.

Party Notes. (1905)

Party News from the February 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

During February there will be two meetings of the Executive Committee, viz., Saturday 4th, at 3 p. m. and Tuesday 21st. at 7 p. m. The attendance of Party members to witness the proceedings of the Executive has been good so far, but there is accommodation for more. In no better way can members become conversant with the working of the organisation than by assisting at these meetings.

* * *

The following letter has been received from Comrade Phillips:—

“17th January, 1905.

Dear Comrade.—Herewith I have pleasure in enclosing £5. donation to the Socialist Party of Great Britain. I had originally intended to contribute the sum to the S. D. F. War Chest, but fate in the shape of Burnley intervened.

Yours fraternally,

H. C. Phillips.”

* * *

If there are others who would like to invest their spare cash in the advancement of the Revolution, let them emulate the example of our Comrade Phillips. And remember that a thousand farthings spent in spreading the principles of revolutionary Socialism are worth more than a thousand pounds given to any reform party.

* * *

The first Quarterly Delegate Meeting was held on Saturday, 21st January, at the Communist Club. F. C. Watts was unanimously elected Chairman, and the report of the Credentials Committee showed there were twenty delegates present, representing eleven Branches, as follows:— Battersea: H. T. Davey, A. Jones, Edmonton : R. Kenny, A. Pearson. Fulham : E. J. B. Allen. Islington: W. L. Augur, J. McNicol. Paddington : F. G. Thompson, F. C. Watts. Peckham : W. G. Killick, H. Martin. Tooting : F. Reid. Tottenham : L. Boyne, W. Robertson. Watford: G. T. H. King, D. R. Newlands. West Ham: G. C. H. Carter, W. Gifford. Wood Green : R. H. Kent, H. Crump.

* * *

The business of the meeting was “to receive the Quarterly Report of the Executive Committee, and to deal with same.” The Executive report showed that two new Branches had been formed, the Romford Division and the Tottenham Branch, bringing the number of Branches on the list up to sixteen. With the exception of Southwark, all were in a state of activity, but the Clerkenwell and East London Branches required some strengthening.

* * *

The Edmonton Branch topped the list as regards increase of membership. This result was due to the vigorous propaganda conducted by the local members, and it was to the efforts of the Edmonton comrades that the establishment of the Tottenham Branch was mainly attributable.

* * *

The Treasurer’s statement indicated that the Party finances were in a sound condition. Our members, like the rest of the working-class, have been affected by the extraordinary wave of unemployment passing over the country, and the natural result has been that our revenue from the sale of dues stamps has fallen considerably, the actual decrease as compared with the previous quarter being 50 per cent.

* * *

The Socialist Standard has been published regularly, its circulation being well maintained during the winter, but to put the Party Organ on a self-supporting basis a considerably larger circulation would be needed. When the propaganda season opened, however, a greater sale would be achieved, and the regular holding of meetings, together with a thoroughly organised distribution, would, the Executive hoped, in necessitate the printing of twice the present quantity.

* * *

Hitherto our organising efforts had been devoted mainly to the metropolis, but this year new ground should be broken, and the Party brought to the knowledge of the workers in various provincial centres. The lack of the necessary funds was a great obstacle in this as well as in many other directions, but the Executive were considering the problem of removing that barrier in the way of the growth of the Party.

* * *

Generally, considering that we were in the winter months when propaganda is necessarily restricted, and in view of the fact that the Party Organ had been maintained, bearing also in mind that the position of The Socialist Party of Great Britain as a factor in national and international politics had steadily and materially advanced since its inception, the Executive believed they were justified in stating that a successful quarter’s work had been accomplished.

* * *

This was, apparently, the view of the delegates also, for having discussed the report, point by point, they adopted it by 17 votes to 0.

Con Lehane

Correspondence. (1905)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir,—I write for information upon three points which perhaps you will think it worth while to deal with, or which you may not be averse to having discussed, through your columns. I believe my difficulties are shared by many others who, like myself, are trying to feel their way to a safe—because sound— position. I will, with your permission, set out the points as briefly as may be.

I.—The Bogey of the Taxes.

On this matter I have read with interest the article published over the name of J. Fitzgerald, but confess I cannot yet follow the argument as to the workers being unaffected by taxation.

I can see that competitive conditions cause wages to revolve around the cost of subsistence of the labourer, but I must concede that, in the main, the present standard of comfort of the labourer is above the bare subsistence level. That is to say that, in perhaps the majority of cases, there is a margin—small enough, it may be, but still a margin—between what the labourer receives in wages and the amount necessary to defray his bare cost of living; between what he does live on and what he could live on.

Granting this, I do not clearly see why an increase in the cost of living resulting from taxation should not affect the labourer to his detriment. Suppose a necessity of life—say bread—to cost sixpence per loaf, and suppose a tax equal to one penny per loaf is put upon grain. The labourer must have bread and he must now pay sevenpence where formerly sixpence served. Would not that increase mean a reduction in his reserve or margin ; a hardening of his conditions of life? And does not that mean that he is affected by taxation ?

The same argument would apply in the case of an increase in the cost of a luxury—say tobacco or tea. The labourer would have to content himself with less of either, or both. Anyhow he would suffer.

Of course, a small increase in taxation would not necessarily imply a rise in price. But in the case of increases that do, is it not fair to conclude that the workers’ position would be so much the worse ? Certainly it seems to me that, although the tendency may be for wages to rise in the proportion of the increase in price, the tendency would not be apparent immediately—would not perhaps manifest itself at all—and in the interval between the rise and the time when the wages would balance the extra expenditure, the worker would be worse off. Would that be the case or not ? If so, are the workers affected by taxes or not ? And if not why not ?

II.—Is Socialist Propaganda necessary?

This is my second difficulty. I have heard it contended that the ignorance and apathy of the workers of this country are due to the effect of adverse economic conditions which militate against any desire for study they may have started out with, and which too often crush out the aptitude for learning completely. Ignorance and apathy, it is said, are but the reflex of material conditions. The remedy is the alteration of those conditions.

On the other hand, it is urged that no material improvement is possible in the present position of the worker unless the worker himself awakes to an understanding of his position and the reasons for it, and has taken over the means of production, &c., in his own interests. Hence the Socialist propagandist.

Here is the rub. The intelligence of the worker can only expand as a result of the alteration of his present conditions. Yet the alteration of the conditions is dependent upon the expansion of the working-class intelligence. The latter must precede the former, yet the former must precede the latter !

It occurs to me, of course, that the present form of production and distribution must, by the laws of its development, change. But will that alteration tend to produce enlightenment and dispel apathy in the worker? At present the effect seems to be the other way about. If, however, this is not so, if the intellectual development of the worker keeps even pace with his economic development, what is the use exactly of the Socialist propagandist ?

III.—On Municipal Enterprise.

My last difficulty has to do with municipalism. I cannot see that the municipalisation of any public service can be other than a gain to the people.

It has been stated that the small capitalist class favour such enterprises because they (the enterprises) conserve their (the small capitalists’) interests. I do not follow that. Municipal stock may provide the small capitalists with safe investments, but only, it seems to me, while the loan remains unpaid. When the cost of the enterprise has been defrayed, that concern becomes public property—the property of the whole people. The capitalist has lost his gilt-edged security.

Why cannot municipalism be regarded as a step—and a considerable step—towards the goal of the Co-operative Commonwealth? Why should it not indeed be regarded as an expression of the necessary and inevitable development of a sense of citizenship in the worker?

In conclusion, Sir, I ask that you will not think these questions are put idly, or with any other than a desire for information. The questions are knotty ones to me. I know they are knotty to many others also. To deal with them would, I feel convinced, be good propaganda work. To have a “Doubts and Difficulties” column would be good business, and most helpful to little thinkers stumbling in the dark. I submit the notion to your kind consideration, and am, Sir, yours, &c.,

“Ignoramus.”

Reply:

[We shall be pleased to have the comments of our readers upon the points raised in our correspondent’s letter, and should any of our readers have any “Doubts or Difficulties” on any question bearing, however distantly, upon Socialism, we shall endeavour to remove them. If a sufficient number of questions are asked we shall be very pleased to devote the necessary space to their answer.—Editorial. Committee.]

Wilhelm Liebknecht quote. (1905)

From the February 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

“For our party, and for our party tactics, there is but one valid basis: the basis of the class struggle, out of which the Socialist Party has sprung up, and out of which alone it can draw the necessary strength to bid defiance to every storm and to all its enemies. . . . We may not do as other parties, because we are not like the others. We are—and this cannot be too often repeated—separated from all other parties by an insurmountable barrier, a barrier that any individual can easily surmount; but once on the other side of it, and he is no Socialist. . . . Just in this fact lies our strength, that we are not like the others, and that we are not only not like the others, and that we are not simply different from the others, but that we are their deadly enemy, who have sworn to storm the Bastille of Capitalism, whose defenders all those others are. Therefore we are only strong when we are alone.”

Wilhelm Liebknecht

SPGB Meetings and Notices. (1905)

Party News from the February 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Voice From The Back: Bad Day, good day (2001)

The Voice From The Back Column from the March 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bad Day, good day

It was 1 February when the news broke. Corus, the Anglo-Dutch steel giant, announced that there would be more than 6,000 redundancies at five main sites across the country. An example of how devastating this could be is summed up by Vernon Lewis who worked in Ebbw Vale steel plant for 22 years: “Corus hasn’t just ripped the heart out of a steel works, it has ripped the heart out of [the] community.” Times, 2 February. So widespread gloom throughout the country? Well, no, not quite: “Meanwhile, the city was happy at events with shares in Corus shooting ahead on news of the restructuring. By midday, shares had jumped 10 percent, up 7.75p at 82.5p before closing at 82 percent, Herald, 2 February.

Blairing a new tune

Four years ago our TV screens were filled with a smiling Tony Blair being worshipped by devout Labour supporters to the accompaniment of loudspeakers blaring, “Things Can Only Get Better.” But that was four years ago. Elderly people are waiting for up to 25 hours on trolleys in hospital accident and emergency departments, according to the soon-to-be-abolished Community Health Councils. Nigel Crisp, NHS chief executive, admitted that there was still a “problem” with waiting times. Times, 1 February.

Breakthroughs and heartbreaks

“The principle was accepted last November that insurers would be able to make use of some kinds of genetic testing information. If such tests become more widespread and insurers are given greater access to the results, a lot of the insurance market could disappear altogether in the long run. If building insurers jack up premiums in houses on floodplains, you can bet the same will happen to vulnerable people’s medical cover, permanent health insurance, critical illness, life cover and long-term care plans.” Observer, 21 January. Inside capitalism even scientific breakthroughs turn out nasty for the poor and vulnerable.

Business as usual

Their followers may hate each other and shout about 1690 and 1916, but the leaders of the Unionists and SDLP are co-operative when it comes to the really important issues to Irish capitalism—business and profits. “David Trimble and his Catholic counterpart, SDLP leader Seamus Mallon, are flying into Paris this morning in a bid to drum up investment by French firms in Northern Ireland. They will meet Medef, the French employers’ association, and then head off to the Elysée Palace to see Jacques Chirac, the President.” Times, 31 January.

Drowning not waving

“Government scientists from 99 countries, including major oil producers, have agreed that the earth’s atmosphere is warming faster than expected. In an unprecedented display of unanimity, their evidence points to human activity as the culprit. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now projects the earth’s average surface temperature will rise 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2100, higher than its 1995 estimate of a one to 3.5 degree rise . . . Sea levels are predicted to rise between nine and 88 cm (3.54 and 36.64 inches) from 1990 to 2100, potentially displacing tens of millions of people in low-lying areas such as the Pearl River Delta, Bangladesh and Egypt.” Herald, 23 January. Capitalism in its drive for profits is ruining the planet. Only socialism with production solely for use can save it.

Economy Class Syndrome

“Even though the Observer first warned of the dangers of economy class syndrome two years ago, airlines have refused to act. Now fresh research to be published in the British Medical Journal reveals that a tenth of blood clots treated at one London hospital were caused by sitting immobile on flights. If these figures were represented nationally it would point to 3,000 cases a year and 300 deaths, making death from a blood clot a greater risk than a plane crash.” Observer, 21 January. In their efforts to increase profits airlines are cramming as many people as possible into their aeroplanes. If that means reduced leg room leading to fatal risk—tough.

Letters: Marx and/or Freud? (2001)

Letters to the Editors from the March 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx and/or Freud?

Dear Editors,

I found the articles and discussion in the January and February issues on ads, capitalist art, psychology and Amos’s letter interesting; indeed one can make a synthesis of all this, which I would like to try and do, basing my discussion on Amos’s confused critique.

Your reply (Letters, January) was one way of answering him: socialism will be able to expand production of useful things in an ecologically defensive manner. There is another approach, and that is to point out how we see socialism being established. We have always stressed the need for majority, working class political action, based on understanding of and desire for socialism.

Capitalism shapes our needs through ads–you are what you own! Socialist society will certainly not be one of massive consumption since we will develop a new ethos; ideas become material forces when they lay hold of the masses, I believe Marx noted. Amos is judging consumption in socialist society through the eyes of a pro-capitalist when he says that everyone should, or would, be on a par with Western workers. Whoever said the lifestyle of Western workers is desirable? Also we certainly agree with Marx’s idea that humans make their own history, but only within the realms of what is materially possible. This is historical materialism, not utopian thinking of post-modernist idealism.

Seen in this light Amos’s view that social democratic parties are the best bet against fascism and barbarism is ludicrous. Concepts like fascism and democracy do not exist in vacuo. Democracy can only be safeguarded and expanded with the growth of socialist consciousness. That is the lesson Germany 1933-45.

That period does, though, raise troubling questions for Marxists. Class consciousness does not arise entirely spontaneously, it would seem. Some irrational factor is at work. Wilhelm Reich saw this as a result of sexual repression and the patriarchal family structure. Reich, however, was an unrepentant Leninist, and if his theory has any credibility it must be applicable to the truly fascist period of Stalinism as well.

A more credible approach is that taken by Erich Fromm (even though he made the mistake of equating nationalisation with socialism). Fromm is a good antidote to the idealist, psychological nonsense being peddled now, despite his works being some 30-50 years old. He took the concept of alienation, to be found in Marx’s philosophical worldview, and attempted to give it a Freudo-style twist. His Fear of Freedom, The Sane Society, and The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness are great books.

Homo sapiens is not in control of the products of sinew and brain, relations to each other, has lost himself and his connection to nature. (It is also factually incorrect of Amos to state Marx wasn’t green—he was, and he need only read Marx to find out.) The impersonal forces can leave the individual truly crushed; open to neurosis and inclined to let someone else solve problems. Only by establishing democratic structures and common ownership (socialism) can the individual and society progress. In this respect can Reich’s idea of human emancipation (necessarily involving sexual emancipation) be defensible.

Capitalism creates the material grounding for socialism, but a society of alienated people. The dialectic, socialisation of production but not in society’s interest, will be solved in socialist revolution. As will be the dialectic of mind: rationality and irrationality. This concept answers those who wonder about anti-social behaviour in socialist society; it will regress.

I realise Freudo-Marxism isn’t held as being tenable by fellow comrades, so it is prudent you comment on it.

Yours for a sane society

G.C. Taylor, 

Brabrand, Denmark

Reply: 

It is true that we are Marxians rather than Freudians, historical materialists rather than believers in psychoanalysis. Freud himself of course was not a socialist, but in fact embraced the “human nature objection” in an extreme form. He was a pessimist who believed that without morality and government to channel human sexual energies constructively utter chaos would result. To their credit, some of his followers—Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm—did not go along with him on this and modified his theory to make the existence of a free, socialist society compatible with the Freudian view of human nature.

Reich’s The Sexual Revolution, written in the 1930s, has always been popular because it advocates a more relaxed attitude to sex—which Socialists share—but this message can be accepted without accepting the particular theory Reich put forward to justify it (which was very dubious and eventually led him to claim to have identified and to be able to measure “sexual energy” or “orgone” as he called it). Incidentally, although Reich was a member of the German Communist Party when he wrote it, he was soon expelled, partly because of it. In one of his later works, the pamphlet Listen, Little Man! he uses the term “state capitalism” in relation to Russia.

Marcuse’s Eros and Civilzation, like all his writings, is heavy going but his argument that abundance meant that sexual repression was no longer necessary found an echo amongst some socialists when it appeared in 1955.

You’re probably right about Fromm being the best of them, no doubt because (to the annoyance of the orthodox Freudians and even of Marcuse) he abandoned Freud’s explanations in terms of individual biology for social ones. The books of his you mention have always been popular amongst Socialist Party members—Editors.

Spying on the Trotskyists

Dear Editors,

In the article, “Chatham House and spies” (Socialist Standard, December 2000), I stated that the Security Service (MI5) has monitored, and heavily infiltrated Trotskyist organisations in this country, since 1943. In fact, the government’s Security Executive under the chairmanship of Viscount Swinton, using information obtained from MI5, reported under the heading of “subversive activities” on the British Union of Fascists, the Communist Party, pacifist and conscientious objectors; organisations, as well as Trotskyists, as early as 1941 (PRO: FO 371 32583).

In particular, the Security Executive considered the activities of Trotskyists in Britain, and concluded that nothing should be done to lessen their embarrassment to the Communist Party (PRO: FO 371 344 34416), and (PRO: FO 371 29523). Three years later, when the Trotskyists formed the Revolutionary Communist Party, Herbert Morrison, the Home Secretary, submitted a memorandum to the War Cabinet, in which he concluded that the Trotskyists had had little success in penetrating the Trade Unions. Among the leaders named was Ted Grant, the future leader of Militant Tendency, later ousted by the present leader, Peter Taaffe.

Peter E. Newell, 

Colchester, Essex

The socialist position on Kosovo vindicated (2001)

From the March 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Very occasionally, the bourgeois media serve socialists tasy snacks which cut to the reality of how capitalism operates. Hidden away on the comment pages of the Guardian, arch greeny liberal George Monbiot provides a compelling case for how Caspian Sea oil was a major factor in the Kosovan war after all. With one eye on an article by fellow liberal Jonathon Freedland (written at the time of the bombing), which mocked the idea that oil had anything to do with the war effort, Monbiot quotes from various prominent sources to demonstrate the opposite.

The Trans-Balkan oil pipeline (which is coming up for approval) will transport Caspian Sea oil from the Black Sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. According to a paper by the US Trade and Development agency, the pipeline will “provide American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west corridor” and “facilitate rapid integration” of the “Balkans with western Europe”. Monbiot says that there is “no question” that this featured prominently in Balkan war politics. The then US energy secretary said: “This is about America’s energy security . . . We’ve made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it’s very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right.” The pipeline does not pass through the former Yugoslavia, but as the Albanian president said: “no solution confined within Serbian borders will bring lasting peace”. Monbiot adds that “the message could scarcely have been blunter: if you want Albanian consent for the Trans-Balkan pipeline, you had better wrest Kosovo out of the hands of the Serbs”. Subsequently, we can now fully understand the strategic need for “stability” in the Balkans.

The May 1999 Socialist Standard said that “wars are fought over markets, investment outlets, raw material sources and trade routes and strategic points to control them”. Liberals mocked us at the time. Now, after their support for the slaughter of our class in Kosovo, they will have to concede that we were right all along. Thanks George!