The Democratic Idea (1966)

From the July 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Thirties was a period of intense and turbulent political controversy. As the world edged its way towards war, controversy grew fiercer and more violent. At no time since the French Revolution had political theory been so widely used to explain world events. Economic rivalries and nationalist pretensions were increasingly overlooked as Communist, Fascist or Democratic became terms of praise or abuse, according to which side one was on. As each milestone — Abyssinia, Spain, Munich — was passed, the issues seemed to crystallise into the simple proposition — Democracy versus Dictatorship.

The previous decade had seen the rise of Fascism. Fascist theorists extolled the virtues of dictatorship and derided democracy, while clever propagandists poured out these ideas in a never-ending stream, over the new medium — radio. Democracy was blamed for the miseries of the depression, and for the bitterness that was felt, understandably enough, by the veterans of the last world war. Democracy, they claimed, was decadent and the cause of once great nations falling into decay. Fascism was to be the cleansing fire that would consume the dross, and herald a great new age. Dictatorship became synonymous with Fascism, and democracy with Anti-Fascism.

This brought in some strange recruits to the cause of freedom. Heading the motley crew were the Communist Party, previously noted for their slavish devotion to that highly autocratic state Russia. When at last the storm broke it was "Democracy" and not "King and Country" for which the workers were urged to fight.

This leads to the question, What is democracy? What are its origins? How long has it existed?

Political theorists have divided democracy into three types, and like most classifications these are useful as a basis for discussion. The divisions are Direct Democracy, Representative Democracy and Constitutional or Liberal Democracy. The first, Direct Democracy, is as the name implies, one in which the right to make political decisions is exercised by the entire body of citizens by the majority vote.

The second, Representative Democracy, sometimes referred to as the "Convention System of Government," is the one in which citizens exercise their rights not in person but through representatives. These are chosen by the people and are directly responsible to them.

The third, Constitutional Democracy, is by far the most important, as this is the only one in operation on a large scale and is what most people think of as democracy. It is a form of government where there is universal suffrage, but where the powers of the majority are exercised through an existing constitutional framework — Parliamentary or Presidential. In this system restraints are designed to guarantee minority rights such as freedom of speech or of assembly, of religion or the press, but where the government once elected is not easily removed.

There has in the post-war world arisen a fourth and rather twisted version — the People's Democracy. It has been claimed, quite reasonably, that the economic inequalities that are inseparable from Capitalism make a mockery of democracy in practice, whatever may be claimed in theory. Developing from this idea, the theory was advanced that only economic equality would bring real democracy. When at the end of the last war the victors split and a new line-up appeared, both sides had to claim democracy. Russia and China, both harsh and quite open dictatorships, used the above theory to claim that countries whose inhabitants have neither political freedom nor economic equality were democracies. The term Democratic Republic has become a bad joke. Such a perversion need not detain us overlong.

Direct Democracy is believed by modern anthropologists to have been common practice in primitive societies, and to go back to prehistoric times. When, however, these societies developed into larger and complex states this tended to be replaced by more authoritarian government. Western political tradition, with its background in the Classics, looked back to the Greek City States as the origin of Democracy. In the fifth century B.C. many Greek City States practised Direct Democracy, with all their citizens taking a direct part in the affairs of the city. The term citizens did not, however, include women or slaves. This must be seen rather as a survival from the past, than the beginnings of the modern world.

The Greeks did not develop any form of representative democracy, which alone could have ensured their survival as a large, centrally organised state. Direct democracy obviously was impossible, with limited communications. By the fourth century B.C. this City democracy had declined and with the coming of Macedonian and later Roman domination all trace of democracy disappeared. Plato and Aristotle defined democracy as one of the systems of government, but did not think very much of it.

Direct democracy was to appeal again in the early days of America, particularly with the New England Town Meetings. In these, all citizens owning property attended in person and voted.

Representative democracy has never been established on any large scale, but proposals based on the theory of direct representation have formed the basis of many movements for Constitutional reform. As a result of this, modifications to existing constitutions in line with these theories have often taken place. Most Parliamentary or Presidential countries have bits of the theory worked into their constitutions. Switzerland is a notable example. One of the most famous of these movements was the Progressivist Movement in America. Two of the electoral reforms this movement helped to establish were the Direct Primary

Election used in some States, which takes away the nomination of party candidates from conventions and gives it to the voters, in a special election held in advance of the main election. There is also the Direct election of Senators. Prior to this, Senators had been chosen by State legislatures. Referendums and plebiscites are other methods by which the electorate vote direct on a particular issue.

There are countries, particularly in Latin America, with semi-dictatorships, which have elaborate constitutions based on Direct Representation. If these were observed the states concerned would be Representative Democracies, but they are largely a dead letter.

So a history of Democracy is largely a history of the Constitutional variety and the first thing to note is that it is modern. Furthermore, it is dependent on a literate population. Throughout history, throughout the succeeding systems of Slavery, Feudalism and now Capitalism, the types of government have been many, ranging from despotism to oligarchy; but Monarchist or Republican, none have been democratic. Modern democracy exists within a framework of ancient institutions, but these institutions were never democratic until recently. So a history of Parliaments, of Regional or City Councils, is not a history of democracy.

In fact, in most countries complete adult suffrage belongs only to this century. Some states such as Switzerland still do not allow women to vote.

The fact that the existing machinery of government was used and adapted to democratic ends has led to confusion. Such events as the founding of Parliament or the Signing of Magna Carta have been regarded as steps on the road to democracy. Nothing would have surprised or shocked Simon de Montfort more than the idea that he was a founder of democracy.

Ideas about the "rule of law", restrictions on the power of the monarch or the "rights and freedoms of the citizens" have been discussed for centuries. But none of the participants in debate equated freedom with the right to vote.

The English Civil War was not fought to establish democracy, but the war and the ideas it unleashed gave rise to a movement called the Levellers. One of the many demands that the Levellers made was a demand for manhood suffrage. This alone made them revolutionary, regardless of any other ideas they held. The whole idea was outrageous to the 17th century. General Ireton summed up the fears of the ruling classes when he claimed that political democracy would lead to economic democracy. This fear has not yet been realised.

Not until the 18th and 19th centuries did political theorists begin to advocate even limited democracy as a cure for the world's ills. Not until then did popular movements like the Chartists begin to demand universal suffrage.

So when the Fascists attacked democracy they were, in fact, attacking something of quite recent origin. This was part of their appeal. Many of the people who gave support to Fascism believed that they were returning to some kind of strong paternalism, like the oligarchies of the early 19th century. These they saw through the usual eyes of nostalgia and endowed with qualities they had not possessed.

They did not realise that Fascist dictatorships with their mass political organisations, their plebiscites to feel the pulse of the public and their reliance on proletarian support, were in themselves modern.

Les Dale

Direct Action (1999)

From the April 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fly posters pasted up in Norwich invited members of the public to a Direct Action Forum. Stair, a comrade, asked me if I was interested in going along. I wasn't. But something told me I should get out there and become au fait with what people are thinking, though what people are thinking I often find perturbing. I had done it all over the years and now found it heart-sinking to know that there are still people who believe that cutting wires on perimeter fences and swinging about in the branches of trees is going to change anything. From experience I knew that one-day participants in these activities would grow weary of what they were doing and look for a job, return to their studies or take up a career. I recalled the nights spent in my house in London many years ago talking animatedly with friends about the class struggle. I was not to know then that some of those very same people would, in later years, go on to become MPs, trade union officials or have other establishment careers. For them the class struggle became a distant memory.

By the time we arrived at the pub where the meeting was to be held about forty people had already gathered. By 8.30 the small meeting room was filled to over-capacity with sixty, maybe seventy, eager, bright-eyed young people raring to go. I admit to a stab of regret that the word "socialism" would not have had half the appeal for those present as the words "direct action" obviously had.

The suggestion was made that we should break up into smaller groups to discuss what kind of action we would be interested in taking. I must confess that at this point I was feeling a distinct disinclination to join in this discussion. In fact the only direct action I could imagine myself taking was that of getting the hell out of it and going home. But Stair was enjoying himself. He kicked off by giving the group a short account of his own political history which was half as long as mine but which contained some of the same ingredients. He requested other members of the group to do the same. Like Stair they were young but they did not easily use the word "capitalism". They wanted to get involved, they said. They had social consciences and knew there was much wrong with society. The car culture, chemical factories, nuclear weapons, genetically modified foods and cycle lanes were among the subjects the direct actionists got excited about. One man announced that he intended to set up a peace camp in Norwich. They said "Nice one" and "Yeah!" to show him he had support in this. No-one thought to ask where in Norwich or even why. Giving some very good examples of why he thought the way he did Stair explained to the group that direct action was a misdirection of energy.

His analyses of the contradictions intrinsic in direct action did not go down very well. Mouths sagged open in disbelief, protests rose from fevered lips and (hopeless, this) psychological deafness set in. "But we've got to do something," they cried. We told them they could become socialists. Their psychological deafness increased.

When we regrouped the spokesperson for our group reported back to the main body of the meeting that there were people in his group who saw no point in direct action. Here Stair interjected with "You're just pissing about with capitalism." There was a puzzled silence but no-one took him up on this. And then it was business as usual.

After the meeting Stair was optimistic. He said he felt we may have sown a few seeds. The thought uppermost in my mind was that I would be loath to attend any other direct action forums in the future. The spectacle of all those youthful faces aglow with enthusiasm for something so tenuous caused me to experience an emotion akin to sorrow. All that wonderful energy going into little more than thumbing noses at capitalism. What a shame.

Heather Ball

Why the Daily Mail Hates Karl Marx (1998)

From the July 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Only the most isolated and politically ignorant could have failed to notice the campaign launched recently to defame Karl Marx and discredit the Marxist viewpoint on the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Communist Manifesto.

Hardly a newspaper or magazine failed to join in the collective rubbishing of Marx, the Marxian world view and the possibility of a socialist alternative to the market economy. Radio and TV were at it too. Newsnight was among several programmes contributing fairly lengthy pieces while Talk Radio primed Peter Hitchens—red-baiter supreme at the Daily Express—to denigrate Marx in an hour-long programme one afternoon, though his particular excesses were reined-in by an invited interviewee from the Socialist Standard and many of the subsequent callers.

Simple Simon

Possibly the worst episode in this whole sorry campaign was the publication by the Daily Mail on 7 May of an article by one of its regular buffoons, columnist Simon Heffer. Entitled "Obscenity of Celebrating This Man`s Anniversary", this was an article which did not bother with the usual niceties of argumentation and logical analysis or concern itself with such trivialities as facts and figures. It was, instead, one of the most puerile attempts to discredit the working class movement, its history and political development, that there has been in Britain for a long time. In it Heffer accused Marx of being responsible for mass murder, famine, persecution and dictatorship—and that's just for starters. Never one to understate his case, Heffer claimed that Marx was a man "who has caused more misery, bloodshed, death and ruination on our planet than anyone else in history" likening him to Hitler, but worse.

To take the most serious accusation—that of mass murder—Heffer makes this charge in the almost certain knowledge that Marx never personally killed anyone, did not personally advocate killing anyone and never occupied any position whereby he was able (or willing) to order systematic murder, like say Hitler or Stalin. Moreover, this crude accusation comes from a journalist who takes his coin from a newspaper which openly supported Hitler and his cosh-wielding friends in the British Union of Fascists during the 1930s. Unsurprisingly, given this level of argumentation, he goes on to call the defenders of Marxism "hypocrites".

In his article Heffer labels Marx "an atrocious man". Accusing him of almost everything short of eating babies, he contends that Marx "plunged his family into poverty and near-starvation while devoting himself to his writings". Though the truth—unsurprisingly—is rather more complicated than this, how this accusation can be squared with Heffer's adulation for people like Keith Joseph and Enoch Powell, who were not exactly renowned for their warmth, generosity and personal devotion to others, is difficult to see. But, to take Heifer's sneering tone, he is a Christian and of course Jesus never let his personal convictions or over-weaning sense of his own self-importance impinge on the material well-being of those closest to him . . .

Economical with the truth

Heffer's foolhardiness in this article knows no bounds. Even journalists with the tightest of deadlines to meet know that one of the golden rules is always to check statements and sources before going to print. Not so Heffer. For how else can one account for the following statement:

" . . . his conviction that there was only so much wealth, and that the rich could only enrich themselves at the expense of the poor—was understandable in Marx. He was, after all, one who entirely misunderstood economics. He would not believe that the size of the cake, as well as the size of the slices cut from it, could continue to grow. As a result of this he advocated the persecution of those who controlled the means of production: the capitalists."

There is, to use the old aphorism, so much wrong with this statement it is difficult to know where to start with it. Fundamentally, it is not Marx who "entirely misunderstood economics", it is Heffer. Marx never said anything so daft as the size of the capitalist cake could not grow, and none of the many standard modern economics textbooks that otherwise give little credence to Marx would be as slipshod to say that he did. On the contrary, Marx spent much of his time examining the dynamics of how capitalism grows in practice over the long-term through the accumulation of ever vaster amounts of capital.

Effectively, Heffer has it the wrong way around—it is not a fixed amount of wealth production in capitalism which forces the rich to exploit the poor if they are to get richer still, it is the rich's exploitation of the poor which provides the very basis for the expansion of capital and therefore of the size of the cake itself. If the rich (the capitalists to be precise) didn't exploit the poor (the workers), or simply weren't able to for some reason, then there really would be no growth of the system, no accumulation of capital. One of Marx's crucial discoveries in the field of political economy was that the working class of wage and salary earners gets paid less than the value of the goods it creates, the difference being a surplus value which accrues to the owning class in the form of ground rent, interest and profit. If capitalists are to successfully compete against their rivals in the market a large proportion of this surplus value generally needs to be re-invested in new and more efficient techniques of production, thereby leading to a long-term expansion in the overall productive capability of society. If there is no exploitation of the working class to produce surplus value, there can be no new investment in production and further expansion of the system. There can be no capitalist growth without working class exploitation.

Heffer is also incorrect when he then goes on to infer that in the market economy opposed by Marx "all prosperity trickles down to improve everybody's lot". Again this is such a ludicrous statement that few defenders of capitalism would now dare utter it. They are no doubt aware—unlike Heffer—that while the world capitalist system continues to sporadically grow and while the top one percent of the world's population continues to grow ever richer, the poorest on this planet are poorer than ever (indeed, about half of the countries in the world have seen their GNPs fall this decade whether they be free-market based nations or rigidly state-controlled ones). While Heffer poses as the considerate humanitarian he might care to fly to the Sudan to tell the starving millions the good news that Dixons now have a 21 percent share of their market, with profits up again, and that it will all be trickling their way shortly.

An aunt called Sally

It is evident that Heffer wrote this piece on Marx having read little or nothing by him, though in this he is not alone among those pundits who have an opinion on everything but knowledge of very little. If he did get to grips with reading Marx (or even motivate himself enough to read one of the half-decent books about Marx and his views) he might then be in a position to realise that, far from being an economic ignoramus, Marx correctly outlined:

• the boom-slump cycle endemic to capitalism and how no government intervention—however benign—would be able to prevent it;
• how the market economy would eventually spread its tentacles into every aspect of human life, conquering the entire planet in the process;
• how an excess issue by governments of paper currency beyond that required by additional value production is the real cause of inflation;
• class division and the modern development of a world economy where the division between the richest and the poorest is the widest in human history;
• the growth of a colossal credit-based financial apparatus that, as time goes on, becomes increasingly isolated from the realities of the wealth production process on which it depends.

Heffer was ignorant to this and much else besides (although the term 'ignorance' here may be taken to imply a certain innocence, which in this context would be mistaken). His only motive was to ridicule Marx and rubbish the method of understanding the world he bequeathed to the working class as irrelevant at best and downright dangerous at worst. Hence, like most of the knee-jerk attacks on Marx which have populated the media, Heffer's piece could not resist associating Marx and Marxism with virtually every hideous dictatorship created this century. Without any justification whatsoever, Heffer claimed that Marx wanted to eliminate liberty and is content just like all the other shoddy scholars throughout history, to damn a theory on the basis of the deeds of those who later claimed to uphold it without asking himself whether they actually did uphold it or not. Heffer would never dream of doing this with Christianity (or Conservatism for that matter) but Marxism is apparently fair game and therefore gets damned by association with every tin-pot dictator this side of the Khmer Rouge.

Workers' gain

Throughout the bitter and difficult struggle of the working class against capitalism, the workers have made a number of serious and identifiable gains. Some of these have been economic, others more political in nature, including those relating to the organisation and outlook of the working class. The method of understanding society and social change left by Marx and Engels is one of the most important of these. Without the theoretical tools left by Marxism the working class is bereft of a comprehensive understanding of the market system, class division and why capitalism must be overthrown in a democratic socialist revolution. It is precisely for this reason that it is so feared by the ruling class and their representatives and why, periodically, so much effort is expended on denigrating it. The recent campaigns surrounding the 150th anniversary of theCommunist Manifesto have been but a part of this entire process.

If anyone doubts the prescience of the Marxian analysis and views this defence of it as mere hyperbole, consider the following passages from the Manifesto about the development of world capitalism and the ruling capitalist class:

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation . . . It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e. to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image."

And yet:

"Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange, and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."

In a world of uncontrollable global economic crises, permanent warfare, rampaging environmental destruction, unprecedented income inequality, social dislocation and delinquency, who can in all seriousness say that Marx was fundamentally wrong? And if his identification of the problems of the modern world and their trajectory is so accurate—especially for 150 years ago—his proposed solution for them must surely command attention too. That, of course, is a different story, though one elaborated in the pages of this journal often enough and yet still some way up the steep learning curve now confronting the likes of Simon Heffer and those others still to come to terms with the fact that ignorance and abuse are never a defence for long against accurate and coherent analysis. That this is unlikely to stop the Daily Mail and its ilk is more of a reflection of their own self-serving, anti-working class viewpoint than of the alleged "evil" of a long-dead German philosopher with a funny beard and a penchant for libraries.

Dave Perrin

The passing of a brain-sucker. (1919)

From the September 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 12th of August the death of Andrew Carnegie was reported, and all the capitalist newspapers united to diffuse an odour of sanctity around the man whose fortune—like all other great fortunes—was built up by the sucking of other men's brains.

It was on the shoulders of others that Carnegie climbed to affluence. Unscrupulous, alike in his dealings with his fellow capitalists and his workmen, he crushed out all who stood in his path, until he came up against a more powerful combination than his own, then he stepped quietly down and out of business, leaving Morgan, Rockefeller & Co. a clear field.

Carnegie came at the first flush of the era of speculation and "high finance" in America, and the tide swept him along with it. The keystone of his success was his ability in appropriating the product of other men's brains (as well, of course, as the product of their hands), or, as he himself repeatedly expressed it in relation to his managers, finding better men to look after his interests.

The man who is set up as a model of "self-help" was helped by others all his life. The only direction in which he exercised self-help was in helping himself to the the product of the work of others.

A quotation from the full-page effusion on Carnegie's life in the "Daily Telegraph" (Aug. 12th) gives in a nutshell the story of his life and the cause of his success.

He began the world without a penny. He retired from business sixty years after one of the richest men in the world—to put it no higher—with a fortune of some £90,000,000 . . . It was won by a man who had no training for his life-work. The greatest of iron masters knew nothing of metallurgy.

(Italics mine.) No money—no knowledge of iron—yet the greatest iron master! How did he do it?

To the progress of the industrial revolution, to the stupendous development of mechanical and scientific methods in manufacture, Andrew Carnegie owed his millions.

Here we have it. Carnegie's wealth was built up by the ingenious brains and hands of working men. In other words, the departed saint stole the product of others' toil. And what of the workers and thinkers whose discoveries brought about the industrial revolution? The main figures in it—Crompton, Cartwright, Stephenson, Kay, Jacquard, Harrington, Lavoisier, Koening, Roberts, Trevithick, Gutenburg, Cart, Bourseul, and a host of others, either died in poverty after lives of struggle against starvation, or—in the case of a very few—gained a niggardly recognition when they were on the brink of the grave.

Now let us see where the self-help came in. Carnegie's first "start" in life was due to another person. To quote again from the "Daily Telegraph":

And now came the tide in Carnegie's life which, taken at the flood, led on to fortune . . . It was Col. Scott who first taught the youth how to make money earn more money . . . His mother mortgaged their house, into which had gone all the family savings. With the $600 thus raised Andrew bought Adams Express Stock, on his astute employer's advice.

Of course the stock paid well: Scott was in the "swim."

Carnegie's next step was to introduce to the Pennsylvania Railroad, through the agency of Scott (who was president of the company) T. T. Woodruff's invention of a sleeping berth (the forerunner of the Pullman car). He borrowed the money for his shares, and was "let in on the ground floor," "but the cars afterwards paid handsome dividends!" "Thus," he wrote, "did I get my foot on fortune's ladder. It was easy to climb after that."

Thus did he vindicate the glorious principle of self help! I may add that I find no record of Woodruff's name as one of those who got their feet on fortune's ladder. No doubt he went the usual way of inventors.

During the Civil War Carnegie's pal Scott (now Assistant Secretary for War) found him a lucrative job in the service of the Northern wage slave owners, and at the conclusion of the war he utilised the wealth he had acquired to go in for oil and "struck it rich."

Like Mr. Rockefeller, he was in at the start. In 1862, with several associates, he purchase the Storey Farm, on Oil Creek, Pennsylvania for $40,000. It proved what prospectors call a bonanza, and in one year paid $1,000,000 in cash dividends.

Having gained the early plums of the oil trade, the "self-made man" in the making turned his attention to steel. On a visit to England he saw the steel rails that were the result of the new Bessemer process (a process discovered by one of Bessemer's workmen whose name even is  not known!) introduced them into America, and another chunk was added to his fortune.

The process of the Trust in which Carnegie had the preponderating influence was largely due to the valuable patents which they controlled. The men who were responsible for the subjects of these patents, however, were but pawns in the hands of the financiers.

Working men have proverbially short memories, yet the name "Homestead" should suffice to recall to the mind the bludgeoning and shooting of working men that took place at Carnegie's works during the "Homestead" strike, when Pinkerton and his gunmen were called in. Though daily waxing richer Andrew the philanthropist (!) was not satisfied, and laid plans to increase the working hours. The men organised to resist the project, so he retaliated by refusing to employ any but non-union workers. According to the "Telegraph" "the strike was soon the crux of one of the ugliest scenes in all the bloodstained history of American labour quarrels." The military (to the number of some 8,000 soldiers) were eventually sent to the vampire's assistance "to restore order"! And such was the man who professed to be the ardent anti-militarist and apostle of peace, and who presented to the world the "Palaces of Peace." Like others of his kidney, he did not want war when it interfered with his accumulation of wealth, but when it suited his purse (as when he took part in the Civil War) his objections vanished.

By the irony of circumstance, the same day the papers were applauding the incarnation of self-help and genius in the shape of Carnegie, they devoted a few lines to recording the tragic death of poor Blakelocke, the American landscape painter. His life "was the story of genius doomed to poverty," says the "Evening News" (13.8.19). His greatest works were sold by him for a few paltry pounds to keep his wife and family from starvation. The same works were afterwards sold for hundreds of pounds. The same paper further states: "Worry and the hard struggle for existence eventually produced a break-down, and he was removed to an asylum."

Blakelocke is now looked upon as one of the greatest landscape painters of America, but his genius only brought him poverty and the lunatic asylum.

What a contrast! The unscrupulous and slimy Carnegie dies in the midst of vast riches, while the fine artist dies in the asylum! Self-help, forsooth!

After officially stepping out of business (although still drawing his dividends), Carnegie set out to make a name for himself in a new direction. He made arrangements to distribute libraries in various places to assist in the education of working men. It appears strange that one who was such a determined antagonist of his employees should suddenly blossom forth as their benefactor. The strangeness, however, disappears as soon as we look below the surface. Carnegie and his class require workpeople who have sharp brains and a good technical knowledge, as these make the most efficient wage-slaves—hence the library stunt.

Since 1901 Carnegie has been throwing millions away and doing his damnedest to spend his money, but all to no purpose: he dies worth nearly as much as in 1901! What a power of wealth this one man must have robbed the workers of, and yet they try to kid us that we do not produce enough!

Away with dreams and delusions; let us wake up and produce for ourselves. Perish the parasites and vampires.

Gilmac.

Running Commentary: 'Communism' on the stock exchange (1982)

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

'Communism' on the stock exchange

Among other effects of the coup in Poland was the sudden change in various prices in the West. Shares of various companies which had connections in Poland suddenly fluctuated. The dollar and the mark fell drastically on international currency exchange markets. Various metals, particularly copper, rose in price, some to all-time high spots.

"Gold", one financial commentator said, "was expected to shoot up in price in the event of anything like this happening in Poland, but surprisingly its price has not changed by anything like what everyone expected."

What can be concluded from this? Firstly, it demonstrates how capitalism is an interlinked, worldwide system, the various countries being components within it. It is not the case that each country has a separate economy, only superficially connected with other national economies. 

Secondly that Poland, without any doubt, is part of that worldwide capitalist economy.

Land of the free?

In 1979 one of the few unions to support Ronald Reagan's presidential election campaign was the American Air Traffic Controllers' Organisation (AATCO). They smiled at Ron and Ron smiled at them. As government employees the members of the AATCO had individually signed contracts of employment which made it illegal for them to strike. However, a prolonged campaign to have their pay improved and more importantly their hours reduced from 40 to 32 (the extraordinarily strenuous nature of their work was injurious to their health if sustained for 40 hours a week, casing heart disease and premature retirement) was so fruitless that in August 1981 they decided to strike.

Ron stopped smiling on those workers as soon as they started asking him to deliver the goods and at this stage he dug in his heels and promptly sacked all 12,000 striking controllers. Five strikers were gaoled, in the Land of the Free, one in leg irons and shackles, and 17 others were arrested for defying court orders. The strikers were also punished with a three-year ban on them taking up any Federal employment. Now, Ron is trying to re-introduce a smiling image of mercy and sweet reason. It was reported (Guardian 10/12/81) that although the sacked workers will not be permitted to resume work at the Federal Aviation Administration, they will be permitted to sell themselves to other branches of the Federal state machine. What a decent gesture. Drew Lewis, the American Transportation Secretary, announced that Ron now believes the workers should have a "fair and equal opportunity to compete for any Federal job for which they are found to be qualified". The motive behind this "compassion" is likely to be that as these workers have been quite highly trained the state may as well use their skills.

Fragile China

As we pointed out in the Socialist Standard last year (August 1981) millions of workers in China are now exploited on a piece-rate basis (paid not by the week or month but by the quantity of goods produced, although payment will still necessarily be less than the value of what is produced!)

The Chinese People's Daily, at the end of last year, reported that official unemployment would soon be reaching the "intolerable" level of between six and seven million and in a bid to remedy this problem, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council have introduced reforms which will, among other things, end the state monopoly on urban employment, granting workers the right to contract their own exploitation. The reforms will also end discrimination against those employed as collective or private enterprises, giving such employees equal treatment with state workers.

The Guardian reported (25/11/81) a front page editorial of the People's Daily which admitted that the state can no longer provide jobs for all urban workers in its enterprises, and as the economy becomes more troublesome for the employing class to manage and heightened pressure is put on the workers, it is interesting to learn that Peng Chong, Vice Chairman of the National People's Congress is reported to have told a visiting Italian politician that "a small number of young Chinese want to form free trade unions along the lines of Poland's Solidarity because they are dissatisfied with China's docile state-run unions" (Guardian 11/12/81). This development will afford the Chinese workers greater resistance against the encroachments of the state against the level of their wages.

Redundancies

The trend in China away from the strict state ownership of industry and towards the models of capitalism operating in the West—in order to inject more vitality into the economy—is also apparent in the Russian Empire where Tzar Brezhnev has recently condoned a strategy of New Economic Policies. Managers (yes, they have them in Russia, along with banks, five-star hotels and all of your old favourites) are being encouraged to reduce numbers of employees and increase productivity. The redundancies and screwing the workers for more profit will be described as "conditional freeing from jobs" and efforts to "increase the surplus social product".

In Russia there is officially no unemployment or profit. Reports in the Russian official Communist Party Economic Gazette (quoted in the Guardian 3/11/81) indicate that new pay scales are to be brought in permitting exceptionally hard workers (tough luck for the weak and disabled) to receive wages up to 50 per cent above the average and patent royalties are to be awarded to those who can invent techniques to improve production processes which could make some of them rouble millionaires! The reforms particularly encourage financial rewards for those who save energy, and factory managers have been authorised to distribute part of the savings in bonuses. What next? Gold-plated coffins for those workers who agree not to eat any food if it can be profitably sold abroad to further enrich the Russian ruling class?

Gary Jay

Political Notebook: Double standard (1979)

The Political Notebook column from the October 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Double standard

As the days get shorter you may care to be reminded of last winter. Remember the crocodile tears shed by the Tories over the sick who were endangered because of the strikes in the NHS, the hypocrisy over schoolchildren who could not continue their studies, the nauseating cant spewed out over the dead who were not being buried because of the grave-diggers' strike, the simulated sympathies they whipped up for the OAPs and claimants who were unable to collect their weekly pittances because of civil service strikes? The humanity shown by the Tories was truly impressive. Now they are in office several people, including some union leaders, have noticed something odd. Those same humane Tories, so concerned over the young, the sick, the old and the dead, are now ruthlessly trying to reduce government expenditure with the result that services for these groups are going to be hit far worse than by any of last winter's strikes.

For example, education spending is being slashed, and long term prospects for the young in education are thus becoming far worse than anything that might result from a few short strikes. With a savage nineteenth century anachronism like Rhodes Boyson in charge (as much use as swine fever to agriculture, as one Labour MP put it), the Tories are laying about higher education like Samson in the Temple. The NHS is being drastically cut too. So workers who are suffering from illnesses (many caused by capitalism anyway) will have even less chance of being admitted to hospital, and will get even poorer services when they get there. Where are the crocodile tears now? The Tories are looking after the profit system; the tears will look after themselves.

Of course, it was not only the Tories who suddenly pretended to be concerned about working class living standards in last year's show of union strength. Their twin brother, the Labour Party, also have their share of people who can say black when they mean white. The Labour government were as concerned as any to try to get workers back to work. And, as few fireman would have forgotten, their ruthlessness in breaking strikes was quite impressive. Is it too much to hope that union members will see through the party that the trade unions created and realise that the Labour Party, just like the Tories, when faced with the realities of capitalism promise one thing but always do another.

It seems that at least one trade union leader is coming round to the point of view that unions only exist to struggle to improve the working conditions of their members and ought not to be concerned in supporting capitalist political parties. The August and September ITV strike brought forth the following from Alan Sapper, leader of the ACTT:

"We are a capitalist trade union", says Mr. Alan Sapper, leader of the biggest of the ITV technicians' unions. "We are selling the labour of our members for the highest and best price, using any and every related reason to get it. That is what a trade union leader does. He is not a philosopher or a socialist writer. I am a trade union negotiator and I am selling a product." (The Guardian, 23 August 1979.)

We have been saying something similar for seventy-five years. But the realisation that workers sell their mental and physical energies in a market for the highest price possible is only half the story. What follows is that the actions of trade unions are limited by the forces of capitalism itself, with the result that however high a price the unions negotiate for the sale of their members' abilities, every wage deal is a 'sell-out'. This is because no capitalist will employ workers unless he is going to get a profit out of the deal. That means he is going to get something for nothing. If he cannot get that, production is stopped.

Up in smoke

Sections of the left have claimed to be able to bring exploitation to an end by the use of the co-operative. There are several variants on this particular version of slavery run in the interests of the slaves. The basic idea is for workers to combine with management to run a factory in the interests of the employees. It is of course a pipe-dream, and as the realities of capitalism break in on the cooperatives, their ideals go up in smoke. In the 1970s this particular dream has been pushed hard by the pipe of Tony Benn. In a smoky fog of euphoric confusion, this Labour Party answer to Noddy in Toyland helped create the Meriden motor cycle co-operative. The workers were going to run the factory, and the problems of production for a ruthlessly competitive market were to vanish. They did not. The co-operative has had to lay off workers and is under intense pressure to repay the interest due on the original loan made by the then Labour government to enable it to start.

The final irony is not that the capitalist system has defeated another Utopian scheme. The co-operative is almost certain to be shut down because it cannot pay its debts to the local Coventry Council. Coventry gave the co-operative ten days in which to pay the outstanding rates of £72,000 (The Guardian, 22 August 1979). If the co-operative does not pay (it almost certainly can't), the Council will bring court proceedings which may be the end of Meriden. The Coventry Council is Labour.

New slums

Another Labour Party pipe-dream was the post-war 'new towns' and local authority high-rise developments. The idea this time was to try to improve the workers' housing conditions. Millions of pounds were spent on these prestigious new developments. And now some of the most expensive attempts to take workers out of the slums have resulted in merely producing different types of slums. Six of the new towns — Corby, Harlow, Stevenage, Bracknell. Sedgefield and Peterlee — are facing particular difficulties. They are trying to get the Department of the Environment to pay the bills of millions of pounds that will now have to be spent to make their new slums inhabitable.

Generally the houses have a multitude of faults. So far everything from leaking roofs to rotting timbers and cracking walls have been detected. It seems that in the great rush to build the houses to establish the new towns, a certain amount of caution was thrown to the wind. (The Guardian, 20 August 1979.)

Peterlee, a new town of some 26,000 inhabitants in a mining community in County Durham, has problems that no doubt sound familiar to many of our readers. "The flat-roof houses in Peterlee have caused enormous problems. Many of them leak badly, walls are cracking, wall tiles are corroding, gable ends are deteriorating, and windows and doors are rotting." If anything, the high-rise flat movement has been even more of a disaster. For example, the pride of the Liverpool Corporation development in Everton has been abandoned completely after the developments became uninhabitable. The locals called the developments 'The Piggeries'.

Housing for the working class has always been cheap and nasty. In the rush for low cost production, it is not so much caution that is thrown to the wind but the interests of workers that are thrown to the dogs or, in this case, frequently the rats that often invade these new developments. However, design faults and poor building are not the result of technical inability. These faults are the inevitable outcome of production for the bottom end of the market. In capitalism, the new workers' homes of one year are the slums of next year. Sometimes the interval between prestige development and embarrassing unhabitability is remarkably short.

Out-of-date swinger

Another fabrication that does not always last the pace is the protesting folk singer. Remember the swinging sixties and Bob Dylan? He was going to bring the revolution by strumming a guitar and stringing together a few rhyming couplets. Well, this hero of the protest movement, who still has a large following of ageing mums and dads and over-30 teenagers, has become a 'born again Christian'. He has joined that select group, including revolutionary hero President Jimmy (I'm alright God) Carter, who call themselves the brothers and sisters of Christ. (The Guardian, 31 August 1979.) Instead of lyrics that make the youth of America steam up to protest about Vietnam or some other horror of late twentieth century capitalism, the lyrics now include lines like: "God don't make promises that he don't keep". No doubt the new album will sell well at services and Sunday schools. We might be entertained by trendy vicars leading with Dylan's songs instead of hymns from the pulpit. Dylan's financial staff will face such a prospect with equanimity. Meantime, the real revolutionary task goes on, and Dylan is just another has-been who wanted to change the world without doing anything about it.

RAW

Cooking the Books: Producers and Predators (2011)

The Cooking the Books column from the November 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

Producers and Parasites was the title of a 1935 pamphlet by the Scottish-born American Marxist John Keracher. On the face of it Ed Miliband’s distinction in his Labour Party Conference speech between “producers” and “predators” seems more radical. After all, aren’t predators worse than parasites? But this is only on the face of it, as what Miliband meant by producers was quite different from what Keracher did. Nor were his “predators” the same as Keracher’s “parasites”.

Keracher was explaining Marx’s theory of surplus value which starts from the observation that wealth can only be produced by humans applying their mental and physical energies to materials that originally came from nature. Under capitalism these producers are exploited in that the difference between what they are paid as wages and salaries and the value of what they produce is appropriated by those who own and control the means of production. These capitalist employers and their hangers-on are “parasites”, argued Keracher, living off the unpaid labour of the “producers”.

Miliband’s distinction is not between wealth-producing workers and those who live off profit, interest and rent, but between two types of capitalist. It’s a distinction between Keracher’s parasites. According to Miliband, there are good capitalists who invest in providing goods and services and jobs (the “producers”) and those who are out to make a quick buck through asset-stripping and financial wheeling and dealing (“predators”).

There are two things wrong with this distinction. First, it accepts the capitalists’ impertinent view of themselves as wealth-producers (in Stock Exchange circles they even call mining companies “miners”); whereas all wealth is produced by those who work with their hands and brains, not those who invest for profit. Second, all capitalist firms are predatory in that their aim is to grow bigger by winning the battle of competition against their rivals and absorbing them through take-overs. That’s what all the big capitalist firms of today have done, including Rolls Royce, which Miliband cited as an example of a good capitalist.

For some reason, commentators interpreted Miliband’s speech as a turning to the left by the Labour Party. Certainly it was a piece of demagogy that went down well with his audience of councillors, would-be councillors and trade union bureaucrats. But in essence it was no different from Ted Heath’s 1973 denunciation when Tory PM of Tiny Rowland and Lonrho as “the unacceptable face of capitalism.”

Actually, the speech was an open recognition of what has always been the Labour Party’s practice – accepting capitalism and trying to smooth off the rough edges of capitalism, to humanise and moralise it. Cameron employed the same approach when, in opposition, he spoke of the Tories standing for “compassionate capitalism.” (It’s a different story now.)

It’s a pipe-dream of course. Capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the real producers which can only work in the interest of the parasites, whether predatory or passive, who live off profits. It can never be made to work in the interests of the majority, as the experience of the present Coalition government and the immediately preceding Labour government is showing. In fact, as the experience of all governments everywhere has always shown.

The State and its abolition (Part 4) (1985)

From the Spring 1985 issue of the World Socialist

3. Notes on the State

Central to socialist thinking on the nature of the capitalist state is the concept of class. Drawing on the writings of Marx, socialists argue that we live in a class-based society, in which a small minority own and control the means of producing wealth to the exclusion of the rest of the population.

Specifically, we live in a society which is divided on class lines: the owners of capital, the capitalist class, and the sellers of labour power, the working class. This relationship between buyer and seller of labour power is necessarily antagonistic and this antagonism expresses itself from time to time in struggle over the distribution of the social product. Because of this socialists argue that the state cannot remain neutral — a passive observer of the class struggle. Rather we say that the state must intervene on the side of the economically dominant or owning class, because the state is controlled directly or indirectly by this class. This puts us at odds with the views of the "pluralists" who argue that power is diffused throughout a plurality of institutions in society and that the state is neutral in relation to the class struggle. But although it is possible to demonstrate the unequal division of power and wealth in society, and hence show up the crucial weaknesses of this theory, we still do not arrive at an answer to the central question of what makes the modern state capitalist.

DISSATISFACTION WITH CLASSICAL TEXTS

Ralph Miliband's study, The State in Capitalist Society, that came out in 1969 signalled a general dissatisfaction in academic circles with the original Marxist writings on the state and this was reinforced in subsequent studies. It was concluded that Marx had not developed a coherent account of the nature of the capitalist state, particularly in regard to its role in the process of capital accumulation and the reproduction of capitalist social relations; indeed, that many of the references Marx makes to the capitalist state were contradictory and theoretically confused: at times he referred to the state as an instrument of class rule; and then, more subtly, as a social regulator moderating and channelling social conflict; again, he talked of the state as parasitic, that is, the private property of individuals; and, finally, as epiphenomenon (simple surface reflection) of a system of property relations and resulting economic class struggle.

The claim that the state is simply an instrument of class power used by the economically dominant class to dominate subordinate classes is highly problematical and (possibly) ahistorical. Although the ruling class owns and controls the material and mental means of production, one cannot automatically assume that it thereby controls, runs, dictates to, or is predominant in the state as well. The ruling class is not a monolithic power bloc; it is fragmented, with differing and, at times, conflicting interests. Moreover, in certain historical circumstances, the economically dominant class has not held state power, for example, in nineteenth century Prussia where the aristocracy (the junkers) controlled the state although it was a declining economic force.

Numerous problems also arise with the view of the state as a factor of cohesion in society, regulating the struggle between the classes, either by repression or concession. The main difficulty with this approach is that it suggests that the conflict over the social product is resolvable, and if taken to its logical conclusion it precludes the possibility of revolution as the state, in its role as class mediator, can act to defuse crises arising out of the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production. It is also very much akin to the liberal view of the state as "nightwatchman". Likewise, the parasitic approach can only lead to demands for a democratisation rather than the abolition of government and, perhaps, this is why Marx dropped references to it in his later writings.

The ephiphenomenon aspect of Marx's views on the state is rooted in the metaphor of base and superstructure, that is, that the state in its legal and political forms is simply a reflection of the economic base of society. This implies that the state is a passive instrument in the class struggle or, at best, is a tool of the ruling class. To adopt such a position leads one either to the reductionism of the equation that class power equals state power, or, to ignore the role the state has played, and is playing, in organising the labour process and in creating the conditions for further capital accumulation. The epiphenomenon view thus places a straightjacket on the activities of the state, divesting it of any autonomy or freedom of action, something which is at odds with the historical development of capitalism.

Dissatisfaction with the classical Marxist texts on the nature of the state led to a reformulation of theoretical perspectives by a new generation of Marx students. The outcome has been by no means theoretically homogenous, in fact, a variety of perspectives have emerged which we will now attempt to synthesise.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE RULING CLASS TO THE STATE

In Marxism and Politics, Miliband offers three possible, but not necessarily interrelated, explanations concerning the relationship of the ruling class to the state. The first of these concentrates on the personnel of the state. Miliband argues that those who control the state share a similar or common social background and are linked together by economic and cultural ties. These links result in a cluster of common ideological and political attitudes, as well as common perspectives and values. Thus those who run the state apparatus are by virtue of their circumstances favourably disposed to those who own and control the economic means of life. Empirical evidence would tend to bear out some of Miliband's assumptions. In The State in Capitalist Society, he provides an impressive array of detailed information which chronicles the interconnections between the elite groupings in society. The state is largely run by people from similar social backgrounds and educational establishments, in spite of numerous Labour governments and so-called working class occupational mobility. But this approach inevitably leads to the reductionism mentioned earlier as it does not explain how the state is capitalist. Crucially it does not amount to a Marxist theory of the state as it discusses the state in isolation from socio-economic forces. Miliband's work serves only as a rebuttal to pluralist assumptions about political democracy.

To buttress the obvious shortcomings of this approach Miliband introduces an economic dimension to his analysis. This centres on the role of capital as a pressure group. Here capital, particularly "monopoly capital", uses its position as the major controller of wealth and, hence, of investment to demand the ear of government. The fear in governing circles of multinationals redirecting investment and causing large numbers of job losses ensures that they listen sympathetically to them. In some accounts of this process, particularly that of Baran and Sweezey and the "Communist" Party, the state and monopoly capital become fused; the former acting as a pliant tool of the latter. These views ignore the fact that the state often acts against the interests of certain sections of the capitalist class. The state passes reforms in the social and economic fields which capital dislikes, for example, high levels of unemployment benefit and spending on welfare services in general. Moreover this approach reduces the state to an epiphenomenal position, that is, the nature of the state is drawn from the immanent tendencies of capital accumulation. It also disregards the role of class struggle in shaping the way the state responds to certain issues and problems.

HOW CONSTRAINING ARE THE CONSTRAINTS?

The problematic nature of the above approach and its corollary that small and medium size capitals should unite with the working class in a struggle to overthrow monopoly capitalism has been severely criticised by "structural Marxists" such as Althusser and Poulantzas, and this leads us to the third explanation offered by Miliband. Structuralists argue that "the state is an instrument of the ruling class because given its insertion in the capitalist mode of production (CMP) it cannot be anything else". Thus it matters little who constitutes the personnel of the state, or what pressure is exerted by capitalists, as the actions of the state are determined by the "nature and requirements of the CMP". In other words, a capitalist economy has its own logic or rationality to which any government or state must sooner or later submit, regardless of its ideological or political preferences; the existence of the capitalist mode of production constrains the state to act in ways favourable to the expansion and preservation of the economic system and against the interests of the working class.

The structuralist view has been further refined by the work of the "capital logic" school of Berlin. This approach derives the character of the capitalist state from the categories of the capitalist economy, the process of production and accumulation. The state is seen as a political force which is required to secure the reproduction of wage labour—to the extent that this cannot be done through market forces—and to ensure the subordination of labour to capital. This requires the state to intervene in areas such as factory legislation, supervision of trade union activities and social welfare. In this role the state is prepared to act not only against the working class, but also against individual capitals or fractions of capital which threaten the interests of capital in general.

Although it has a persuasive logic to it the structuralist view has a number of crucial weaknesses. Firstly, how constraining are the constraints? If total, then the outcome of that totality is economic determinism, as it would lead to a situation where human beings are deprived of any freedom of action or choice. Man however is not simply the product of economic forces, but a complex organism, whose actions are determined by many competing factors such as tradition, religion (where appropriate), altruism, nationalism, and so on. Secondly, and this follows from the first point, if we accept the structuralist position on the state, then we preclude consideration of how workers in struggle have affected the nature of the state and how it reacts to working class demands. In short, we could dismiss the last 150 years or so of the class struggle.

Similarly, the capital logic approach not only fails to account for the origins of the capitalist state, but fails to show convincingly how it can operate as the ideal collective capitalist. In short, how does it determine, and by what means, what are the "best" interests of capital? Moreover, in this scheme everything that occurs in a capitalist society apparently corresponds to the needs of capital accumulation, and even where modified by class struggle the interests of capital are always realised. The whole theory is deterministic, and can only provide a partial analysis to the central issue of what makes the state capitalist.

WHAT MAKES THE STATE A CLASS STATE

These explanations, although more systematic and coherent than some earlier Marxists' writings on the state, fail to explain the central issue of what makes the modern state a class state: the state of the capitalist class. The main reason behind this is the reductionism of the approaches. This means that a more adequate theoretical approach is necessary; one which takes account of the actual historical development of the state and how this development has been influenced by the balance of class forces at specific historical moments, and appreciates that the state can and does enjoy a fairly high degree of autonomy and independence in the manner of its operation as a class state. After all if the state is to act in the interests of the capitalist class it must be free to come to a decision as to what actually constitutes those interests. In doing so it may have to favour one fraction of capital against another in order to preserve or promote the long or short term interests of the sum total of the system's parts. This explains why particular social and economic policies are possible even though powerful economic groups are opposed to them.

This approach also allows for an account to be taken of the way the working class, through trade unions and other defence mechanisms, have affected the development of the state. For, given the nature of competitive capitalism, workers are forced to resist the encroachments of capital. The state must react in some positive way to workers' (reformist) demands. Failure to do so would lead to civil strife and political instability. Thus state forms and institutions, without this in any way threatening underlying capitalist social relations, are partly the outcome of working class struggle and cannot simply be attributed to the interests of the ruling class or a mere reflection of the changing needs of the capitalist mode of production.

Socialists, then, do not accept the pluralist view that the state is the property of no single class and that because of this it responds to the demands of all sections of society. We recognise that the modern state is comprised of a flexible set of institutions which operate subtly and is, ultimately, the executive committee for the capitalist class.

Bill Knox (Britain)

The State and its abolition (Part 3) (1985)

From the Spring 1985 issue of the World Socialist

2. A classless, stateless world

Running global human society without the machinery of states is regarded by some as being as unachievable as radio and hi-fi systems were to some people before their invention. Socialists observe that the coercive governmental machinery of the state has not always been a feature of human society but was created necessarily in a phase in our history and will, with equal necessity, be abolished with the establishment of socialism.

For the greater part of the history of human society social affairs have not been regulated by governments. The state arose from the need to keep class antagonisms in check. The economically most powerful social class becomes the politically dominant class through the state and uses its machinery as a means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. "The ancient state was, above all, the state of the slave owners for holding down the slaves, just as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is an instrument for exploiting wage labour by capital." (Engels, Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State)

When the majority of men and women —the wealth producers — democratically act to put the means of life into the hands of the whole community there will no longer be a social need for the coercive machinery of the state. The majority of people will no longer have to suffer government by a minority. The government of people will be replaced by the administration of things. This will mean that the institutions now used by the state to keep the working class in check — the judiciary, laws, police forces and prisons — will become socially redundant. Similarly, the organised force used by the state to protect the interests of territories and markets of its wealth owners—armies, navies and air forces — will also become socially unnecessary. "The society that organises production anew on the basis of the free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machine where it will then belong: in the museum of antiquities side by side with the spinning wheel and the bronze axe." (Engels, Anti-Duhring)

Organising the world on the basis of a society in which people will contribute according to their skills and inclinations and take according to their self-determined needs is an attractive idea. A world society undivided by national boundaries and free from war and famine. A world society unfettered by the rationing system of money. Is it possible? Socialists contend that not only is the establishment of socialism immediately possible, but that it is an urgent necessity if we are to avoid the potentially horrific sorts of destruction which the continuation of capitalism would render probable.

There are several ways in which the practicability of socialism can be doubted but basically these doubts arise in three areas of inquiry. First, will "human nature" permit a classless world without government? Second, will the resources of the planet be sufficient to support a society based on producing goods and services simply to meet all human needs and third, do we have sufficiently advanced systems of communication, organisation and distribution to cater for running the world for all humanity?

MINORITY RULE NOT NATURAL

Does "human nature" stand as a barrier to a world without governments? In answering this question, socialists would draw a distinction between human nature and human behaviour. There are a few characteristics of humans which could be described as "natural" in the sense that they are anatomical or physiological features of all people irrespective of the social system that they live in. Reflex actions, like blinking to water the eyes, stereoscopical colour vision, bi-pedal locomotion, prehensile manipulation and so forth are examples of this sort of feature and they are relatively fixed characteristics. Also, of course, the needs for food, drink, clothes and shelter. Contrasted with this are a great variety of behaviour patterns which are socially learnt. Behaviour traits instilled in young people by families, the indoctrination of education systems and the aggression and murderous techniques taught by military forces are all examples of this sort of socially conditioned behaviour. In commercial society we are steeped in a competitive mentality from a tender age but this learnt behaviour conflicts with an essential characteristic of human society: that of co¬operation. As a society we are a highly integrated body of entities and we all rely upon one another. Our very advanced division of labour means that we are all, to some degree, mutually dependent and require each other's co-operation even in capitalism. Because socialism will abolish classes — the relationship of employer and employee — and create a social equality of human beings, it will harmonise our social relationships with the way that we need to work in order to survive. It is worth observing that even in today's competitive world we are all co-existing in an intricate network of co-operation. Picture the seething mass of work going on in one of today's big cities — it would grind to a halt in one second without the continued and very complex co-operation amongst millions of people.

Primitive humankind co-operated for tens of thousands of years without government, but apart from this evidence that we are not organically predisposed to be ruled by a minority, there are many examples to corroborate the versatility of our nature. Anthropological examinations of Red Indian, Aboriginal and Eskimo societies all testify to the fact that we can and have organised society on a democratic basis. Many modern societies which organised themselves on a communistic, democratic principle (like the Kalahari Bushmen, or Kung people, of southern Africa) are now being sucked into the commercial, competitive world. They are being driven from the lands that they inhabit as it is "purchased" by developers, and are forced to seek a living by wage-slavery. Another example of this, occurring now, concerns the Panare Indians who live in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela. They have enjoyed life, until recently, in 38 communities living on the basis of "from each according to ability, to each according to need". They have no divisions of class and no status discrimination on the grounds of age or gender. Ideas of competition and violence are entirely antithetical to them. Their stress-free lifestyle is now being shaken by an American airborne evangelical group, the New Tribes Mission. Their lives are being smitten with religious indoctrination and all sorts of sinister devices are being used to make them docile, ashamed of their lifestyles, and to go in search of employment in the local mines.

In a rat-race we do acquire rat-like propensities but even now they do not dominate us and more importantly, they are subject to change if and when we decide to abolish the sort of social environment which causes them.

SUFFICIENT MATERIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES.

The latest United Nations estimate of the world population is 4.7 billion. Are the resources of the world enough to support everyone? Today there is a massive unmet social need as a result of a social system which only produces goods if there is the prospect of selling them on the market for a profit. These unmet needs range from the horrors of mass starvation (according to Oxfam 500 million men, women and children go hungry every day) and homelessness to the relative impoverishment of all the wealth-producers. Alongside these needs capitalism presents in all countries the conspicuous over-consumption of a small elite, lakes of wine and milk and mountains of food (the European Common Market has a current butter stockpile of approaching 600,000 tonnes) and gigantic resources being pumped into socially useless or destructive ends.

Military spending now totals close to the equivalent of £1,000,000,000 across the world every 24 hours. This greatly exceeds the resources needed to meet the United Nations targets (idealistic as they are under the profit system) of providing everyone with adequate food, sanitary water, health care and education. UNICEF, working in 112 countries, had a total income of £171 million in 1981. This is the equivalent of the expenditure the world makes on the military forces every 4 hours and ten minutes (World Military and Social Expenditures 1982). It is an unchangeable priority of states in capitalism to put the needs of the Death Industry before basic human requirements. In a socialist society all of the ingenuity, human effort and resources which are now pumped into militarism will be donated instead to producing goods and services which are useful and enjoyable. On a similar point, consider all of the materials and human resources which are spent today on the necessary workings of the commercial system which would be liberated in socialism to be devoted to more rewarding sorts of work. The millions of men and women who are today engaged in running the system that exploits them in banking, insurance, commerce, tax revenue, everything connected with the production and running of prisons and the police forces, would be freed to help take part in the task of providing the sort of things that people really want.

Julian Simon and Herman Kahn in their book The Resourceful Earth produce carefully researched evidence to demonstrate that the planet enjoys much greater resources than are currently being tapped. Their writing is, ironically, aimed at advocating a free market economy with minimal economic controls — the very principles which produce such great hardship now — but their evidence is nevertheless useful. As they observe, the scaremongery about dwindling resources is not new. People have always been predicting that one or other natural resource will be exhausted. It was once a respected view that oil reserves would dry up in the 1880s. In practice these predictions encourage discoveries of new reserves or the development of new substitutes for the threatened material.

Capitalism only ever aims to produce on a scale matching what people can afford to buy, not what they actually need. For this reason many agricultural techniques are underdeveloped compared with our technological abilities.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) still sees great scope for expanded production. It reported this year that, using current Western farming methods, the world could produce enough food for up to 33,000,000,000 people, seven times the world population. Using somewhat less sophisticated farming methods, 15,000,000 people could be fed and, even if the whole world relied on primitive farming methods, using no fertilizers or pesticides, traditional seeds and no soil conservation methods, the present world population could still be comfortably fed. ("In Defence of Population Growth", New Scientist 4 August 1984)

ORGANISING A GLOBAL CLASSLESS SOCIETY

Do we have adequate systems of communication, organisation and distribution to operate a global classless society? As with the questions of "human nature" and the earth's resources, the answer to this question is partly apparent now. Because it is necessary for capitalism's international trade, the world is already a highly integrated network of communications, travel and distribution. In this sense, capitalism is pregnant with socialistic organisation. With its booms and slumps, shortages and gluts, disruptive wars and embittered industrial disputes, capitalism is a chaotic, anarchic social system. In socialism production and distribution will be democratically planned. Society will not be told by a minority that food cannot be produced because there is no market for it. We shall harness all of the technology that capitalism has produced, discover exactly what our needs are, and where, and then plan production to meet them. Computer systems, current electronic stocktaking devices used in supermarkets and the astonishing technology of communications and travel used today by military forces and banks will all play their part. And think how much easier it will be to simply find out how many people in what places need what goods, than the task of market researchers of discovering who might buy what in the uncertainties of the market.

Without nations and governments, how will this production be planned? The world administration for production for use will need to satisfy the requirements of historical continuity, practical necessity and democracy. That is, it will need to adapt existing social organisations, develop them in a way to deal with the practical problems which need to be solved and to permit democracy in all decision-making. Socialists are currently in a minority and it will be for a majority to make the final decisions about how socialism will work. We can however still make some practical suggestions today. Decision-making could operate on three sorts of geographical level: the local level (corresponding to current local government areas), the regional level and the global level. Decisions about social policy and planning, whatever the scale of their intended effect, would need to originate in a locality. They could be raised by individuals, groups or local representatives of a specialist global group, connected with, for instance, health or the ecology. A policy proposal intended to affect society generally would need to pass successfully through all three levels of decision-making and then be implemented at local levels across the world.

The decision-making process in socialism will be such that everyone will have access to any information they need to make the decision and the opportunity to express views on the issue to everyone else. In the age of advanced telecommunications and the teletext this will not present any significant problems. Decisions only affecting a locality will probably be participated in by people living or working in that locality and similarly with regional decisions. We could make great use of the various information-gathering systems and expert organisations which have been developed by capitalism. Take one example, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. It is organised in 147 countries and has 4,000 planners and technicians all over the globe. It produces scientific papers which collate research material from all over the world and maintains a library of knowledge on food, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, nutrition and conservation. It keeps a census of world agricultural resources. In 1978 it completed a soil map of the entire world using a variety of techniques from aerial photography to satellite surveillance. This combines details of climates and soils and builds up a picture of potential world food production.

Socialists propose the immediate establishment of a classless, global society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living by the whole community. This sort of society can only be created by a majority of people consciously and democratically acting together to take on the responsibility of running the world for ourselves. Today's reality is, very often, yesterday's vision:

It is a dream, you may say, of what has never been and will never be; true it has never been, and therefore, since the world is alive and moving yet, my hope is the greater that it one day will be: true it is a dream; but dreams have before now come about of things so good and necessary to us that we scarcely think of them more than of the daylight, though once people had to live without them, without even the hope of them. (William Morris, The Lesser Arts, 1877)

Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too

Imagine all the people living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope some day you'll join us

And the world will be one.

(John Lennon, Imagine, 1972)

Gary Jay (Britain)