Cooking the Books: Growth of What? (2017)

The Cooking the Books column from the March 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

In an article in the New York Times (6 February), 'The Economic Growth that Experts Can't Count', Patricia Cohen reported on criticism by some economists of increases in Gross Domestic Product as an adequate measure of economic growth. GDP, she wrote, 'is designed to measure production and just production – not welfare or happiness.'

'At its most basic, G.D.P. is calculated by looking at prices – the price of materials, workers, overhead and so on that it costs to make a product and the price that consumers in turn pay for that product. And while prices can be measured, they don't necessarily reflect the value of quality and experience. As far as G.D.P. is concerned, a delectable $20 meal that would wow Julia Child is equal to a rubbery, tasteless one that costs the same amount. The growing suspicion, however, is that in a digital world overflowing with free services like Facebook, Google and YouTube, price is an increasingly ill-suited proxy for value.'

This is true. GDP does not measure use-value (Cohen's 'value of quality and experience'); it measures only exchange-value expressed as price, or monetary value. This is the only sort of value that capitalism is concerned with increasing. Although what is produced does have a use-value (otherwise no one would want to buy it), this is not the aim of production; it's profit, the difference between what a capitalist firm pays to produce something (the exchange-value of the materials, energy, labour-power, etc) and what it obtains from selling it (the original exchange value + the new exchange value added in the course of production).

GDP is a measure of the exchange-value of new wealth produced as commodities in a country in the course of a year. 'Growth' is the amount this increases from one year to the next (when it does increase, that is, as from time to time it falls, as after the Crash of 2008).

GDP is calculated by adding up the 'value added' (the term actually used by national accounts statisticians) in each branch of industry or line of activity. Basically, this is the difference between what, apart from labour power, was paid for the materials, etc to produce goods or services  and the price obtained from selling it. In Marxian terms, very roughly, surplus value (s) + variable capital (v) as the wages and salaries of productive workers.

Supporters of capitalism say that growth in GDP is a good thing as it makes us all better off. They argue that, if the population remains the same or increases at a slower rate than GDP, each person has more. On average maybe, but this does not mean that everybody actually gets more. That would be to assume that the new wealth was evenly divided, which of course it is not. In practice, given the inequality of wealth ownership that is the basis of capitalism, 'to him that hath shall be given' and the rich get richer while the rest of us stay more or less the same.

In any event, as Cohen noted, GDP is not a measure of human welfare. It does not measure use-value. In fact, it includes products that are useful to capitalism but of no use to human welfare, such as arms and financial services. Bourgeois economists get into difficulty over GDP because, according to them, a good's price reflects its 'utility'. So they think that GDP is a measure of use-value as well as of exchange-value. But GDP can't count both as that would be to compare apples and pears.

Ironically, Marxian economics sees GDP for what it is – a measure only of the total amount of new exchange-value created by labour in the course of a year.

What a Spectacle (1995)

From the August 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Despite the media’s pathetic attempts at convincing us all that the Tory leadership tussle was of world-historical importance it had all the attraction of a bad Punch & Judy show

Some years ago (1967, to be precise) Guy Debord wrote a book entitled The Society of the Spectacle which was fascinating in almost every respect except one: its virtual unreadability (a rather major failing in a book, it must be conceded.) The thesis of the book, which made it so compelling to try to read, was that society was becoming increasingly a spectacular performance, with most people merely onlookers upon everything from urban life to political conflicts.

Rarely has this notion of the spectacle been more apparent than in the recent third-rate theatricalities of British politics. The resignation of John Major in order to make way for himself as successor had to be one of the all-time low-points of sham political duelling.

No sooner had Major resigned than we, as spectators, were treated to endless stories, presented as news, about who might replace him. Major, we were led to believe, was a dull and rather hopeless chap, but personally quite nice. His opponent, who did little to enhance the image of extraterrestrial life-forms, was shown to us as bright but personally brutal. Then, after Act One which was to be dominated by The Two Johns, we were being prepared for the (ultimately unperformed, but well rehearsed) Act Two starring The Two Michaels: one an ambitiously rich brat and the other a man about whom it is impossible to say anything personal which will not be libellous.

But who knows anything about these people personally? And who wants to? What difference does it make if Major does eat his peas with his knife and Portillo is a smarmy backstabber? Even if these things are true (and they may not be: Major may well be as vicious personally as his policies are and Portillo might weep at bullfights), what possible relationship has this to political power? It is simply bad theatre.

As if to rub in our role as spectators, the election to determine who would be Prime Minister was one in which votes were only given to Tory MPs. So, as millions watched on, instructed by Dimbleby and his pathetic crew to recognise Punch from Judy and to favour one against the other, none of the hapless spectators even had a vote.

As for the barmy SWP, ever eager to chant for Major to be Out Out Out so that their lip for the top, Tony Blair, can be In In In, they were in quite some difficulty. Believing as they do (and as all Leninists must) that workers should be encouraged to support the lesser evil (thus leading them to support Iran against Iraq, Prescott against Blair and now Blair against Major), ought not political logic have persuaded them to support Major against Redwood? “The Central Committee calls upon the proletariat to support Major without illusions... “ But then, given that their real reason for telling workers to vote for Blair is to teach the suckers how bad life will be under a Labour government, why not support Redwood to teach workers just what it would be like to live under a right-winger from Outer Space?

At 5 p.m. on The Big Day millions were glued to their sets, hoping that something unpredictable might happen. In the event the highly predictable happened and the Tories did what they are good at doing: uniting behind anyone who looks like he will do them the least damage.

In the months approaching most elections the spectators are whipped into a sense of futile expectation, as if by electing a new government, which itself will be governed by the capitalist system, something might change. The run-up to the next election must be the dullest and most predictable in decades, with apparent certainty as to who will win and indifference as to the outcome on the grounds that the nearer Labour comes to victory the further it goes out of its way to convince Tory spectators that the victory' will be theirs.

To be a spectator upon history is to become dehumanised, for it is the historical consciousness of humans which makes us unique. Appealing to lemmings to avoid cliffs is a pointless exercise, and the most intelligent dog can only sit back and watch Crufts without any knowledge that it has ever been staged before. But for us, with minds which reflect and make history, to sit on the sidelines and observe the passing show of capitalist political foolery, is to abandon the weapons which could free us from the Redwoods and Deadwoods and Blairs and Blurs and fancy-dress Lenins who preside over our stunted lives as wage slaves.

We are makers of history, not spectators. When the change from capitalist insanity to production for need comes about we will not be watching it on the box. We will not be following leaders or waiting for the revolution to be announced from a podium. The socialist revolution will be the activation of human consciousness, transforming us from viewers of the spectacle to makers of the future. When will socialism rule? When the majority decide that they will no longer be ruled by others.

Steve Coleman

Material World: Migration - Internal and External (2017)

The Material World column from the March 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is hard not to take notice of the building of fences and walls to keep out unwelcome foreigners, like Trump's Mexican Wall to stop Hispanics and Fortress Europe's barriers to repel those who seek a better life. The media thrives on feeding the fear of invading and swarming hordes of fellow human beings, who maybe are part of our common humanity but for the xenophobes and nationalists, not deserving of a humanitarian reception or a compassionate welcome.

It is easy to forget that throughout history peoples have always been on the move and the most prolific migration has not always been cross-border migration but within nations. Brexit was fuelled not by Syrian refugee arrivals but by the arrival of Polish plumbers and Portuguese crop-pickers, citizens from other EU regions. The first dismantling of migrant camps and deportations because of an 'alien' identity were not those fleeing from the current Middle East conflagrations but the Roma who had travelled westwards across Europe in search of prosperity rather than poverty, seeking safety and security from discrimination.

It is all too convenient to forget that some of the biggest movements of peoples have been the migration of those living in destitute rural regions to the urban centres and cities. In the United States, millions of African-Americans departed the Deep South countryside and found homes and work in the cities, even if it meant the hardship of being cheap labour and living in the inner-city ghettoes yet bringing us the music of the Chicago, Detroit and St. Louis blues.

With the threat of climate-change refugees looming larger, the events of the 1930s Dust-Bowl years which inspired Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath should be remembered when the Okies faced Californian 'border patrol' blockades turning them back.

The Enclosures may now be only text in British history books but for African and Asian small farmers, land-grabs continue and the teeming shanty-towns of mega-cities are the only survival route for the displaced.

China

Globally, the biggest migration of people is taking place in China. Millions of rural workers have left their villages in search of work in the booming sea-board regions where most of the factories are situated. Research by Kam Wing Chan of the University of Washington suggests the volume of rural-urban migration in such a short period is likely the largest in human history. Much of China’s countryside is now villages populated primarily by elderly people and children. With more and more young men leaving to work in the cities, farming is facing a huge threat.

In 2015 a total of 277.5 million migrant workers (36 percent of the total workforce of 770 million) existed in China and with the prospect of another 243 million migrants by 2025, which will take the urban population up to nearly 1 billion people. This population of migrants would represent almost 40 percent of the total urban population, almost three times the current level. A 2002 survey showed that over 80 percent of migrants worked seven days per week, and only 7 percent of workers’ working time was in accordance with what the law regulated. In terms of wages, although labour law regulates a minimum wage, many employers either ignore the regulation or consider it to be the maximum wage. Migrant workers make up 80 percent of the deaths in mining, construction, and chemical factories. And about 90 percent of those suffering from work-related diseases are migrant workers.

The hukou system, a kind of internal passport structure limiting access to public services, is based on the birthplace of the holder and restricts the mobility of the population. It was designed to tie farmers to land in order to secure agricultural supply after famine caused at least 30 million deaths, but is now undergoing much needed reform. According to hukou, Chinese workers are divided into either rural or urban registrations. Even though they may work in the cities, rural residents have rural household registration, which is the same for farmers or other agricultural workers. In addition, hukou is not determined according to where a worker lives, but rather on a hereditary basis. That is, for rural residents, even though they work and live in the cities, they will have a rural household registration. This is like saying a person born and raised in Lancashire who then moves to London is an immigrant. Migrant workers are generally excluded from the basic provisions for housing, social security and education for their children that their local neighbours enjoy. Now, many wish to abolish the system in its entirety. The Charter 08 manifesto calls for change which 'gives every citizen the same constitutional rights and the same freedom to choose where to live'.

In 2014, announcements regarding hukou reform were made, coinciding with a new urbanisation plan, which focuses on moving more rural residents into towns and cities. In all of these efforts, reforms are in small and mid-size cities, many of which in the past were newly built and previously described as ghost cities for lack of inhabitants. Shanghai and Guangzhou have adopted points-based criteria on education, home ownership, etc. However, according to one report, only 26,000 of 300,000 qualified migrants obtained a local hukou in Shanghai by the end of 2015.

There will be no prescription where people should live or move to in a socialist world. It will be entirely up to them as free individuals in a free society, for in a socialist society, dire poverty that drives migration will disappear and most people will not wish to migrate. Of course, people will still travel and visit other parts of the world and this is a good thing. Cultural diversity is something that needs to be nurtured, fostered and above all experienced.

ALJO

Are politics worth while? (1918)

From the May 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are politics worth while? One would think that such were a crazy question to ask at this time of day. Yet probably the vast majority of the working class even to-day hold politics in the most profound contempt.

The folly of this attitude it revealed as soon as we consider what the functions and purpose of politics are.

Politics, we are told, are "the science of government; political affairs, or the contest of parties for power." The workers' interest in politics as the science of government is the governed. For they are the governed. They have no lot or portico in government. not withstanding appearances. What, then, is the purpose of government?

There are two classes in modern society. one of which—the working class—produces all the wealth, tbs other of which—the master class— appropriates all the wealth. A social arrangement in which one section of society is robbed by another section of society must necessarily always be productive of social friction. The class which are robbed, however ignorant they may he of the fact of the robbery, must hare a tendency to resist that spoliation. Even if in their view there was nothing but the sale and purchase of labour-power, still must they resist the spoliation in the form of a limitless and ceaseless struggle for a higher price for their labour-power.

Obviously. the extent to which this struggle for higher wages succeeds must be determined by the force which is opposed to it. In the total absence of opposition it must proceed until there is nothing left of the workers’ product after their wage-claim has been met, and the next step must he. consequent upon the breakdown of the sale and purchase of labour-power, the utter expropriation of the possessing class.

In order to prevent things taking this course, in order to maintain their position as an exploiting class on the one band, and render their exploitation as complete as possible on the other, a controlling force is necessary. This controlling force is a complex thing, being nothing less than the whole instrument of the State. The forces of coercion, civil and military: the judiciary and its minions; the local authorities: these and many others are the components of the instrument of suppression which we call the State.

This machinery of the State, by means of which the social system is maintained upon a basis which presupposes a class living by the sale of their labour-power—a class of wageworkers—is controlled politically. Its control is the object of politics in the sense of "contests between parties for power" —the political struggle. Are politics, then, worth while?

Politics, it is seen, lie at the root of all social power. Through politics the workers are kept subject and robbed. Through politics the masters assure that all the benefits which accrue from human progress— every advance in science, every improvement in the means and methods of wealth production—go to them. Through politics they are able to throw the workers into the streets to starve when their labour has filled the warehouses with goods which they are not permitted to consume, and glutted the markets with wealth which chokes its producers. Through politics the tyrants of the universe are able to drag the workers from their homes to die in countless thousands in the trenches of the battlefield. Through politics they are able to fill the land—all lands—with widows and orphans, and with mothers mourning sons who will never return.

All these things politics mean and more. More on the side of the masters, and more, infinitely more on the side of the workers. For politics are the means which will give them control over the armed forces’. over the police and the judiciary, over every stone and timber of the structure of the State, and through these over the instruments of labour, the means of production. Through politics it shall yet be secured that the mills grind for human feeding and the shuttles fly for human comfort. Politics ARE worth while.

A. E. Jacomb

A Lesson in Terms. (1918)

From the April 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Distinctions the workers must understand.

Wealth used for the reproduction of wealth is capital, says the orthodox school of political economy. This definition can only arise through failure to understand the fact that only in certain historical conditions and in a certain mode of production, does wealth become capital.

It is the habit of the orthodox school to treat of the present system of society as though it had always existed and always will. Hence wealth and capital are to them synonymous.

It was Karl Marx who laid bare the distinctive features of the present mode of wealth production, and in so doing treated it as having peculiarities that never existed in any phase of society that proceeded it. What Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Haeckel, and a host of others have done within the domain of biology Marx, Engels, and Morgan have done for sociology. There has been a development from one form of life to another, and there has also been a development from one form of society to another.

The truth of this theory has become firmly established, but one would hardly credit it when listening to certain people who, while registering their approval of the now well-established facts of biology, completely fall to pieces when a similar process of scientific reasoning is applied within the domain of sociology. Thus terms that can only apply to-day are made use of in reference to past societies, whilst terms that should apply only to the past are made to do duty in reference to the present social order. It is through failure to understand this that the great confusion exists about the terms “wealth” and “capital.”

In treating of the capitalist mode of wealth production Marx begins bis investigation in the words:

“The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,’ its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of the commodity.”

How different this, from the method of the orthodox school, who failed to observe that the present mode of wealth production possessed characteristics that no other system ever possessed.

The chief reason for production to-day is the realisation of profit. The capitalists are not in the least concerned about the quality of the goods that are being produced. Their only concern is that, when the goods are placed upon the market and sold, they obtain a profit. This they must have, and in order to get it they care not in the least whether it is derived from the manufacture of bibles or beer, bullets or bread, boots or burglar’ jemmies.

In no form of society previous to capitalism did production for the great markets of the world exist; this is one reason why we must differ from those who imply that wealth and capital mean the same thing, in each and every set of social conditions. They remind us of a certain section, once famous in the world of science, who held that the theory of evolution did not apply to man.

In early tribal society man was in possession of but crude means of production, and his economic position was certainly very precarious. Says Prof. Jenks of the early savage: “The actual savage is usually a miserable, underfed, and undersized creature, naked and shivering, in constant terror of dangers seen and uuseen, with no family ties as we understand them with no certain food supply and no settled abode."

For participation in the chase the savage hunter had only one motive, namely, to use that which he gained by the chase to satisfy his needs—to feed and clothe him. There was no world market for him, no great social production with its organised factory system. It was in such conditions as these that we might say that wealth was used for the re-production of wealth.

Only when we arrive at the present mode of production can we find the true meaning of capital. The subject must be treated theoretically, as Karl Kautsky put it in his brilliant pamphlet, “From Handicraft to Capitalism.” The starting points of bourgeois society were peasant-farming and handicraft. The peasant family originally satisfied all their requirements. They produced all the food they needed, their tools, clothing, etc. They produced as much as they required and no more. Gradually, however, owing to the progress of agriculture, they produced a surplus of things which they did not want for their own use, and this surplus they exchanged for other things which they did want.

Now was the peasant a producer of commodities. The wheat he produced for his own use was not a commodity; that which he produced to exchange was. The illustration meets the point. That which is produced for use is not a commodity ; that which is produced for sale is a commodity.

Only in certain’ conditions docs an article become a commodity, and only in certain conditions does wealth become capital. A machine, for instance, could be used for the purpose of supplying some family need. Vast numbers of sewing machines are used to fulfil this function, but it would be absurd to call these machines capital.

Only when the machines are used for the purpose of turning out goods by means of purchased labour-power, to be placed upon the market, do they become capital.

Capital, then, to give it its true meaning in as simple language as possible is wealth used for the production of profit. With this definition it is stripped of all those mysterious properties that so many people seem to think it possesses. The great means of wealth production that are socially manipulated by the working class are individually owned by the capitalist class. Social production with individual appropriation is the characteristic of modern society. Let us produce, no matter what, so long as we get a profit, is the motto of the ruling class.

It is by reason of the existence of capitalism that the anomaly of starvation in the midst of plenty is with us. The individual ownership of the means of life gives rise to the vast production of commodities to deluge the world’s markets. Goods are produced in wild profusion, and far in excess of the effective demand for them, until finally the warehouses are choked and the markets glutted Production is strangled, a commercial crisis descends upon the community; and hundreds of thousands of workers are flung into the industrial reserve army, commonly known as the unemployed.

In earlier stages of society if man suffered from lack of food it was only because of the inadequacy of his menus to stave off any natural upset that might occur. But to-day, through man’s triumph over the forces of nature, he can produce wealth in sufficient abundance, irrespective of climatic conditions, to assure a comfortable existence for all. Under capitalist ownership and capitalist production, however, the workers, who are the wealth producers, suffer their greatest poverty when the warehouses are full of the wealth which they have produced and the markets surfeited with the products of their toil.

It is, of course, quite easy for the workers to accept off-hand any of the statements of certain pedants and sycophants, because the workers have been trained to think along capitalist lines, a course which the pseudo-Socialists encourage when they say that Socialism means the common ownership of land and capital, as do the I.L.P. and some pamphleteers of the B.S.P.

But with the ripening economic conditions and the burden of economic exploitation pressing more heavily upon the workers a way out of the horrible conditions will be sought, and it is for the Socialist Party to show the way. Confused terminology, which gives rise to confused ideas, must lie scattered to the winds. That is one of the first essentials of sound progress. The workers must learn to appreciate the true meaning of such terms as “wealth” and “capital” before they can understand the nature of the process by which they are robbed and held in bondage, and therefore before they can become fit and efficient instruments of working class emancipation.

Robert Reynolds

Editorial: The Question of "Intervention". (1918)

Editorial from the April 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have many times indicated in these pages, not only since the war started, but right back to the early days of our existence as a party, what would be the fate of any premature revolutionary outbreak in any one country, where the local conditions favoured it so decidedly that it attained the overthrow of the ruling class in that country. We have pointed time and time again, to the ready assistance which the German ruling class in 1871 rendered to the French bourgeoisie in order to enable them to smash the commune of the Paris working men, and have held that up as an example of the international solidarity of the capitalist class as against the workers, and have claimed this as foreshadowing what would take place again in circumstances approaching similarity to those, and indicating the vital necessity of the international foundation of the Socialist movement.

Without admitting that the Bolshevik rising is Socialist, we may claim it as giving confirmation to our statement. In its overturning of the established order, it renders itself hateful to the bourgeoisie of every country. And what do we see? Already, according to accounts, the bourgeoisie of Russia are calling upon friend and foe to deliver them out of the hands of the Bolsheviks. Lenin declared that the capitalist element of the territories which have been annexed by the Germans “welcomed the Germans as deliverers.” Confirmation is lent to this statement by the report now to hand that the bourgeois elements in Russia are appealing for allied intervention to “organise the internal forces of Russia,” in other words, to establish capitalist control in the regions now dominated by the Bolsheviks.

So much for the internal side. Externally we find the Allies putting such pressure as they can upon Japan in order to secure her “intervention.” The excuse offered, that it is to save German capture of Russian stores in Siberia, and to prevent German exploitation of the far Eastern Russian territories, is one that won’t wash, in view of the enormous distance of those provinces from Germany, the small capacity of the only practicable artery—the Trans-Siberian Railway—and its vulnerability at almost any point though thousands of miles of hostile country, and the consequent danger of an invading force finding itself cut off and “in the air” in a region where with singular ease it could be made impossible to “live upon the country,” and especially in view of the considerable pressure of important business the Germans have and are likely to have for some while yet in other directions.

No, the real object is revealed in various ways—in the announcement of Japanese statesmen that they would only intervene as the friend of Russia and from a desire to see order prevail in that country—in the call of the Cadets and the Right Social-Democrats (both bourgeois parties recently revolutionary, but turned reactionary since the overthrow of the monarchy) at the Moscow Conference for Allied aid to “organise the internal forces of Russia” for resistance to the German invasion. No capitalist statesman can ever recognise as “order” anything but a working class dumb beneath the heel of an oppressor. Where that oppressor is of the capitalist tribe the “order” is ideal. Thus Japan butchering her Socialists in cold blood was singularly blessed with that prized condition, while Russia ablaze with slaughter, red to the horizon with blood, fat with rotting and uncounted corpses—that Russia was enjoying “order" such as she had not known for generations, because her people were subservient to capitalist ambitions, and suffering themselves to be broken upon the capitalist wheel.

So, from the capitalist point of view, the only method of restoring “order” in Russia is by crushing down the revolting workers and setting once again the capitalist heel upon their necks. It is exactly this that the Russian bourgeoisie are crying for in their Moscow resolution. Every attempt to “organise the internal forces of Russia,” military or otherwise, and for military purposes or otherwise, on the part of the Bolsheviks, has found in these Cadets and so-called Social-Democrats the bitterest of opponents. Every act they were capable of that could add new confusion to the administrative services they have resorted to with the set purpose of preventing the organisation of “the internal forces of Russia” by the Bolsheviks. It is not “to organise the internal forces of Russia” for resistance to the German invasion that these bourgeois hypocrites primarily wanted, but to establish themselves upon the Russian workers’ backs.

Having sought in vain through Russia for a force to found their ascendancy upon, the Russian capitalists now turn to the outside world, offering as a bait to those who are pretty full up with their own business, and as a blind to those, both inside and outside Russia, who might raise objection to foreign meddling with Russian internal affairs, “resistance to the German invasion.” Whether anything will come of this with the present condition of things is a bit of a problem, but this we may count upon — if owing to circumstances the appeal is made in vain, the mask will dropped upon the first opportunity, and the appeal will be made to Germany to spare a few regiments to “restore order in Russia.’

The moral of the whole business is that the capitalist class are a class when faced with a working-class rising, that, in spite of their present differences among themselves, they are internationally solid when they are threatened by their wage slaves. 'The workers’ movement for freedom, then, must be built upon international lines as the only sound basis of organisation against an international foe. This is not by any means a new lesson, but current events give it a now force and drive it home with added power.

We cannot, therefore, better close this article than with that pledge of our internationalism which we gave to the working-class revolutionary movement in the first issue of our journal to lie published after the outbreak of this stupendous conflict:

Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our good will and Socialist fraternity and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.
      The World for the Workers.

— S.P.G.B. Manifesto, September 1914.

Editorial: Government By The Press. (1918)

Editorial from the March 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

In every case where there is a conflict of interests between the master class and the working class, the former close up their ranks and present a solid front against the latter. That they may do this in various ways does not alter in the least the unity of purpose in their actions.

Thus when a strike is threatened or takes place, say on the part of those engaged in the production or transport of munitions of war, while the Tory or Yellow Press papers may call for the direct application of military measures against the strikers and the Liberal papers appeal to them by “Open Letters" and so on, both are solid in demanding a return to work in the ‘'national” interests, or for “patriotic” purposes. And both support the use of the military against the strikers once this course is decided upon. The first method is the more open and easily understood by the workers, the last is the more slimy and deceiving.

On the other hand, there are diversities of interests and antagonisms among the capitalists themselves, of far less importance, it is true, than the struggle between capitalists and workers, but still of sufficient magnitude to call for intrigue, cheating, swindling, and dirty tactics, even to the extent of “selling out” the “national” interests for the benefit or ambition of sections and individuals.

An instance of this character was indicated in the House of Commons on the 12th February last. Mr. Lloyd George had announced that certain executive powers had been taken to itself by the Inter-Allied Council sitting at Versailles. In answering Mr. Asquith's speech on this point he made a remark that the ex-Prime Minister took offence at and rose to protest against. According to the newspaper reports this rising was greeted with a roar of cheering, indicative of protest against the Prime Minister’s attitude.

For the present we may pass over the hypocrisy of the whole business, angrily exposed by Mr. Pemberton Billing, who stated that he would like to call attention 

to the farce which we see played by the two Front benches this afternoon. I would put it to the Prime Minister that not later than forty-eight hours ago the whole matter was being rehearsed and discussed around the dining table of Downing Street. . . . within the last forty-eight hours they" (the Prime Minister and Ex-Prime Minister) "were breakfasting together at 10 Downing Street.’’ —Official Report, 12.2.1918.

We may also leave aside the crushing indictment of the Military Command given by Mr. Lynch in the same debate, to which not a single reply was offered, and turn to a comment made in the “Daily News” 16.2.1918 by “ A.G.G.”

The passionate outburst on Tuesday . . . was a fierce assertion of the right of Government by Parliament and a fierce repudiation of Government by the Press.

Outsiders, of course, are unaware of the particular personal intrigues and ambitious that exist behind this “scene,” though the prosecution of Colonel Repington and the “Morning Post” while the “Daily Mail”and the “Times”’ are left alone, may give some indication of the persons concerned On the larger questions at issue the evidence is available to all. Mr. Lloyd George is merely the servant of the blatantly Imperialistic section of the master class who require the establishment and maintenance of large military and naval forces to carry out their piratical and annexational schemes. Mr. Asquith represents the section of the master class who are more inclined towards “trade penetration,’’ and who object to having to pay the huge sums necessary for the maintenance of large fighting forces. A smaller force, in their opinion, is sufficient to keep the working class at home under control and to carry out any “expeditions” abroad that seem necessary. Hence their chagrin at one of their former agents—Mr. LI. George—going over to the other side and aiding the military schemes of the Imperialists. Hence “A.G.G.’s” mild indignation against the Northcliffe Press, though it is well to remember that the Northcliffe combination run Liberal as well as Tory newspapers.

What a huge hypocrisy this “indignation” is can be shown by a few staring facts.

The most powerful measure of oppression ever passed in Parliament, and one that gave greater powers to outside bodies than any measure ever placed upon the Statute Book, is the “ Defence of the Realm Act.” Property and Person, Wealth and Life, were placed under the control of various agents without any real power of appeal or question on the part of the victims. More than this, the Habeas Corpus Act is, for the first time in English legislation, over-ridden by another Act—the D.O.R.A.—and men and women have been cast into prison, not only without trial, but without even a charge bring preferred against them. Outside the Imperialists’ own organs the Press has been muzzled; the remnants of free speech are crushed out; everyone has been registered, ticketed, and classified to a degree that must make the “Prussian’’ militarists turn green with envy.

Now this savage Act of extended slavery was passed through Parliament by the Liberal Party with Mr. Asquith as Prime Minister, without any Press agitation at all! And Mr. Asquith was Prime Minister with a Liberal majority in Parliament when the Registration Act with all its lies and the Conscription Acts with all their cruelties were placed upon the Statute Book.

Thus the “democratic” Liberals are shown to be responsible for the greatest violation of constitutional methods and procedure that has ever been known, and then their hypocritical rails against “government by the trade union,” and more particularly against “government by the Press.”

If all the crimes “A.G.G.” alleges against the Nortlicliife Press were true—and we believe he understates the case—they would be but as dust in the balance against the foul crimes of the Liberals given above.

A more slimy hypocrisy, however, occurs when “A.G.G.” says:

We will have neither Government by the sword, nor Government by the trade unions. Still less will we have that worst of all substitutes, Government by the Press.

This statement is a deliberate lie. It is used to hide the tricks of the Liberals, who, while supporting the war, find the various jobs resulting from the war being given to their opponents. The Government have a solid minority of office-holders (the largest on record) in the House of Commons, and the majority merely indulge in intrigue and trickery to obtain these and other jobs. As one member put it, those in office and those out, instead of watching and fighting the enemy, are watching and fighting each other.

Tbs majority in Parliament can at any moment it wishes turn out the Government. It can retain or remove any officials, military or civil, it desires. It can crush Lord Northcliffe as it can Bertrand Russell and Guy Bowman. It can suppress the “Times” and the “Daily Mail” as easily as it prohibited the export of the “Nation” and other journals. It can as easily order the dismantling of the machinery at Carmelite House as it did that of the National Labour Press and of “Freedom.” Above all it can repeal the Defence of the Realm and the Conscription Acts whenever it pleases.

Mr. Lloyd George clearly admitted all this when he said that the House of Commons could repudiate the arrangement come to at Versailles and put in another government if it wished. Mr. Asquith admitted the same thing when, after his long-winded speech in praise of Haig and Robertson, he said he would do nothing to embarrass the Government. Can “A.G.G.” deny these facts? Of course he cannot. They prove our contention to the hilt.

“A.G.G.’s” shriek against “Government by the Press” is based partly on the fact that he is the agent of one section of the master class, while the Northcliffe Press is the agent of another section, and, more importantly, on the fact that he wishes to mislead the workers as to the truth of the foul actions of the Liberal Party, which have been indicated above, and so persuade these workers to lose sight of their class interests and to take sides in the quarrel between these two sections of the master class.

The result—if his object is attained—will be that the workers thus influenced will, when an election takes place, again vote the masters into possession of political power. "A.G.G.'S" cunning attempts to deceive the workers on this vitally important point shows how necessary it is for the workers to be continually on their guard against these false friends from the enemy's camp.

The debate in question showed not that we are being “governed by the Press,” but by a lying, swindling, pettifogging set of capitalist thieves who are ready to sacrifice what they blatantly call “national’ interests and “patriotic” ideals for the personal interests and ambitions of cliques, and the spoils of office.

Let the workers grip this fact and they will then see that it is by controlling the political machinery that they will be able to accomplish their emancipation.

The Strong Man. (A Study.) (1918)

From the February 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following study of the character of a personal friend (recently dead) of the writer is, in a way, rather outside the scope of strict Socialist propaganda. It does, however, open up the question as to how far a powerful personality—even though used beneficially—should be allowed to dominate its weaker brethren. In practically all men there is but one thing as great as, or greater than, the desire to live, and that is the desire to dominate; and this “Will to Power” is one of the greatest dangers that Socialism has to face. It is the progenitor of “leaders” and the forerunner of a cleavage between a few more richly endowed intellects and the rank and file, which must stifle free expression, and lead to a sullen acquiescence or a sheeplike docility on the part of the rank and file, either of which is calculated to wreck the whole organisation. Such is the writer’s apology for the following:

A dominating personality at all times, his influence over the immature and untrained mind was, perhaps, his greatest attribute for good or ill. For be it understood, any power—whether of wealth, position, character, or intellect matters very little—can be used in one of two ways. It can be—but seldom is—used in what the wielder of it considers is solely in the interests and for the benefit of those it dominates, or it can be used to their detriment. One thing assuredly can be said. In either case the exercise of such excessive power will be found on analysis and in the ultimate to be necessary to the maintenance and development of the master-mind whose function it is to wield such power. Disuse brings atrophy and power without the opportunity for its exercise very soon deteriorates, and eventually dies of innutrition or degenerates and, turning inwards, rends to pieces its possessor. A dangerous weapon at all times, whether held by saint or sinner, by king or peasant!

No one who knew him would dare assert that his influence over others was ever used for an ignoble or sordid purpose. He had erected for himself a noble and inspiring philosophy of life, had a clear conception of the ideal he wished to attain, and had the desire for others to reach his philosophy and his ideal. In other words, he saw life in a certain way, had hopes and ambitions of a certain kind, and, naturally, wished others to see life as he saw it and hold hopes and ambitions similar to his. Having a clear self-knowledge, knowing exactly what he wanted, and always convinced that his own way of life was the best way, he desired that others should hold the same view-point and considered himself justified in using his dominating and subtle personality to impose his opinions on on whomsoever he thought plastic enough for his purpose. He was able to inspire his intimates with a sense of the truth of what be held to he true, with a sense of the infallibility of his intellectual judgment. He gave all he possessed to these who were willing to receive, hut the acceptance of what he gave meant the elimination of whatever the mind of the accepter had hitherto held. To be of the elect, one had to think his thoughts, struggle toward his ideals, see with his eyes.

But now comes the crux of the problem, in the blank that bas been left in the lives of the young and ardent followers who were most under his influence. And this is the danger that goes inevitably with the excessive exercise of intellectual power. When such power is withdrawn, are the ideas that have previously been implanted and held in their place by the strength of a strong personality sufficiently strong in themselves to stand alone? Or when the stronger personality is withdrawn does the personality find itself at a loose end, vacillating, gradually deteriorating and dying ?

If the latter, it would seem that the intellectual domination of a weaker by a stronger personality is decidedly injurious. Better to allow the weaker intellect to blunder along into the mental life’s various cul-de-sacs and blunder out again. Or better still, to guide the immature and timid intellect towards the path that will lead to its own free expression and development. In the end it comes to this— no man is fit to be another man’s master intellectually, any more than he is fit to be another man’s master economically.

F. J. Webb

Methods of Organisation. Which is correct? (1918)

From the January 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

A good deal of importance has of late been attached to the question of the industrial organisation of the working class. It is now more than ever necessary to sound a note of warning. A lot has been written and said unduly emphasising this importance. While the present writer admits the necessity for some form of organisation on the industrial field, he realises that these, at best, have their limitations.

Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism, with the advocacy of their respective methods of “war” on the capitalist class, such as the rank and file movement of the metal trades, the general “down tools" policy, “direct action,” sabotage, etc.—all these have been brought to the front at various times, with claims that they represent the correct form of organisation for the workers to take up in order to free themselves from the domination of capitalism.

Now all these methods may be useful to the workers in their immediate and every-day struggle on the industrial field against the masters. But they all fall short, as they can never abolish the cause of their trouble; they can only deal with the effects of that cause.

There is no need to enter into details respecting the various industrial organisations and their different methods, as most readers will be already familiar with their activities. But it is sufficient to say that the general tendency of such bodies is either to ignore, or display indifference to, political action. Apart from defects in their method of industrial organisation, the casting aside or belittling of political action is where the Socialist is mainly concerned.

In order to arrive at a correct position it is necessary, first of all, to state shortly the position of the working class during that period covered by the rise of the capitalist class to power.

With the accession to power of the capitalists came the enclosing of the land, or taking from the mass their right to work on their plot of land — a right that had existed for centuries, so long as they recognised and rendered certain duties and services to the lord of the manor. When access to the land was denied them, the working people found their means of existence gone. Such a condition the rising capitalists found necessary to their economic development. They realised that so long as the people had a stake in the land (with the individual productive methods arising from it, which enabled them to provide their own needs), this would continue to operate against them and the development of their growing commercial enterprises. The one thing essential to their success was a class of workers who had no property. This was found in the people who were turned off the land, and whose ranks were continually increased by others who were crushed out by the cheapness of collective production. This period marked the complete severance of the worker from his tools and products; henceforward he is compelled to sell his power to labour to the class which owns the tools and the land.

This is exactly the position existing to-day— that is, the capitalist class own all the means of life on one hand, the workers own nothing but their power to labour on the other. From this condition springs all our troubles.

Every person, worker or capitalist, requires food, clothing and shelter, which, in the shape of raw material, must first of all be derived from the land. Now if one class owns the land and the tools of production, it follows that those who do not own cannot get food, clothing, and shelter except by permission of that class. The latter, having possession of those things the workers need, have the power to say on what terms those needs shall be satisfied. What are those terms?

They are that the workers shall work on the land, in the factories, etc., in such a way as will permit the masters to meet all expenses, such as rent, rates and taxes, cost of raw material, wages, out of the total wealth produced, and yet have a surplus left for themselves. This surplus is known as profit, the production of which is their sole object.

Whence does this profit arise? It arises through the workers applying their energies to natural objects in such a way as to produce in a given period more wealth than is necessary to sustain them during that period.

Profit, then, is robbery. Proof. We see that wealth is the result of the application of labour-power to natural objects —to change their form and position in order to meet the requirements of society. There is no other source of economic wealth.

It is the working class which, through the application of their energy produce all wealth, but it is easy to see that they do not consume all that they produce. There is another class, the capitalists, who live to consume wealth, but who produce none. Instead, they consume over two thirds of what the workers produce.

Assume a 9 hour working day—it means that for the whole 9 hours the worker only gets a value in wages equal to what he produces in 3, and the capitalist class, who do no work, get value equal to the product of 6 hours. Therefore the worker, out of 9 hours, works 6 hours for no return. This is how and where the worker is robbed; where the surplus-value is created.

It is this surplus-value that is troublesome to the working class. The capitalists not only wish to maintain it, but to increase it, either of which, through competition, means economy in production, improved machinery, speeding-up— all of which most re act upon the working class. The latest scheme along these lines was noticed in the “Manchester Guardian” (24.10.17), where it was shown that a plan was in definite shape to set up industrial councils all over the country whose business it would be to see that production was increased, any attempt at restriction prevented, greater economy exercised, both in men and machinery, and, above all, greater improvements in the methods of production.

Whilst all this is going on, the workers feel the pinch. They realise that in order to meet it individual action is useless. They unite in crafts and still find that as a class they are gradually getting more and more enslaved. Bargaining on the political field has been tried,. but its only result is to show that Liberals and Tories alike are opposed to them. Even when members of their own class were elected to voice their interests they found they were no better off in the matter of representation. Men who could lead them astray on the industrial field, lost no time in doing ditto on the political field. Proof is not wanting that they have lent themselves to the dirtiest work of the capitalists. As if to make matters more confusing than ever, along comes the Anarchist, the Syndicalist, and Industrialist, prating about political action being useless. “Let us form one or several big unions, all affiliated, then when we wish we can say : ‘To hell with the bosses! We are in possession of the tools of production; let us lock them out and produce for ourselves! ’ ”

This sounds all right, but it leaves out of account a serious factor, viz, the power held by the capitalists over the armed forces. This power is political, and though the capitalist is in a minority of 1 to 7, it is by virtue of its possession they are able to wield the military in any direction they choose. The importance of this power to the capitalists is shown by the amount of energy and money they are prepared to expend, especially at election times, in order to gull the workers into supporting them. They realise that mere ownership is not sufficient— they must have power to keep their ownership effective. They know that a notice "Trespassers will be prosecuted” is useless unless there is a power to back it up. The power behind the notice consists of police, magistrates, and in the last resort, the military. Crimes against private property, such as damage and theft, are dealt with by the civil authorises generally. But suppose such damage or theft was carried out by masses of people too large for the civil authorities to handle, as in cases of strikes or aggravated poverty, through unemployment, what happens then ? The Home Office sends troops or naval forces to the affected area, and brings them into active use if necessary to protect the masters’ property.

The Home Office is part and parcel of the political machine The capitalists, having control of the political machinery, appoint one of their own class or a hireling, as Home Secretary, who is head of the Home Office, and who is held responsible to the Government for the conduct of his department, as instance Asquith when he stated that he accepted full responsibility for the use of troops at Featherstone in 1893, and later, when Winston Churchill, during the railway dispute said “the railways must be run at all costs,” and when, according to the Chairman of the S.E. Ry., 30,000 troops were moved from Aldershot with equipment and supplies for three months in the short space of six-and-a half hours, to operate in the strike area.

These troops, in "peace” as well as in war time, are equipped and maintained from the National Exchequer, the head of which is responsible to the Government for the efficient carrying out of the work of his department.

One could go on detailing the functions of the various Government departments. The point is, however, that all the means of power, whether for making laws for the workers to observe, or for oppressing them forcibly, are in the hands of Liberal and Tory capitalists, and they are ably assisted in exploiting them by their decoy ducks, the “Labour representatives.” In other words, it is the capitalist class who make the laws, who vote the supplies and means for the maintenance of the naval, military, and civil forces, the ultimate use of which is to keep the workers in subjection. It is here that the power of the capitalist class resides.

This need not continue. It is the business of the Socialist Party to educate the workers to the understanding that their interests of necessity must be absolutely opposed to those of the masters, and to organise them on the basis of class to the point of seizing political power from the oppressors, and so getting control of the armed forces, which can, if necessary, be used for the purpose of establishing freedom, instead of, as at present, being used as instruments of oppression.

It might be asked, does this mean that it is unnecessary for the workers to organise on the industrial field? Of course not. Under present industrial conditions such organisation is necessary in order to protect themselves against the worsening of their conditions. But industrial organisation at its best can only be a means of defence. It cannot attack because in order to be effective in its function as an industrial weapon it must, so long as there exists no widespread class-consciousness among the workers, of necessity take all shades of thought into its ranks. It must take in all workers, even those who support capitalism as a system, and who are only concerned with the question of wages and hours, as well as Socialists, who realise that these same questions must be faced as a disagreeable necessity, but who are out for the abolition of the wages system altogether. Thus, to be effective in the fullest sense, a working-class organisation must be based on class-consciousness, that is, the recognition of its class interest as against the interests of the capitalist class.

As pointed out before, in order to completely defeat the capitalist class, whose power is political, the workers must organise into a revolutionary political party. Such a party is the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Its guiding principles can be found on the last page of the Socialist Standard. It is sufficient to say that it is the only political organisation of the workers in this country. It consists of Socialists, and there is no room inside it for wire-pullers, go-betweens, or parasites of any description, such as infest other organisations. It keeps itself clean by shedding its bad elements — when there are any. It does not depend to-day upon its numbers, but on its understanding. It believes that if the workers are educated to the point of intelligent rebellion on the political field, their action on the industrial field is bound to be in conformity. It is not the business of a Socialist party to assist in the patching up of a rotten system based upon exploitation and blood, but to bring about its abolition—the sooner the better. But this cannot be done until the workers, whether they are industrially organised or not, realise their class position, their subjection to capital.

To sum up: Socialism is international— its principles apply to every country under the sun where capitalism exists. Socialism is the only form of society that can bring freedom. To attain this the capture of political power is necessary the world over. This means, then, that the workers must organise into a worldwide movement before Socialism can be established. Not so with industrial organisations. Whatever form they may take, their activity is necessarily conditioned by the pace set by the capitalists in a particular manufacturing area. It is true that the reasons for their existence lie in the conditions created by capitalism, yet it is equally true they deal only with effects and not with causes. While this is quite legitimate as far as it goes, it cannot be denied that all the industrial organisation in the world will not emancipate the workers so long as they leave the capitalist class in possession of the political machinery, with which they control the economic powers. Industrial organisation has changed, and must change, with the development of capitalism, whereas the object of the Socialist party is ever the same—the abolition of private ownership in the means of life and the establishment of a system of society based on common ownership.

We have pointed the way; read our literature and get busy.

FIAT LUX.

Russia 1917: As We Saw It (2017)

From the March 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

We begin a monthly series of excerpts from the Socialist Standard of the time with what we said about events in Russia in 1905 which Lenin described as a 'dress rehearsal' for 1917.

The entry of Russia into the stage of machine production and international commercial inter-communication made it essential that there should be a limitation of the aristocracy which had hitherto dominated that empire. To engage in competition for foreign and neutral markets with other commercial countries rendered it necessary that the press should be removed from the censorship of the ruling class, so that the widest publicity should be given to matters concerning commerce; that education should become more general, so that the worker might become a more efficient machine minder; that freedom of contract should be exhibited in all trade relations between merchants and manufacturers, so as to secure equality of competition.

With an autocracy interfering in all matters, private or public, these freedoms desired by the middle-class could not be secured, so that it was but a question of time how soon the growing middle-class would seek to secure political power for itself. This could only be obtained by the establishment of a constitutional government, either of the republican or of the monarchical form. (…)

The working-class, too, – that class which has to carry on the battles of its masters – began to manifest signs of unrest. Strike has followed strike in all parts of Russia. The desires expressed have been for economic and political reform on the part of the workers, for political reform on the part of the middle-class.

In order to gain those desires a large number of the discontented wished to make a peaceful demonstration before the Winter Palace at St. Petersburg. These were no revolutionists! they did not belong to Socialist Societies, nor did they believe in Socialist principles! They were but unlettered working men with middle-class leaders, who believed that the Czar – the father of his people – had but to learn of their wrongs to redress them.

Poor misguided workers! Foolish you, to believe that you could gain redress except from among yourselves. A ruling class whose interests are opposed unto yours will do nothing for YOU. You must emancipate yourselves.

This lesson taught the workers in many countries, had yet to be learnt by the Russian working-class. They had not sufficiently learnt that in other countries the military was a weapon used to quell strikes. (...)

Now this lesson is being taught in autocratic Russia, as it has been taught in Monarchical England and Republican France. Hundreds of men, women and children have been butchered in the streets of St. Petersburg. In other centres, too, a like answer has been given to the demands of the workers. The class struggle manifests itself clearly, and what will be the result in Russia? We fear that the result will be but the victory of the middle-class. The Constitutionalists in Russia in 1905 will, like the Liberals in England in 1831, and the French middle-class in 1789, 1830, and 1848, use the working-class for their own ends, and then throw them over. The Russian worker is, we fear, too illiterate to understand clearly his own class interest, and will, therefore, need years of education before he takes his place with the vanguard of the international working-class revolution. (Socialist Standard, February 1905). Full article.

Reflections (1951)

From the January 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the declaration of Peace in 1945 the “ brave new world ” has been conspicuous by its absence. A brief survey of these post-war years to the present day daunts even the most optimistic nature. Many trusting thousands who built hopes of world peace on U.N.O. have been sadly disillusioned. This truly august body with world-wide ramifications was inaugurated five years ago to ensure Peace, even if it meant fighting for it! (Reminiscent of the Irishman who was determined to pull out the cork even if he had to push it in.) Moving ponderously like a Heath Robinson cartoon in slow motion it cut a ridiculous figure during its early years, as wars of varying degree and intensity broke out over the globe like the pimples on the face of an adolescent youth. Creaking and groaning in every joint it lumbered majestically through mandates, amendments,, vetos, adjournments and so on ad infinitum, also giving birth to a few offspring. Its predecessor the League of Nations, that puling infant of the 1914 war which failed so lamentably to justify its existence, was “small fry” in comparison for in the latest outbreak in Korea U.N.O. shapes up as a powerful instrument for war, revealing the mustering and reshuffling of the various Powers for the third large scale "War-to-end-all-Wars,” now openly discussed in Press and on radio. Under the much publicised banner of U.N.O. thousands of soldiers in Korea kill and are killed, with the ever increasing horrors of modern warfare. Once again we hear on the radio the familiar reports of "saturation” raids, and know that thousands of civilians are being pounded to injury and death in the dust and ashes of their homes. The latest weapon against tanks, annihilates at a “near miss of 200 yards” in a ball of fire. What further horrors will war bring forth? The Korean war is the straw which points the direction of the deadly blasts yet to come, prelude to an act to be “played” no-one knows when, with America and Soviet Russia in the leading roles, each dragging satellite nations in their wake into the maelstrom of Atomic Warfare. The Nazi bogey has been long since hauled down and now the Red Menace hoisted. The vacillations of the Japanese character can be likened to an oscillating electric fan. In 1914 they were our "staunch little Far East Allies.” In 1940 sub-human and bestial brutes, and now they aren't such bad fellows after all, depending of course on which side they line up when the next holocaust arrives.

In the industrial world strikes and labour unrest are the order of the day. Colour-bar troubles splutter intermittently but ominously in America and S. Africa. In India the workers are discovering that “self government” makes not one iota of difference to their miserable conditions and it is immaterial whether British or native capitalists exploit them. At home the post-war years have been punctuated by exhortations to “work harder, produce more, close the gap and save more.” Expanding prices shrink the value of wage packets. Some relaxations in the rationing system bring no relief as many cannot afford the extra cash involved. The housewife plods her weary way, her mind rarely able to rise above the level of the next meal or the weekly budget The monotony of her daily round finds its counterpart in the treadmill of the wage earner himself. Housing shortages result in overcrowding and “in-law” troubles breaking up hundreds of young marriages. Some live under almost unbelievable conditions in slums and cellars herded together like cattle.

The bebop fans and bobby soxers are a product of the age, craving excitement, living for today, subconsciously dreading the hardships and insecurity of a future they fear to face. The origin of crimes is rooted in the system. A miserable environment engenders hatred for a social system that hands out a raw deal. During war thousands are educated to violence and sudden death, trained in the arts of killing and to “get the better of the other fellow.” But in "peace” those lessons must be forgotten or it means the "8 o’clock walk,” not a medal.

In spite of crusades and special efforts to retain its place in the public eye religion is fighting a losing battle. It can prescribe no cure-all for this ailing world or indeed for itself. Even as they chant like the savages in the jungle whom they would self-righteously wish to convert, the staunchest of its followers must find difficulty in reconciling the idea of a merciful and loving God with the world as it is to-day. Its advocates distract attention from the substance of everyday life and. must surely deny themselves the luxury of thinking when they offer the shadow of a mythical future existence.

The pacifist sees the evils of war but not the cause and so is unable to propound the solution.

After over five years of Labour Government even its most enthusiastic supporters must realise that it is not by any means “jam today,” or to-morrow for that matter. Their programme differs only in the main from the Tory’s in regard to Nationalisation, which does not concern the interests of the workers. The National Health Scheme and Family Allowances were Beveridge’s babies, the Labour Government merely adopted them. Unfortunately the idea is quite prevalent that “Socialism” is in the making and this mishandling of the word does incalculable harm to the socialist movement. The Labour Government cannot function in the interests of the workers. It can only try to cope with the ever increasing problems of a capitalist society as they arise, blaming post war conditions, and appealing to the workers for cooperation. There are, however, signs that the workers patience is beginning to fray round the edges.

Leaping back over the past five years and reflecting on the present day we say "a brave new world indeed.” Over the whole of it broods the threat of Atomic warfare, inevitable while this vicious and effete system of Society stands, automatically breeding wars, poverty and untold misery. Only the apathy and political ignorance of the workers steady this palsied and tottering edifice. It is up to them to rouse their comrades and beat the Atom bomb with the establishment of a sane system of Society.

F. M. Robins

The Passing Show: Bill Sikes (1962)

The Passing Show column from the May 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bill Sikes

A new storm is blowing up over the amount of violence on television. As the night's ration of gunfire roars from the lantern in the corner, or bursts through the thin partition wall from the next house, many parents are sincerely worried about its effect on their children. There was much criticism of a recent BBC programme aimed at children which showed the scene from Oliver Twist in which Bill Sikes bludgeoned Nancy to death; and the accidental hanging of Bill Sikes was cut from the following week’s instalment.

It would, of course, be difficult to maintain that the regular diet of shootings, stabbings, stranglings, and knockout blows which is fed to children (and adults) by the television programmes does them any good. But it would be a waste of time to try to trace current “juvenile delinquency” and "violent crime" merely to the television. The whole of our society presents a picture of violence to the impressionable mind. No ruling class could exist without frequent recourse to violence of the crudest kind. While the main prop of the power of the ruling class is constant and insidious propaganda through every medium of communication—press, radio, pulpit, and so on—violence mast be used to punish and deter the small minority who refuse to accept the prevailing notions of private property or otherwise break the law. The television high-ups may censor the hanging of Bill Sikes; but they cannot censor the official and judicial hanging of James Hanratty. And there is no point in banning Westerns when every ruling class in the world, including our own, is prepared in order to achieve its aims to kill more people than all the black-shirted badmen who ever trod the studio boards.

Commodity

Education in any society prepares people to be members of that society. Education in capitalist society prepares people to be members of capitalist society. And in return for a steady supply of workers both at the factory bench and in the white-collar ranks, capitalists are prepared to pay (and have to pay) handsomely. Education to a capitalist is merely a commodity to be bought for a price like any other commodity. If you will not accept this from a Socialist, you may be more ready to accept it from a capitalist. This item appeared in The Times of March 2nd:

The University of Witwatersrand became 40 years old today and received a birthday present of £730,000 from the Chamber of Mines. The money would be spread over five years. Mr. H. C. Koch, president of the Chamber, said he hoped other industries would come to realise that money given to university was not a donation but was a payment fur an essential commodity.

Even a Socialist could not put it more clearly.

Demoralization

Anyone who thinks that only white people can sink to the level of racialism would be well advised to consider recent speeches made in Rhodesia. The publicity secretary of the United National Independence Party said that when UNIP achieved power in Northern Rhodesia it would declare Sir Roy Welensky a prohibited immigrant in the territory: this, he said, would be "the first step in UNIP’s programme of demoralization of the white man" (The Times, 10/4/62). The European, he said, was afraid of the African today, because he knew the African was no longer joking. At the same meeting the publicity secretary of the Southern Rhodesian Zimbabwe African People's Union said that “anyone who lived in Africa must identify himself with the African people. ZAPU would not accept European standards. In Africa no standards would be accepted that were not completely pan-African."

The aspiring Rhodesian African ruling class, having seen how valuable racialism has been to the European rulers of the country, are now trying to drum up support for themselves the same way. The more they can emphasise the irrelevant distinctions between members of the human race, such as colour of skin, the less inclined the African people will be to think about—and get rid of—the really important division in the human race, that between class and class.

Alwyn Edgar

Cooking the Books: A global capitalist class? (2011)

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

Is there a global, “transnational” capitalist class? This is an issue that is dividing those in what can broadly be called the Marxist tradition (as those who analyse capitalism using the same categories that Marx did; so, very broadly).

One view is that the world is divided into independent, territorially-based states representing and pursuing the interests of capitalists from within their borders, and that the world economy is characterised by competing separate national capitals only. The other view is that the capitalist system has always been a single economy, even if divided politically and geographically, into separate “nation states”, and that the recent globalisation represents the emergence of a global capitalist class not tied to a particular national state.

One exponent of the second view is William I. Robinson who argues in an article “Beyond the theory of imperialism. Global capitalism and the transnational state” in Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism (edited by Alexander Anievas and published by Routledge this year) that:

“We have entered a qualitatively new transnational stage in the ongoing evolution of world capitalism marked by a number of fundamental shifts in the capitalist system, among them:
–   the rise of truly transnational capital and the integration of every country into a new global production and financial system;–   the appearance of a new transnational capitalist class (TCC), a class group grounded in new global markets and circuits of accumulation, rather than national markets and circuits;–   the rise of transnational state (TNS) apparatuses, (…).”

Obviously, national states have not disappeared and are still powerful players in the capitalist economy. Robinson does not deny this but argues that the transnational capitalist class uses them, through favourable politicians and governments, to pursue its transnational interests (rather than them being used by a national capitalist class to pursue its national interests).

Ever since the last World War, freer trade has been the policy of the dominant capitalist countries (in fact it could even be said to have been the main war aim of America and Britain). But has this now led to the emergence of a transnational capitalist class? Robinson makes out a good case for this and it would explain the present stuff of national politics in that a transnational capitalist class still has to act via national states to get them to pursue policies favouring free trade and transnational investment and to set up transnational institutions, such as the WTO and the IMF, to facilitate and regulate this (which he sees as an embryonic “transnational state”).

However, any transnational capitalist class would only be a section of the capitalist class of the world. There are still plenty of national capitalists, actual and would-be, whose interests are not the same as those of the transnational section. So, although political power in the advanced capitalist countries, may be in the hands of politicians favourable to transnational capitalists, there is still opposition to them.

The ideology of national capitalism, reflecting the interests of small-scale capitalists, is still strong and finds support both from the “right” and the “left” (who beat the same nationalist drum during referendums and votes on the EU) as well as from conspiracy theorists denouncing the “new world order”. Outside Europe there are states controlled by opponents of the transnational capitalists such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Burma and, above all and for the moment, China.

Leftists in effect argue that workers should support national as opposed to transnational capitalism. Socialists, on the other hand, don’t take sides in this conflict between different sections of the capitalist class.