Cooking the Books: No such thing as a workers’ budget (2024)

The Cooking the Books column from the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘What would be a workers’ Budget?’ the Trotskyist Workers’ Liberty asked on Budget Day. With graffiti on a wall saying ‘Tax the Rich’ as an illustration, the article expounded:

‘A workers’ budget would tax the rich heavily’. ‘A workers’ budget would rebuild public services and restore real wages and benefits’. ‘Increase corporation tax’. ‘No easing of the rules can square the circle and win the resources needed to rebuild public services and real wages without taking from the millionaires’.

Taxing the rich to increase wages and benefits and provide better public services is fantasy politics. It’s not going to happen and, if it was tried, would precipitate a massive economic crisis.

The article cites a calculation that ‘a wealth tax, increased capital gains tax, and a few other items could raise £50 billion a year’, but that’s only 6.25 percent of the £800 billion currently spent on health, education, and pensions and other benefits. So the bulk of the money ‘to rebuild public services and real wages’ would have to come from taxing profits. The article mentions doubling corporation tax to over 50 percent of profits (but even that wouldn’t raise enough). This would reduce both the incentive and the amount for private corporations to re-invest in maintaining and expanding production. Hence, the reduction in production and a massive increase in unemployment.

The slogan ‘Tax the Rich’ assumes the continued existence of the rich, the continued division of society into the rich and the rest, into a class which owns the means of production and lives off an unearned property income (profit, interest or rent) and a class which, excluded from such ownership, depends on working for an employer for a wage or salary.

The assumption is that the rich should continue to exploit the workers but that part (most) of their income should be taxed away to pay for higher wages and better public services for the rest. It is the fantasy of capitalism being made to serve the interests of the non-capitalist majority.

The absurdity, let alone the infeasibility, of such a social arrangement — the capitalist as capitalist for the benefit of the working class — is obvious.

Some naive leftwingers might believe in this but we doubt if the leaders of Trotskyist groups do. For them, proposals for a ‘workers’ budget’ will be an application of the cynical tactic of proposing something to attract worker support but which they know won’t work, in the expectation that, when it doesn’t, the disillusioned workers who fell for it will turn to them for leadership in an assault on the capitalist state.

Real socialists are honest. We say that under capitalism there can be no such thing as a ‘workers’ budget’ as this implies that capitalism could be made to operate in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers and their dependants. But experience has repeatedly shown that it can’t. The only budget that there can be is a capitalists’ budget.

What the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, set out on 30 October was what the British capitalist state plans to spend in the next tax year (which in the UK, for some odd historical reason, starts in April) and how it intends to pay for it.

The various measures she announced were based on the supposition that the government can bring about growth. But it can’t. The most it can do is to create conditions that could encourage business investment. This in fact is what all budgets have to try to do and why they must all be capitalists’ budgets. There can be no such thing as a workers’ budget.

Blogger's Note:

A leading member of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, Martin Thomas, replied to this column on their website.

Fascism: what does it mean? (2024)

From the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Oxford University Press blog spot has a place on its website where writers are invited to contribute opinion pieces on topics in which they are considered to have expertise. One such recent piece, The horseshoe theory in practice: how Russia and China became fascist states, by Professor Michael Kort of Boston University, US, argued that the fascism of Germany and Italy in World War 2 has been replicated since then by two other societies that called themselves communist and so saw themselves at the other end of the spectrum from fascism – Russia and China.

The arguments presented are that those governing these countries used ‘massive and brutal force to overhaul the societies they controlled’, set up highly authoritarian states headed by a dictator, encouraged ‘a belligerent racial nationalism’, and controlled ‘a capitalistic economy subject to state control known as state capitalism’. The points made here are actually similar to those to be found in a recent Socialist Standard review of a book by the historian John Foot entitled Blood and Fire, The Rise and Fall of Italian Fascism. In that review, Russia and China are described as ‘the closest things that exist to the kind of system excavated and characterised so expertly by John Foot in his exploration of Italian fascism’.

Horseshoe theory

In order to try and account for the similarity between fascism and what Professor Kort variously describes as ‘socialism’, ‘communism’ or ‘Marxism’, he calls upon the so-called ‘horseshoe theory’, which ‘postulates that political similarities and differences should be viewed not as points on a straight line but rather as places on a horseshoe’. He explains that, in the common ‘linear political model’, fascism and communism (or right and left) are commonly placed at opposite ends of the spectrum, therefore appearing radically different, whereas, if political systems are seen as a horseshoe and communism and fascism are at its left and right ends respectively and curving towards each other, they can be seen to be extremely close (‘a narrow horseshoe space’) to each other rather than radically far apart. So, closely facing each other as they do, it is suggested as no surprise that they are not far apart at all in substance.

What socialism is

But is the ‘horseshoe theory’ necessary to explain the similarity which this blog writer correctly notes? Only, we would argue, if you accept his description of the kind of societies existing in Russia and China as socialism (or communism). If we look at the reality of Marx’s own concept of socialism or communism (which Professor Kort seems not to have done), we quickly see that it bears no relation to what happened in Russia under Lenin, Stalin and others, or to China under Mao, Deng Xiaoping and now Xi Jinping. It needs to be understood that, in the writings and ideas of Marx, socialism and communism were terms used synonymously to mean a marketless, moneyless society of voluntary work and free access to all goods and services based on the principle: from each according to ability, to each according to need. Since Marx’s day, these terms socialism and communism have undergone much distortion and misrepresentation, a process which began largely in the early part of the last century with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and then later in China under Mao. Both terms became equated with state ownership of all productive forces and services and repressive dictatorial state control, these arrangements being called ‘socialism’ as the supposed prelude to an alleged later stage, ‘communism’ – a distinction never made by Marx. Following this, any kind of regime leaning towards the same kind of totalitarian set-up was readily labelled socialist or communist, and since Marx was assumed to have planned all this in theory (he didn’t), any such society it was also called Marxist.

Myth and reality

This is the myth unfortunately espoused by Professor Kort. But he manages to entangle things even more. He tries to argue that what caused China in particular to become – and still to be – a fascist state (as in the title of his piece) was that it had been, wait for it, ‘communist’. Yet it is far from clear what he means by this, since at the same time he describes China as ‘a tightly controlled state capitalist economy’. He also states that the Chinese Communist Party has ‘abandoned socialism’, yet that it still practises a form of ‘Chinese Marxism’. The mind reels here, and even more so when, in a triumphant flourish, the writer concludes that ‘to communism’s (or Marxist socialism’s) horrific record of economic failure, totalitarian tyranny, and death on a genocidal scale must now be added another grim legacy: fascism’. And this even though none of the negative, ‘fascist’ features he quite accurately attributes to the regimes that have ruled Russia and China has anything whatever to do with communism, socialism or Marxism.

Clearly, despite Professor Kort’s authorship of a number of books about Russia, China, the cold war and similar subjects which the OUP blog informs us of, here at least he fails to demonstrate a clear and comprehensible view of certain key concepts necessary to understanding the history and politics of recent times.

Howard Moss

Obituary: Graham Taylor (2024)

Obituary from the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have just learned of the death of Graham Taylor in Denmark. He joined the Central Branch of the Party in 1988 as a teenager. Originally from Gillingham in Kent he later moved to Denmark where his mother hailed from. Besides being our contact there, he contributed the occasional article to the Socialist Standard as well as transcribing articles and pamphlets to go on the internet, an essential part of our current activity. A sad loss to the socialist movement at the comparatively early age of 52.

Blogger's Note:

Such sad news about Graham's premature death. A really lovely guy who did a lot of good work putting forward the case for socialism in the early days of the internet on both the various socialist forums, and on his blog, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist.

Christmas every day? (2024)

Viv and Keith.

From the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1961 Viv Nicholson, whose husband had won the equivalent of over four million pounds on the football pools, became famous after declaring she would ‘spend, spend, spend’. Which she then proceeded to do. At this time of year, without that amount of geld available to you, do you feel pressured to follow that example? Do you wish you were like Viv and could win loads of lucre on the national lottery. That would solve all your problems, wouldn’t it? Or would it?

Festivity: ‘a joyous feast, holiday or celebration’. Do you buy into Christmas because it makes you temporarily forget how pitiful it is to be a wage slave? Not that you’re being pressured. Much. The retail outlets have been selling Christmas commodities since September. Poverty, or struggling with the rising cost of living or unaffordable energy bills is no excuse. Not believing in the Christmas fairytale doesn’t excuse you from participating. The UK now has more atheists than believers in a fairy tale. So what are you celebrating? It’s a British tradition, you say? Christmas trees, Charles Dickens, God bless us one and all, blah blah. The Queen’s, oops, King’s Speech telling you that no matter how bad your year has been the privileged ruling class have had it much worse.

Is it because the kids expect presents, expensive ones too? Do you want them to be embarrassed because their friends got much better ones? They’ll probably still be dissatisfied. Don’t you realise that the true meaning of Christmas is spend, spend, spend until it hurts? Is no one thinking of the poor capitalists and their profits? Oh, you are fighting your way through the Boxing Day sales where wage slaves in shops are forced to work the holiday to add to capital’s rapacious pursuit of even more profit. They don’t have a choice. This applies to many other workers in various industries. Selling your mental or physical labour power is necessary to live in a capitalist system.

The mainstream media will no doubt have faux anger stories about a single parent spending huge amounts of money on presents for their children. This will elicit gasps of horror in the comments section from the indignant who will be incensed that someone on benefits can afford to do that. ‘I work long and hard and I can’t afford to do that’, they will cry. ‘It’s my taxes that’s paying for that!’ Note that in order for the media to manufacture outrage the story has to be about someone being supported by the state.

Once there was a time when preparations for the winter festival did not begin until a week or two before… Home-made paper chains as decorations. Catching the bus with your mom to go shopping in the local town or village to buy all the necessary prerequisites. Salvation Army bands busking in the streets, guilt-tripping passers-by into putting money in their hat. It’s for charity! It should be noted that the lyrics of many carols would have made William McGonagall ashamed to have written them.

Charities love Christmas. An excellent time to prick people’s consciences and get the money rolling in. The homeless and dispossessed may enjoy a few days of respite at Christmas before once more disappearing out of sight and out of mind. Society won’t begrudge them a little warmth, some decent food and a warm bed, but will happily turn them back onto the streets and leave them to their fate.

Oh, how naive we were then. Pillowcases of presents to open when you awake. At that age there was no conception of how hard it might have been for your parents to provide the gifts. Your dad getting up early to build a fire in the grates to warm the rooms. Him making the first cup of tea of the day for everyone and adding a generous measure of whisky to it, even for the thirteen year old. Mothers and female relatives working as hard as they did every day, or even harder, with no labour-saving devices to help them.

This is not to romanticise the past, but to highlight that for many of us it would be many years before we learnt how exploitative the capitalist system is and discovered that there was and is a better alternative. Back then there was no knowledge of how one’s parents might have had to scrape and save to buy their children presents and provide the enjoyable, but ignorant, experience.

Season of goodwill to all men, women and children? Not to those who are still being killed and maimed because some capitalists within particular states are intent on fulfilling their desire for yet more profit irrespective of the cost to innocent lives. Is there likely to be a Christmas truce, like the one in the First World War, in the conflicts currently raging across the world? You wouldn’t bet on it, and in any case a cessation of hostilities for one day is hardly sufficient. Hostilities across the world need to be suppressed forever. What is the likelihood of that happening under capitalism? Zero.

When the ‘festivities’ have ended what is there to look forward to? The rich will get richer, the poor won’t, and the global working class will continue to be exploited. The world will continue to be a less safe place.

Greg Lake sang that the Christmas you get, you deserve. Don’t you think you deserve something better than capitalism? Don’t wait until another year has gone by. Make your new year’s resolution a Lennon one… ‘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.’ There’s many more benefits to a system where goods and services are produced for use, not profit. No classes, no leaders either. Give yourself and everyone else a real present – socialism.

Dave Coggan

Dreams and Schemes (2024)

Book Review from the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

We Need to Talk About Xi: What We Need to Know About the World’s Most Powerful Leader. By Michael Dillon. Ebury Press/Penguin £10.99.

Xi Jinping is general secretary of the Chinese ‘Communist’ Party, president of China and chair of the country’s Central Military Commission. This combination certainly makes him one of the most powerful people on the planet, and here Michael Dillon summarises his personal history and political policies, against the background of developments in China, especially since the death of Mao Zedong. Little is known of his private life, but who cares?

Born in 1953, Xi gradually worked his way up through CCP ranks, working in various provincial posts. In 2002 he became a member of the Central Committee, and in 2007 of the Politburo Standing Committee. He became general secretary of the party in 2012, and his five-year term was renewed in 2017 and again in 2022. The expected practice was for the general secretary to serve two such five-year terms before stepping down, but Xi has overturned this. He is apparently seen by others in ruling circles as a ‘safe pair of hands’, though he is also less collegial and more authoritarian.

Dillon says that Xi has reversed much of the modernisation of the Chinese economy begun under Deng Xiaoping, though without saying a great deal about this. And he has lost support among ‘captains of industry’, who see him as not sufficiently friendly to business. A few years ago he announced a clampdown on the billionaires with plans to ‘regulate excessively high incomes’ (NBC News, 5/9/21), though it is not clear that this has had any real effect.

The authoritarian side has been made plain not just in the general attacks on dissidents but in events in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. In both cases, Xi has run things behind the scenes, making local leaders appear responsible. In Hong Kong, for instance, a man was recently jailed for fourteen months for wearing a T-shirt with a supposedly seditious slogan on it. Many Uyghurs in Xinjiang have been sent to ‘re-education camps’ as they are euphemistically called, in order to suppress demands for independence for the region. Finding information about developments there is difficult, but Dillon states that there has been much damage to social and religious networks, and also to the economy, with many workers being removed from their posts.

Allegedly Xi has less interest in international affairs, though the Belt and Road initiative has been an expensive and potentially influential policy. His extremely vague China Dream may see the country as a global power like the US, but clearly he is primarily interested in maintaining his own power and that of all those who rule China, whether private capitalists or part of the state and party bureaucracy.

Paul Bennett

Proper Gander: Far into the far right (2024)

The Proper Gander column from the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Despite its promotional graphics promising a flashy spy thriller with steely black-clad secret agents, Channel 4’s documentary Undercover: Exposing The Far Right was more sobering than spectacular. Cameras followed investigators from advocacy group Hope Not Hate as they went incognito among far-right activists to learn more about how they operate. As Hope Not Hate’s Director of Research Joe Mulhall says, ‘the far right often present one image to the world, and what they’re saying when they think no-one is listening is different. We have to be in the room when they think no-one’s listening’.

Two researchers who get ‘in the room’ are Harry Shukman and Patrik Hermansson. They travel from London to Tallinn, Warsaw and Athens, with Harry wearing a hidden camera and adopting the persona of ‘Chris’ to infiltrate a far-right network. This is composed of the richer, entrepreneurial type of activist, rather than the thuggish, St George’s flag-wearing variety, but their attitudes are the same, as shown when secret filming reveals abhorrent racist views.

By attending meetings online and in person as ‘Chris’, Harry pieces together information about what he calls a ‘very secretive company’: the Human Diversity Foundation, whose CEO Emil Kirkegaard is described as a ‘scientific racist’. One arm of the company arranges and funds research into ‘race science’, with articles published by its other arm, the Aporia website, established by ex-RE teacher Matt Archer. Aporia’s essays defend conservative values, with an unnerving emphasis on discussing genetic differences between groups. The documentary goes on to explain that the Human Diversity Foundation is a replacement for the Pioneer Fund, a financial backer of the far right. Being a charity, the Pioneer Fund had to disclose its funding sources, but as a private company, the HDF has no such requirement. ‘Chris’ is keen to find out the identity of a donor willing to invest $1.3 million, who Kirkegaard says is ‘between white nationalist and libertarian’. When ‘Chris’ asks if this person’s views could attract criticism, Kirkegaard replies ‘he’s so well off that it doesn’t really matter what they say’, which was one of the more depressing lines in the programme. Harry and Patrik eventually learn that the donor is Andrew Conru, a millionaire who made money in the early years of the internet by setting up online dating sites. Captions at the end of the documentary say that Archer and Conru have now ended their involvement with the HDF.

A previous covert operation by Hope Not Hate to infiltrate the fascist group National Action helped prevent a murder attempt on Labour MP Rosie Cooper, and was later dramatised for ITV. The documentary features its work to investigate and expose other far-right players, such as Paul Golding and Tommy Robinson. Golding, leader of the Britain First party, is filmed by Harry’s hidden camera saying he wants the country to deteriorate, as he sees it, so that this will motivate more people towards the far right. Tommy Robinson (formerly of the English Defence League) was found guilty of defaming a 15-year-old refugee from Syria, and went on to break a court order by repeating his claims in interviews and broadcasts. He was sent to prison for this in October 2024, with evidence for his trial contributed by Hope Not Hate.

Fighting the far right comes with risks of threats and retaliation; its ideology attracts people attracted to violence. The documentary itself was pulled at the last minute from premiering at the London Film Festival in case its screening led to reprisals. And while it was being recorded, Hope Not Hate’s founder and CEO Nick Lowles heard that the police had arrested someone who was arranging to have him targeted. The programme shows the strength and perseverance of those such as Patrik and Harry in particular who have kept up a persona to go undercover amongst such hate-fuelled people, although they’ll have to find other activities now their identities have been broadcast.

Contrasted with the bravery of the investigators is the confidence of the far right, no doubt boosted by the wealth available to organisations such as the Human Diversity Foundation. The documentary focuses on revealing Conru’s identity, but presumably there are also other millionaires who feel that their privileged status is best defended by investing in ‘race science’. The more money which goes into researching ‘race science’, the more it can gain traction in the market for ideas, regardless of the weakness of its arguments. The far-right activists featured in the documentary promote their ideology with a professional, business-like approach which suits their aims. The HDF aspires for its research to influence public policy and the views of the capitalist class, whereas the likes of Tommy Robinson and Paul Golding aim to attract support among the working class. This potentially makes the HDF and its associates more dangerous than the ‘populist’ far right, because of the power wielded by the elite. Even with a proportion of the capitalist class backing ‘race science’ – ie, race-based eugenics, how successfully they could translate this into furthering their own wealth would depend on the vagaries of the economic market and attracting broader support. Still, it’s concerning that ‘race science’ is now more prominent as part of the far right’s ideology than at any time since the 1930s. Hope Not Hate aims to combat this tendency by unearthing how its organisations are run and working with the police when they break the law. However many successful investigations they complete, the struggle is too wide for them to win, as it will continue as long as the societal conditions exist which breed far-right ideology.

Mike Foster

Halo Halo! (2024)

The Halo Halo! column from the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Shakespeare used the idiom ‘He who sups with the Devil should have a long spoon’. The ‘Devil’ is a character in a fairy story, similar to the one wherein this month millions still ‘celebrate’ the birth of a made-up ‘messiah’.

As a writer in a previous Socialist Standard wrote, ‘religion is intensely anti-working-class… the whole panoply of belief, ritual, salvation and miracle stands against the interests of all working people.’ The Catholic Church and totalitarian states have much in common.

Proponents of mumbo jumbo, the Catholic Church, should have used a longer spoon. A United States Commission on International Religious Freedom report noted that ‘the Vatican entered into an undisclosed agreement with the Chinese Communist Party (sic) in 2018 that established cooperation between Church authorities and Chinese officials in appointing bishops. But “the government has unilaterally installed CCP-aligned bishops without the Vatican’s consultation and approval” despite that agreement’.

‘Chinese officials have ordered the removal of crosses from churches and have replaced images of Christ and the Virgin Mary with images of President Xi Jinping. They have also censored religious texts, forced members of the clergy to preach CCP ideology, and mandated the display of CCP slogans within churches. “Ultimately, the Chinese government is solely interested in instilling unwavering obedience and devotion to the CCP, its political agenda, and its vision for religion, not protecting the religious freedom rights of Catholics”’ (Ncresister.com).

#    #    #    #

In Malaysia, where almost two thirds of the populace practise Islam, the state’s official religion, the government is seeking to enact a Mufti Bill which would grant ‘greater authority to religious courts, potentially eroding the rights of non-Muslims’. ‘The Mufti bill is not just about religious matters. It’s about power and control. If this bill passes, it could lead to a situation where religious authorities have the final say on a wide range of issues, from personal relationships to public policy. Supporters of the bill contend that it is necessary to strengthen the role of Islamic law to uphold traditional values. They argue that the bill would not infringe upon the rights of non-Muslims.’ Flying pigs come to mind. Oh, not halal. Flying gibbons or crocodiles?

#    #    #    #

Christmas, and hopefully all other religious festivals, may be on its way to extinction. The UK now has more atheists than people who believe in the existence of God.

‘Queen’s University Belfast, in a global project Explaining Atheism (nearly 25,000 people from six countries surveyed) to find out why people become atheists and agnostics. found that the common notion of the “purposeless unbeliever”, lacking a sense of ultimate meaning in life, objective morality, and strong values is not accurate, challenging the stereotype that atheists lead lives devoid of meaning, morality, and purpose. Dr Lee said: “The UK is entering its first atheist age. Whilst atheism has been prominent in our culture for some time, be it through Karl Marx, George Eliot, or Ricky Gervais, it is only now that atheists have begun to outnumber theists for the first time in our history”’.

DC

Tiny Tips (2024)

The Tiny Tips column from the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard 

… a tiny minority of about 0.6 percent of the population, own 45 percent of the country’s total wealth. For workers… the situation in Germany, is becoming increasingly precarious. 

(WSWS)

… support for Hezbollah — as well as opposition to it — still fall primarily along sectarian lines. Polling by The Washington Institute late last year found that 34% of Sunni Muslims and 29% of Christians expressed a positive view of Hezbollah, while 93% of Shias said they approved of the group. 

(NBC)

As he watches the world go by each day from the shade of his porch in southern Havana, Ramone Monteagudo, 72, a retired history teacher, has a front-row seat for the wreckage… Now flies swarm over a sea of rubbish in the sticky heat. He watches some of his poorer neighbors — who until a few years ago had enough to eat — pick leftover food out of the rot. ‘When it comes to food and medicine, we’re living through an extraordinarily difficult situation’. 

(Truthdig)

It was done for the Viet Cong in numerous countries during the US involvement in Vietnam. It was done for the African National Congress (ANC). It was done for the Irish Revolutionary (sic) Army (IRA). Across the United States, Europe and Australasia, all three organisations, demonised as terrorist outfits, received tacit, symbolic support from protestors. In some cases, support was genuine and pecuniary. Now, the Lebanese Shia militant and political group Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organisation in a number of Western states, has inspired flag holders to appear at protests against the expanding conflict in Gaza and Lebanon.

(Dissident Voice)

Saudi Arabia has executed 213 people so far in 2024, more than it has in any other calendar year on record, as the kingdom competes for a seat at the UN Human Rights Council. 

(Middle East Eye)

‘. . . The ratepayers’ association and the ANC led municipality are working together to evict poor black people, to destroy our homes and communities. They say that our presence reduces the value of the land, as if value is just a question of the price of the land and has nothing to do with the value of land for the human beings who live on it. They say that we must be removed because we are a health hazard as we must use the bush to relieve ourselves whereas the obvious solution to the lack of sanitation is to provide sanitation. They say that we are ‘chasing tourists away’. The strong element of racism driving all this is often openly displayed on the social media used by the white residents of the gated communities. The black elites who live in the gated communities are silent about this racism”.

(Dissident Voice)

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

Obituary: Eric Boden (1975)

Obituary from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to report the death in December last of Eric Boden. He joined the Party in 1912, and was already writing for the Socialist Standard before the first world war.

With some interruptions he continued to write until he dropped out of the Party in 1953, though his interest in Party work remained. At one period he went to East Africa and was conscripted to the army there. Old members will remember the articles he wrote about developments in East Africa, and he contributed many other valuable articles.

He became the branch secretary of our former Sheffield Branch, and at another time was a member of the Watford Branch. He spoke on the Party platform in Sheffield and Doncaster, and occasionally attended Conference as a delegate. His wife also was a Party member. Boden was a persuasive and knowledgeable speaker, and wherever he went he devoted himself to making the Socialist case known.

Bottylicious

Following on from thinking out loud last year, that Russian bot farm must have got my emails.

с Новым Годом !!

'It's Clichéd to Be Cynical at Christmas* . . .'

Charles Dickens has a lot to answer for. 

There, I thought I'd get the humbug out the way, and then move on. Posted below are links to a selection of Christmas-related articles that have appeared in the Socialist Standard (and elsewhere) down the years. Dive head first into a Christmas box selection of articles about the historical origin of Christmas, humorous short stories involving Santa and his non-unionised and over-worked elves, and caustic commentary about rampant consumerism, I'm sure you'll agree that, unlike a tin of Quality Street in 2024, there's something here for everyone.

It's interesting to note that Christmas related articles were scarce on the ground in the early decades of the Socialist Standard. You have to wonder why: A conscious decision on the part of the Editorial Committee, or just an acknowledgement that Christmas wasn't that big a deal back in the day? I know that my Grandparents would work a half day on Christmas Day, but that was in Glasgow and New Year's Eve was always the bigger deal back then. Alcoholic spirits trumped Scalextric sets.

*And what's with the title of this post? Just another Half Man Half Biscuit modern classic.

Dec 1922: Christmas Shops by Alex Anderson

Dec 1948: Just Once A Year by Bill Waters

Dec 1954: A Slight Christmas Carol by Robert Barltrop (Short Story)

Dec 1965: Christmas, past and present by Bill Waters

Dec 1965: Christmas —the great delusion by Ivan

Dec 1969: Socialists and Christmas

Dec 1979: Festival of fools by Steve Coleman

Dec 1980: How to survive Christmas by Ivan

Dec 1981: Ghost of Christmas past by Ivan (Short Story)

Dec 1983: Having a rotten Christmas by Ivan (Short Story)

Dec 1986: Toys Galore: A Story for Girls and Boys by Ron Cook (Short Story)

Dec 1986: Xmas eve at the grotto by Tone (Short Story)

Dec 1987: Season of Goodwill

Dec 1988: Editorial: The Alternative Queen’s Speech

Jan 1991: Had a happy christmas? by Dave Coggan

Dec 1991: Editorial: Festival of Commerce

Dec 1991: Between the Lines: Humbug! by Steve Coleman (TV Review)

Dec 1995: The ghost of Christmas yet to come by Steve Coleman (Short Story)

Dec 1997: The Last Word: Why Santa should get stuffed by Steve Coleman

Dec 2010: Santa’s New Clauses (Short Story)

Dec 2020: Merry Christmas? by Dave Coggan

Dec 2021: Proper Gander: Capturing The Christmas Spirit by Mike Foster (TV Review)

Dec 2021: Stamping Out Capitalism by Dave Coggan

Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Dec 2006: Christmas Musings by John Bissett

This Month's Quotation: J. F. Bray (1933)

The Front Page quote from the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

"It is not a form of Government which the working class must blame for their wrongs, but the system of society from which that form springs."

J. F. Bray (from "Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy", page 91, published 1839.)

Notes by the Way: The Housing Problem Solved Again. (1933)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Housing Problem Solved Again.

The housing problem has been solved at least half a dozen times since the end of the war. At any rate, each Government in turn has confidently announced that it was in process of being solved. The present Government is relying on its own slum-clearance schemes plus the activities of private builders and the building societies. Sir Paul Latham, who is Conservative M.P. for Scarborough and a member of the London County Council, writing in the Evening Standard (October 23rd, 1933), says that the present rate of dealing with unsatisfactory housing conditions, even the increased rate which is being urged by the Act of the Ministry of Health,

will do little in the lifetime of our generation to solve the housing problem in London.

The Architects' Journal, “After an exceedingly careful and detailed investigation," states that 1,400,000 houses are needed to abolish overcrowding (quoted in Evening Standard, November 17th, 1933).

Other authoritative statements quoted by the Evening Standard (November 17th, 1933) are the following: —

On the basis of the houses condemned in Manchester there must be a million slum dwellings in the country (Sir E. Simon).

Of the million slum dwellings which are estimated to have been in existence in 1918 only 20,000, equivalent to 2%, have been demolished and replaced by new buildings. In the last 60 years only 200,000 slum dwellers have been rehoused.

There are houses which were condemned 40 years ago and are still standing and being used. 

#    #    #    #

The Cause of War.

Mr. A. A. Baumann, who writes for the Evening Standard over the initials A. A. B., is known as an old, crusted Conservative, who often shocks a more mealy mouthed generation by his crude statement of his principles. On October 4th, 1933, he dropped a brick by a candid statement about war. He said: —

It is the lust of money, and nothing else, that provokes and protracts modem war . . . the cause of all wars is lust for money.

The late Lord Brentford, when he was plain Mr. Joynson-Hicks, was equally candid. He said: —

We conquered India as the outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we should hold it (quoted by A. G. Gardiner in Daily News, October 17th, 1925).

It is interesting to notice how the Liberal Manchester Guardian managed to convey precisely the same idea as the Tory Joynson-Hicks, but without his bluntness:—

There are two chief reasons why a self-regarding England may hesitate to relax her control over India. . . . The second is that Great Britain finds in India her best market, and that she has a thousand millions of capital invested there. (Manchester Guardian, December 30th, 1929.)

A last comment on the Great War is provided by Mr. A. G. Gardiner. Writing in the Star (October 11th, 1933), he discovers that the Kaiser was really quite a democrat: —

“Even under the Kaiser there was freedom of the Press, freedom of organisation, and a freely elected Parliament. . . ."

Those who have long memories will recall that Mr. Gardiner, in 1914, was Editor of the Daily News, and in that capacity was one of those who backed up the war on the plea of guarding English civil liberties against being reduced by a victorious Germany to the state of suppression supposed to exist in that country.

Now, 15 years after the war to end Prussianism, Mr. Gardiner discovers that Hitlerism is the real evil, and that the Kaiser was not so bad after all.

#    #    #    #

Arms and the Workers.

When Communist advocates of armed revolt were asked from what source the workers would obtain arms, dark hints were sometimes thrown out indicating that Russia would oblige. Incredible as it may seem, this has at last been partly realised, for the Russian Government has made a gift of five bombing planes to the neighbouring State, Turkey, as a little memento on the 10th anniversary of the Turkish Republic. (See Daily Herald, October 27th, 1933.)

The promise is, however, only partly fulfilled, for the planes have been given, not to the Turkish workers, but to the capitalist Government. 

#    #    #    #

Woman in a Sack.—40 Years of Progress.

Mr. George Lansbury related recently (see Daily Herald, October 23rd) how it was he first became converted to what he calls Socialism. He was making a canvass of the Devons Road area of Bow for the voting register when the door of one house was opened by a poor woman dressed in a sack, in which three holes had been cut for head and arms.

That must be nearly 40 years ago—40 years of reforms introduced by the Liberals, Tories and Labour Party, 40 years which might have been devoted by Mr. Lansbury to working for Socialism but for the fact that he decided instead to follow the line of trying to get “something now."

Yet he admits that, touring the same district recently, he “Was horrified to see the conditions in which the people are still living."

Even the sack is not entirely gone, for two weeks later the Daily Herald published a letter in which a correspondent, who signed himself “ Disillusioned," said that he had just seen “ The huddled form of a woman, covered by a dirty piece of sacking," sleeping out on a seat near Buckingham Palace.

The writer was disillusioned about the “peace" which has followed the war. He could, with equal justification, have been disillusioned about the 40 years spent in vain trying to patch up the evils of capitalism bit by bit. The Rev. William Dick, of Trinity Church, Poplar, says that there are, to his knowledge, hundreds of families in the East End hungry—“They have absolutely no food in the house." He claims that in Poplar alone (where there has long been a Labour Council) “40,000 people are living on the poverty line or are in actual want " (Daily Herald, November 3rd, 1933).

#    #    #    #

How Reforms Divide the Workers.

Of all the political errors which have hampered the growth of Socialism there is hardly any so ill-founded as the idea that the way to unite the workers is to get together a list of non-Socialist demands, relating to so-called practical, every-day questions. The truth is that each such demand provokes opposition among one section of the workers while eliciting approval from another.

The Daily Herald (November 4th) provides an example. Mr. Alfred Barnes, Labour ex-M.P. for East Ham South, speaking at Enfield on November 3rd, said: —

“. . . a few years ago the Tories asserted that Socialism meant the bureaucratic State—industry being directed from Whitehall by well-paid officials, and initiative disappearing.

“That was just what they were doing themselves—Electricity Commissioners, London Transport Board, Milk and Bacon Boards. . . .

“All these represented the regulation of industry from Whitehall by well-paid officials in a desperate effort to bolster up capitalism.”

Now quite apart from Mr. Barnes' criticism of these Boards as being an effort to bolster up capitalism, there is the important point that while one body of workers inside the Labour Party accept his view, another body of workers inside the Labour Party are actively pressing for the multiplication of such boards. Indeed, it was Mr. Herbert Morrison who, as Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, introduced the London Passenger Transport Bill.

By one of those curious coincidences that sometimes happen even in the most judiciously sub-edited Labour papers, Mr. Barnes' speech attacking Mr. Herbert Morrison’s London Passenger Transport Board was published in the Daily Herald immediately below the report of a speech by Mr. Morrison.

Edgar Hardcastle

Northern Ireland “Socialist” Party. (1933)

From the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A correspondent in Northern Ireland has sent us the Constitution and Rules of an organisation calling itself the "Northern Ireland Socialist Party," and affiliated with the Labour Party.

The Constitution is a mixture of the Constitutions of the Independent Labour Party (up to 1931) and of the Labour Party. It contains, therefore, the usual large and small inaccuracies and unsound notions cherished by those parties.

For example, the object consists of the meaningless phrase that Socialism "is that state of society in which land and capital are communally owned, and the processes of production, distribution and exchange are social functions.”

Even Mr. Maxton had to confess when his attention was drawn to it, that "capital” by its nature cannot be communally owned. Capital is not merely machines and other instruments of production; it is those things in a particular social relationship—the capitalist form of private ownership. When the means of production become the property of society as a whole, they will cease to be means of providing profit for private owners; they will no longer be capital.

Similarly, it is absurd to talk about ”exchange” under Socialism. Exchange only has a place when goods are privately owned. Under Socialism goods will be produced and distributed. There will be no process of exchange.

Again, the Constitution states that the basis of Socialism will be "the organisation of the wage and salary earners.” Actually Socialism involves the abolition of the system of wage-labour altogether. There will be no capitalist class and no working class, and, therefore, no wage and salary earners.

This so-called Socialist Party is merely another attempt to build up in Northern Ireland one of the vote-catching, reformist organisations with which we are familiar in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere.

It is not a Socialist Party in anything but name, and is not deserving of working-class support.

P. S.

Letter: Banks and Credit. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Banks and Credit.

We have received a further letter from Mr. Hobsbaum, whose criticisms were dealt with in the November Socialist Standard: —

Tottenham, N.17.

7/11/33.

Dear Comrade,

That bank deposits result mainly from lending operations is testified to by Mr. McKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank, Ltd., in his book on Post-War Banking Policy. He says, on page 7, “bank loans are the main source of the growth of deposits ”; and indeed, how else would you explain the fact that total deposits in January, 1932, were £1,714 millions, while currency notes were only £400 millions? If deposits were created by depositors placing surplus funds with the banks, how on earth would the total deposits exceed total of notes in existence by such a huge figure? (£1,314 millions.)

In one section of your reply to my letter you both admit and deny that loans by banks increase deposits. You say an advance of £50,000 would result in an increase in total deposits, whereas an overdraft of the same amount would leave deposits unchanged! Why?

I did not wish to imply that cheques were currency. A cheque book handed to a borrower entitled to draw up to £50,000, means that that amount has been credited to him, and the cheques he draws are the instruments by which he transfers that credit or portions thereof to others. Clearly, if he does not utilise the whole of the credit, it does not become cancelled as you suggested, but remains available.

How are prices affected? There are many influences which condition changes in prices, one of which is the variation in the quantity of those units in which prices are expressed. Granting that Mr. McKenna is right in attributing growth of deposits to loans (mainly), since these loans swell the quantity of money (or more precisely its representative forms), then the tendency is for prices to rise, unless, of course, a proportionate increase in the productivity of labour follows. To deny this is to deny the possibility of inflation. Too full lending by banks always carries that danger, and though it increases the indebtedness to the banks, it is not until the banks slow down their lending, i.e., deflate, that the value of that indebtedness is realised, for restrictions on lending make it difficult for borrowers to obtain money, enhance the value of money itself, which is reflected in a tendency for prices to fall, and the bankers find that their loans in terms of goods have risen in value.

Yours fraternally,

R. Hobsbaum.

Reply.

The contradiction which Mr. Hobsbaum thinks he has discovered in the reply given to him in the November issue is the product of his own confused thinking. If he will read again the section which we assume he has in mind, he will see that its purpose was to show the futility of maintaining, in the face of all experience, that the price level is a function of the total deposits shown in the books of the banks. It was pointed out that one method of recording a loan transaction in the books of a bank can produce an effect on that total which is different from the effect produced by another method. If a bank agrees to make an advance of £100, it debits the client immediately with £100 in an advance account and credits him with a similar amount in current account, thereby causing an immediate increase in the total of deposits shown in its books. If, however, it should agree to allow a customer to go debit in his current account, there is no immediate effect on the total. But even if, for the purposes of book-keeping, the total of deposits shown in the books of a bank are increased immediately to record the fact that the bank has agreed to make a loan, this increase does not represent something created by the bank. Until the borrower draws a cheque on, or cash from, the bank the latter, in fact, has lent him nothing and so certainly cannot have created anything. In due course, however, the client will avail himself of his borrowing facilities. Suppose him to draw a cheque for £100 with which he pays a car manufacturer for a car. The latter pays the cheque into his own account, thereby increasing his bank balance by £100. The balance (if any) in the borrower's account is now the same as it was before the bank agreed to make the advance. The total of bank deposits is, therefore, higher by £100 than it was before the bank agreed to grant the loan, but if the car manufacturer was told that the bank had “created" the increase he would quite rightly tell his informant not to be a fool, and would point out that it arose from a car having been produced. It should also be noted that the increase has not occurred in the deposit? of the bank which made the advance; so that the "credit creation" theory comes down to a statement that a bank creates deposits of the other banks, but not for itself! The fact that banks make loans to customers is not inconsistent with the statement that banks must borrow before they can lend, and cannot lend more than a part of what they borrow, for before the bank could undertake to lend £100 it had to have that amount of cash available. Mr. Hobsbaum has not yet brought forward a single argument to prove his claim that a bank actually lends more than it borrows (i.e., than is deposited with it). He seeks to support it with a statement by Mr. McKenna that "bank loans are the main source of the growth of deposits." However objectionable this phrase may be, there is a world of difference between it and Mr. Hobsbaum’s statement that bankers create deposits. Mr. McKenna's views on the subject are not free from confusion, but the following passage taken from the report of the examination of Major Douglas before the MacMillan Committee is quite dear: —

Mr. McKenna: “ Are you quite familiar with the banking system? "

"Well, reasonably, I think."

Mr. McKenna: "I suppose you appreciate its working? Supposing for a moment that you are a borrower and I am a banker. If you come and borrow £10,000 from me you take £10,000 from my cash."

"Not from your cash, do I? "

Mr. McKenna: "From my cash absolutely." ("Minutes of Evidence," Vol. I, Page 301.) 

This is quite a definite statement that the banks can "create" nothing but can only lend what they have. Other bankers, with a larger experience of banking than Mr. McKenna, are equally definite. The late Mr. Walter Leaf, at one time Chairman of the Westminster Bank, wrote: —

The banks can lend no more than they can borrow—in fact not nearly so much. If anyone in the deposit banking system can be called a “creator of credit," it is the depositor;. for the banks are strictly limited in their lending operations by the amount which the depositor thinks fit to leave with them.

("Banking," Home University Library, Page 102.)

If the evidence before the MacMillan Committee of bankers, like Sir W. H. N. Goschen (former Chairman, National Provincial Bank, Ltd.), Mr. J. W. Beaumont Pease (Chairman of Lloyds Bank, Ltd.), Mr. Hyde (Managing Director of the Midland Bank, Ltd.), etc., is studied, it will be seen that they quite certainly regard their lending as controlled by the amount of deposits with them, not vice versa. The last-named quite definitely stated, in reply to a question regarding the granting of advances, "We have to be guided by the position of our deposits " (Vol. I, page 59) while the reply given by Sir W. Goschen to the question, "Have you any views regarding the proportion of your deposits that you should advance on loan and current account?" was, "If the remainder of your assets are very liquid, I think you are entitled to lend a higher proportion of your deposits than you are if you have unliquid assets." (Page 116.)

After reading into Mr. McKenna's statement more than it says, Mr. Hobsbaum goes on to argue in effect that "Banks must create deposits, otherwise how could the total of bank deposits greatly exceed the total amount of currency in circulation?" This is an entirely illogical and fallacious argument. At the date Mr. Hobsbaum mentions, deposits in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks totalled about £480 million, or about £80 million more than the total notes as given by Mr. Hobsbaum. Nobody has ever claimed that such banks “create" deposits. If their deposits can exceed the total of currency notes without their creating deposits, why should a similar position in other banks be impossible ? The following illustration may help Mr. Hobsbaum to understand the matter.

Assume Mr. Hobsbaum starts business as a banker on a desert island on which there are only 100 units of currency. To begin with he has 10 units of currency representing the capital of his bank, and nobody has made any deposits with him. Then along comes "A" with the other 90 units of currency on the island and deposits them in Mr. Hobsbaum’s bank, thereby raising the deposits to 90 and the currency holding to 100. Mr. Hobsbaum now lends 95 to "B," who takes currency and pays it to “A” for coconuts. “A” deposits the 95 units of currency with Mr. Hobsbaum, thereby raising the total of deposits to 185, although all the currency in the island was only 100. If the process is repeated, deposits would rise to 280, but Mr. Hobsbaum, the banker, would not have lent more than he borrowed, he would not have “created" any credit or deposits, and he would have received currency in respect of all the deposits, despite the fact that the island never held as much currency as he has deposits. On a larger scale this is what happens in the banking system of the real world. So much for the power of banks to “create” deposits!

Mr. Hobsbaum has abandoned, or not sought to defend, the other claims made in his first letter. Faced with the figures which show that in recent years prices have not moved with, but in the opposite direction from deposits, he falls back on the implied defence that if prices fail to rise when deposits are increasing it is due to an increase in the productivity of labour. The ridiculousness of this assertion is soon apparent if the figures are examined. Thus, from May, 1920, to January, 1922, deposits rose by 8%, so that on Mr. Hobsbaum’s theory, prices should have also risen by 8%, unless labour became more productive. In fact, prices fell over this period by 50, which, on Mr. Hobsbaum*s theory, meant that labour more than doubled its productivity. Does he really believe this?

Another correspondent, Mr. Wright, sends us a letter in which he expresses the belief that “A Socialist State" could be founded upon £2,000 millions of money, and urges us to adopt a policy of gaining control of the banks so as to be able to use them to create this amount of money to “finance Socialism." Mr. Wright, like Mr. Hobsbaum, has still to prove that banks create money, deposits, or anything else, out of nothing.

B. S.