Saturday, May 2, 2020

Cooking the Books: Social distancing and the wages system (2020)

The Cooking the Books column from the May 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Faced with the spread of a highly infectious disease, the obvious immediate response is to encourage social distancing so that fewer people catch it. Should such an epidemic occur in socialism, as it could to, that would be the initial response too.

But today we are living under capitalism where social distancing, insofar as it involves people not going out to work at non-essential jobs, creates a serious problem. It is not so much the work not being done as the fact that most people depend on working for an employer to get the money they need to buy the things they must have to live.

This arises from the nature of capitalism as a class-divided society where goods and services are produced for sale with a view to profit. The means of living – the places where wealth is produced – are owned and controlled by a small section of society only; the excluded majority have to get money in one way or another to survive. They can beg or they can steal, but most do so by working. Some are self-employed selling a service direct to the consumer. The vast majority, however, get money by selling their mental and physical energies to an employer.

The effect on people of not allowing them to work can easily be worked out – they no longer have a money income and so can no longer access what they need. In these circumstances the government has no choice (unless, that is, it wants to provoke riots and rebellion) but to provide them with some money. In Britain the method chosen has been to give employers a grant to pay employees who they have had to send home on unpaid leave.

Some legal draftsman searched through ancient documents and found the word ‘furlough’ to describe this. Under the scheme employers are to be paid a grant of 80 percent of the labour costs of each worker they ‘furlough’, enabling their workers to get 80 percent of their previous earnings. Much better than nothing even though a drastic cut in their standard of living but enough to allow them to social distance; which is in effect what they are being paid to do.

Even so, well over a million extra workers have been reduced to applying for the welfare handout known as Universal Credit. The government even instructed local councils to find housing for the street homeless so as to get them out of circulation.

All this has involved the government spending huge amounts of money, which it will get by borrowing, some it seems from itself. The latter is in fact the equivalent of printing new money and would eventually have the same upward effect on prices as over-issuing money always does. The government is hoping that having to do all this will only be temporary and of course they cannot go on indefinitely paying workers to do nothing.

How much simpler things would have been if we were living in socialism where people’s access to what they need wouldn’t be linked to working for a wage. If ever social distancing should be needed in socialism, not being able to associate with other people would be inconvenient and difficult for the social animals that humans are, but not made worse by worry about how to get the things needed to live. Every member of society would have direct, free access to this as of right.

A Siberian Winter in Trottingham (2020)

Book Review from the May 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Winter at the Bookshop. Sylvia Riley. Five Leaves. 2019

Essentially a book of short stories and anecdotes, this has been put together by the writer of Switchboard Operators, which years ago was made into the 1990s TV series The Hello Girls starring Letitia Dean.

The bookshop in question was based in the poverty-stricken St Ann’s area of Nottingham and was run by Pat Jordan. Riley was one of the volunteers who helped out. Jordan was one of the leading lights of British Trotskyism, founding the International Group which was for a time the section in Britain of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International. This was the current that was linked to veteran Trotskyist writer Ernest Mandel and to Michel Pablo, who argued that the revolutionary struggle should always take as its starting point the particular situation prevailing in each country concerned. This meant in many cases an emphasis on ‘Third World’ struggles for national liberation and also student revolt, rather than the more usual Trotskyist pre-occupation with the traditional working class.

The International Group – after early dalliances with Ted Grant’s Revolutionary Socialist League (the ‘Militant Tendency’) – eventually morphed into the International Marxist Group and became dominated by Tariq Ali during the student revolts of the late 1960s, which is when the book ends. It is necessarily a highly personal account but generally well written, rather twee on some occasions and moving at others. It tells of a world of backroom duplicators and yellowing pamphlets, of student rebellion and fluid relationships. An air of grinding poverty hangs over it all, in an area long overdue for slum clearance (which happened shortly afterwards).

Nottingham at this time was known nationally as a hotbed of Trotskyist activity in a period when the so-called ‘New Left’ was making its mark as a challenger to the conventional Communist Parties. Pat Jordan and Ken Coates (later to become a Labour MEP) were the most central characters in this milieu and Sylvia Riley writes engagingly about the movement they led, the people in it – and their foibles. Let us say it doesn’t entirely align with the more glamorous image the IMG seemed to have cultivated at the time.

The IMG eventually split and its main successor organisation became ensconced in the Labour Party – with several former IMG members going on to become prominent Labour parliamentary figures, including ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling and Kate Hoey. A long way indeed from Pat Jordan’s tumbledown bookshop, with its bare light bulbs, Marvel comics and Trotskyist tracts.
DAP

Friday, May 1, 2020

May-Day and the Socialist Standard

One of those rare good ideas you get when it's too late in the day to fully implement them.

Today is International Workers' Day and, in years gone past on the blog, it has usually meant a random smattering of May Day articles or editorials from old Socialist Standards where, to be honest, there can be an overall tone of repetition and general gloom whatever the decade. However, it struck me this morning that the blog is so far ahead in breaking the back of fully digitizing the Standard, that it is now in position to start pooling together articles around a general theme for the attention of the random reader.

"Breaking the back" is, of course, a bit of an overstatement but a good place to start such an endeavour would be the various May Day messages that appeared in the Socialist Standard over the years. Though in 2020, it's hard at times to fully comprehend the significance of May Day for the organized working class, back in the day it has to be understood that May Day was a day when all unions and radical groups would make that extra push in both celebrating the day and seeking to communicate their message to a wider audience than usual. 

The SPGB was no different in that regard, and it was usually the case that the May Socialist Standard would be the issue in any particular year where the print run for the Standard that month was at its highest, and it was expected that the May issue would quickly sell out (no jokes at the back, please!).

I'd love to be able to provide a full list of Socialist Standard May Day articles from its exhaustive history but, as I stated at the beginning of this ramble, this idea sadly came too late for May 2020. However, it will be something I will be working on in the coming month(s) and, who knows?, short of the final breakdown of civil society à la Cormac McCarthy's The Road or *cough* a Socialist Revolution (are you still laughing at the back?) there should be a definitive list for May 2021.

In the meantime, linked to below is the Socialist Standard May Day messages for the period from 1904 to 1918. If you read them in sequence, you will note that the initial enthusiasm and hope for Socialist Revolution just over the horizon is gradually seeping away in May Day messages even in the SPGB's early years of its history. That's fine as far as I am concerned. Why pretend? Why kid your readers on with fake boosterism about how it's all about one final push, and we'll at last have possession of the bakery? The SPGB was quickly aware that the writing was on the wall for the Second International pre it's final capitulation in 1914, and it's to its credit that it didn't try to sweeten that pill.

As you will note from below, not all May Socialist Standards from this period carried a May Day message within its pages. I guess I'm especially surprised that one is absent from the very first May Socialist Standard (1905) but, in mitigation, I would point out that a big portion of that issue was given over to reporting the SPGB's first Annual Conference. It was initially surprising to discover that there were no explicit  May Day messages from the war years but it maybe reflected the mood of both the Party and the country at large. For Socialists, the wider Labour Movement had failed a major test of principle in 1914, and perhaps it was not felt that a May Day message would carry the same weight as it would in 'normal' times.

For this reader, the May Day message from the 1912 issue is especially powerful, and I would hazard a guess that its unnamed author was A. E. Jacomb. He just had a certain style and tone of authorial voice that set him apart from other Socialist Standard writers during this period.

It was not all doom and gloom for that period. May Day carried a double significance for Socialists; it was also considered the semi-official opening day for when Outdoor Speaking would kick in again at full throttle. The more clement weather meant that once again there were SPGB speakers all over London and its environs, putting forward the socialist message at speaking pitches on street corners' and in public parks. We sometimes forget that for the early decades of the SPGB the outdoor meeting carried so much more weight and significance for popularizing and propagandizing socialism. Sadly, that lost history is not always captured in the pages of the Socialist Standard or in the SPGB's pamphlets.

If I've missed any Socialist Standard May Day messages from this period, please let me know in the comments section.

Happy May Day! Happy International Workers' Day!

Editorial: A May-Day Message. (1912)

Editorial from the May 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Labour Day" is here again. Shall we have a sermon on it? Shall we make a sort of All Fools Day of it, and wax a little bit sentimental? —we, the cold, unemotional, scientific exponents of materialism. Shall we look upon life and the world for a moment with the soft eye and the blurred vision, and appraise things according to the feelings, with Reason locked up the while in solitary confinement in the coldest, innermost cell of our frigid, philosophical editorial cranium? Shall we run riot with fancy for a spell ? We will.

For after all, the romance, and poetry, and sentiment of life are very real factors, and they may weigh and judge and value things that science never can. As, when coming suddenly out upon some high cliff overlooking the sea, and being overwhelmed by the ineffable sense of fiery space in the blazing elements above and below, one may get a deeper, truer impression of the power of the sun than all the language of science can convey.

So when science has tabulated life for us, and shown us in plain figures just how much the worker is being robbed of, there is more left unsaid than is spoken, for “ man does not live by bread alone."

True, without bread man perishes quickly, but even with bread in sufficiency, if it is eaten in a stable, with blinkers on our eyes to prevent us feasting them upon anything but our mess-tin, what lot or portion have we to take joy in ? 

This idea was covertly and by implication expressed by a London morning newspaper, which a few days ago remarked regarding two rich Americans who were drowned in the recent catastrophe: “They had much to live for.” And as in saying that our contemporary implied that others had and have not much to live for, we may concern ourselves with that this May Day morning. 

We are told that self preservation is the first law of nature, but those who tell us this affect greater surprise when a person who has “much to live for” neglects to act in accordance with this law, than when one who has little inducement to live is careless of self preservation.

So it is the joy of life that makes self-preservation worth while. It is a sound, common-sense deduction, not altogether new — old enough indeed to tie pretty generally forgotten.

The "bread and butter” question is paramount, as all materialists agree, but not for its own sake. If we have distinctly advanced in anything beyond the stage of our poorer brethren, the lower animals, it is in the development of other needs than those of the stomach. And if, as the patent medicine vendor says, all our ills arise from the stomach, and if, as the materialist more truly assures us, all our pleasures are ultimately based on our digestive apparatus, still man needs, even more urgently, comfort in other regions than that of the waistband.

Which is to say that, important as it is to gobble and be able to gobble, and to have place and peace wherein to gobble, that has long since ceased to be an end in itself, and baa become, at least in the case of those whose minds have developed up to the Socialist Standard, a means to an end, a means to the supreme happiness, a means to the joy of living.

And what is this joy in life ? Where is this supreme happiness to be found ? We should be entering upon very contentious ground if we were to attempt to say that it is the ecstasy to be found in the acme of East End delight, the “Cambridge,” or in the highest aspiration of West End enjoyment, a monkey dinner, or in the raptures of the simple life, or in the low dieting, for morality’s sake, of the Catholic priest. Each, of course, as be lists. But it is safe to say that the joy of living, or the joy in living, to put it in a better way, is inseparably bound up with the leisure to follow one's desires.

That was the difference between the two rich Americans who “had so much to live for,” and the stokers, who had so little to hold them to life. The former were men of leisure and opportunity—the latter were slaves.

If it is this leisure and opportunity which constitutes the joy in living, it is a fair May Day question to ask the reader, what share in the joy of living, what portion of life, falls to the working class.

Quite apart from the question of the material things of life, the workers are in an awful predicament. What is the weary round for the vast majority of us ? Up in the morning and off at an hour when it would be cruelty to disturb our children for a farewell smile ; slavery all the livelong day—perhaps in the treacherous mine, perhaps before the roasting furnaces, perhaps in the torrid atmosphere of the cabinet-makers’ workshop, where an open window, a breath of fresh slum air, will chill the glue seething on the hot plates. Dinner snatched in the unsavoury odours of the cook-shop—where all sorts of viands are cooking and smelling together,—or fried in the roadway on a shovel, and eaten al fresco, seated on an upturned pail. Then when we are pumped out, back home again. And for what? To live? To enjoy the fruits of our labour ? Oh, no! To recuperate! To steal a look at our sleeping children and then creep wearily to bed to get strength to toil through the morrow.

What do we know of home life ? What do we know of the beauty of the world about us ? The very significance of May Day is lost to us, for we have no interest in the awakening of Nature after her winter sleep. We are beasts of burden. Shame on us ! — we carry the yoke with the mild spirit of beasts of burden, and we deserve our fate.

Let us be men. Let us ask ourselves why we should be born into the world and be the beasts of burden of an idle class. Let us ask ourselves if there can be no other result flowing from the centuries of progress than this—that only those who do no useful work and produce none of the good things of life should have "much to live for,” while we who produce all desirable things waste our lives in unceasing toil and misery.

It has become a trite saying that we can only die once. Let us remember that we can also only live once, and determine, this May Day, that we will fight for life as we have to fight for our living. For O, we are so near our emancipation if only we would believe it and want it and work for it

May-Day. (1909)

Editorial from the May 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The First of May is round once again, but, unfortunately, the wage-workers are not yet ready for that great demonstration which shall demonstrate, not the workers’ disunion and lack of class consciousness, as do those of to-day, but their irresistible might and determination to strike, once and for all, the shackles from off their limbs, and to annihilate the oppressor. However, with May come some sunny days, the tender freshness of young leaves and—the outdoor propaganda season in full swing. Verily, Spring is a mighty ally of Hope, and your true Socialist, while rarely forgetting the ever-present horrors of capitalism, appreciates no less than his as yet non-Socialist fellow, the brightening ray and thrill of nature newly waken’d. To us its chief meaning is renewed opportunity for work in order that next May-day may see us measurably nearer our goal; well on the way toward our demonstration—the only one worthy of working-class attention, the Social Revolution.

Editorial: May 1st, 1906. (1906)

Editorial from the May 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Os this day, the world over, the advance guard of the army of the revolution which is to break the power of the private possessors of the means of life to dominate and keep in subjection the workers who alone manipulate those means in the process of production, will meet in demonstration of their solidarity of purpose. On this day, in every country where capitalism has entered in to wring from the sweat and the sorrow of Labour, those profits which provide for capital's ministers luxurious comfort and all the pleasures that wealth can command, in earth and sky and sea, the harbingers of the co-operative Commonwealth destined to arise upon the debris of the present capitalist system which must give it birth, will gather rejoicing in the knowledge that everywhere their comrades have special thought for the international character of their mighty movement; that even where their comrades have turned aside from the work immediately before them to survey the vast field over which the operations of their many organisations extend, and to observe with glad satisfaction the measure of success which has attended the efforts of each section of their party. North, South, East and West, separated by vast seas and great mountains, yet animated by the same desire, inspired by the same ideal, fired by the same enthusiasm, the working-class armies press forward, steadily recruiting their strength as they go. Rank upon rank in ever increasing numbers they march confident in the final issue of the struggle in which they are engaged.

It is well that we should take a short breathing space occasionally and renew our strength for our fight at home in the observation of the success of our comrades overseas. To-day, whatever suggestion of insularity there may be in our work as a national section of an international movement, is dispelled as we stretch out the hand of fellowship to the organised, class-conscious workers of other countries, and echo back the shout of fraternal greeting with which they salute us.

Party News – Discord in the Ranks (2020)

Party News from the May 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

It’s not like socialists to curl up our tootsies and give up at the first sign of trouble, so we’re not likely to let a once-in-a-century global pandemic cramp our style.

Instead, like many others during the current lockdown, we are responding to physical restrictions on meeting by going online. We’re using the audio-only Discord system to save bandwidth, and because most of us are not sufficiently photogenic to want to look at each other every day.

The system works pretty well and we’ve already held a couple of online talks, as well as several branch and Executive Committee meetings. It’s not been entirely plain sailing of course, with some members having to drag headphones or microphones out of attics or cellars only to discover that they last worked efficiently when Sony Walkmans were still a new fad.

Others have had computer problems as Discord doesn’t work with very old operating systems, or with the super-restrictive Windows S. Actually Discord was originally designed for gamers, who tend to a) be digital natives and b) have state-of-the-art gear.

Many socialists, it is fair to say, do not belong to this social demographic, so online conferencing software can be something of an uphill struggle. That’s why, for the next few weeks, there will always be someone on the server, ready to talk or answer user questions, at 12 noon and again at 7.30pm, UK BST, unless there’s an evening talk on.

Still, we’re making progress, with around 50 members online at the time of writing. Companion parties have got involved too, with members from the USA, Canada, Europe, Japan and India.

And of course visitors are very welcome too, and are free to join any online Discord meeting just as they would be free to attend any physical meeting by the Socialist Party or its companion parties. This is a great opportunity to chat to socialists from around the world without leaving your house!

And if anyone is thinking of joining, having a live chat about it with members is much more fun and informative than simply filling in a form on the website.

If you’d like to drop in and chat to us online, or come to one of our talks or other events, just drop us a line to spgb@worldsocialism.org and ask for an invite.

50 Years Ago: Canada to grow no wheat in 1970 (2020)

The 50 Years Ago column from the May 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Canada is planning to follow America in its notorious policy of paying farmers not to grow wheat.

Last year the world produced more of this essential foodstuff than could be sold profitably. There was what is often misleadingly called a wheat “glut” or “surplus”.

There had been a bumper harvest in 1968 too so that the already huge stocks of wheat were piled up even higher. In Australia there was talk of leaving some of the wheat to rot unharvested on the farms. The International Grains Agreement, under which the five major wheat-exporting countries fix prices and carve up the world market, was threatened as its members tried to sell their wheat below the agreed prices.

Representatives of these five countries — America, Canada, France, Australia and Argentina — met in London last August and agreed that in 1970 there should be a cut-back in world wheat production. The new Canadian policy is part of this bargain, a restrictive practice forced on its government by the economics of production for sale.

The Canadian prairies are particularly suited to growing wheat and in a rationally-organised world (one based on common ownership and production solely for use) could make a major contribution towards abolishing hunger. Even now the 1,300m. bushels of wheat lying unused, some of it going to rot, in warehouses and on farms throughout Canada amounts to nearly three years’ consumption.

Under capitalism such potential abundance presents a problem, since if profits are to be made output must be restricted. The man in charge of Canada’s wheat sales. Minister without Portfolio Otto Lang, has suggested that no wheat should be grown in Canada for at least one year. He told the Canadian House of Commons in Ottawa on 27 February how the government planned to tackle this “problem” of potential plenty.

They would spend $100m. on paying farmers to take up to 22m. acres out of wheat production in 1970 (…)

So Canada is to pay its farmers $100m. not to grow 500m. bushels of wheat in 1970. Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you that world poverty is caused by over-population. Tell him it’s caused by the underproduction that goes with capitalism’s profit motive.

(Socialist Standard, May 1970)

Editorial: Locked down under capitalism (2020)

Editorial from the May 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

What would have been unthinkable a few months ago has now become reality. Most countries have been placed under lockdown, where the state has closed down large areas of the economy – shops, cinemas, pubs and restaurants in an effort to prevent the rapid spread of the coronavirus. Only food stores, supermarkets and pharmacies are allowed to remain open. Schools have been closed. The police have been given powers to enforce social distancing laws, whereby people are only allowed out for restricted activities, such as food shopping, exercise or attending medical appointments, and they can instruct people to go home and issue on-the-spot fines. For most workers, particularly those in the more developed capitalist states, this is unprecedented.

As the lockdown applies to everyone, then surely we are all in this together? Well, not quite. It is true that it can lead to mental health issues like loneliness and depression. There has been a recorded rise in domestic violence cases. Children being cooped up in the house and unable to play with their friends is not good for their emotional development.

However, like everything else in capitalism, having money can help you ride this crisis more comfortably. Wealthy capitalists can hop on to their yachts and head for luxury havens such as Palm Beach (Chuck Collins, ‘Let’s stop pretending billionaires are in the same boat as us during this pandemic’, Guardian, 24 April). They don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, about being furloughed or how they will pay the rent or mortgage. Even better-off workers can get by more easily by working from home and having more savings to draw on. Poorer workers, on the other hand, are more likely to have to travel to work and tend to live in higher-density housing which puts them more at risk. It is certainly more pleasant to self-isolate in a mansion with large grounds than in a high-rise council flat. Moreover, it is workers who are losing their jobs by the millions and seeing their incomes fall.

Although the lockdown has made it more difficult for workers to come together physically, there is evidence of the emergence of groups offering community and social services. George Monbiot has outlined many instances of these happening globally; students in Prague babysitting the children of health workers; volunteers in Belgrade organising online crisis counselling; in the UK and elsewhere, groups are picking up shopping and prescriptions for the elderly. As these groups are independent of the state and the private market sector, Monbiot refers to them as the ‘commons’ (‘Covid-19 has turned millions of us into good neighbours’, Guardian, 1 April).

What this reveals is what is most important in society. It is certainly not the wheeling and dealing of the venture capitalists, bankers and other ‘movers and shakers’ that we are supposed to look up to, but the useful jobs that doctors, nurses, delivery workers, public transport workers and postal workers do.

Perhaps this insight along with the emergence of the ‘commons’ may provide the seeds of an emerging socialist class consciousness?

Thursday, April 30, 2020

Imagine . . . (1983)

From the April 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nothing in human history is inevitable. We are not living and organising society according to any pre-ordained schemes. We are masters of our own history, not slaves of it. We can do what we choose. But you know that these are not the sort of ideas that we are encouraged to develop. On the contrary, we are encouraged to think of ourselves as slaves to the present order of things. This process of learning to believe that history has come to a halt, and that “you cannot change the way things are”, is often described as learning to “be realistic".

Where this point becomes particularly noticeable is in discussion about war. The society we live in produces war. There is a split between the minority who own and control the means of life and the majority of us who produce the wealth. A split, that is. between those who produce but do not possess and those who possess but do not produce. The economic rivalries among the wealth owners over market territories, areas rich in mineral resources and strategic locations on the trade atlas are often fought off the conference tables on the battlefields. Society based on competition and property is a war-producing society. This is the current state of affairs. We are born into a social setting where there are armies and bombs and Stock Exchanges and governments. But just because such things cluttered the world into which we were born is no reason for us to consent to them, nor believe that they are part of some “reality" which, although we can imagine it not existing, can never actually change.

Although another world war is not inevitable, if the present state of society is allowed to continue then it is a distinct possibility. The profit system is an unstable and volatile method of organising society, and armed to the back teeth as many states are, the recipe is being mixed for a nuclear exchange. Falling into the trap of regarding the way things are as largely unalterable, many commentators fortify the fallacy by using the language of inevitability.

Wintex-Cimex 83 is not a package ski tour, nor is it one of those instant relief nasal decongestants. W-C was the codename of a “paper” nuclear war game organised last month by NATO. This operation saw ministers from all over Europe frenetically telephoning each other and sending telex messages in rehearsal for a full-scale nuclear war. The fact that grown men and women are able to calmly and efficiently go through a paper rehearsal of what “on the night” would amount to a massive social carnage represents a hideous contradiction between our ability to plan and act co-operatively and what these abilities are actually being used for today.

The British Medical Association recently issued a report on the predicted state of Britain after a nuclear attack. The report paints a grim picture. Decaying corpses will litter the streets and millions of initial survivors — burnt, irradiated and starving — will die slowly and in agony. Doctors will not be able to help them and there will be no equipment or drugs to ease their deaths.
  Food stockpiles within 10-20 kilometres of an explosion could be exposed to fallout. Farm animals are sensitive to radiation. But insects and vermin are much more resistant: flies, cockroaches and rats could proliferate, spreading disease . . . survivors would face epidemics of typhoid, cholera, typhus, malaria ... a full-scale attack would result in about 38.600,000 deaths and 4,300,000 casualties. . . (The Report of the BMA Hoard of Science and Education Inquiry into the effects of Nuclear War.)
The doctors who composed this report after two years' research drew no political conclusions. But if we are capable of examining the dangers in this way then we are also capable of dismantling not only the weapons which menace us. but the social system which gives rise to them.

Apart from the socialist point of view, the responses to this issue are varied but all have the common thread of accepting the structure of society which produces the need for wars which produces the need for weapons. Peter Blaker is the Tory minister for the Armed Services. His recent response to the subversive noises about a peaceful world was to take a jab at "woolly minds in woolly hats”. If minds that desire a peaceful society and do not regard the production of bombs as a wise route to it are "woolly", one wonders what exactly predominates between the ears of Blacker? A solid lump of granite perhaps?

Another conservative with ideas to contribute to the debate about how to secure peace is Lord Hill-Norton. Admiral-of-the-Fleet Lord Hill-Norton last month proposed a plan to raise a 750,000 Dads' Army carrying their own weapons and defending the shores of England. “Defence”, remarked the Admiral, "begins at home”, which is of course something we will remember if it ever comes to the day when we have to whitewash our windows and hide under the table.

The reason organised peace movements this century, and before, have failed is that they have all consented to the power structure which creates war. War is neither democratically begun, nor democratically prosecuted. It is therefore facile to contend for wars to be fought on the terms of, say, the CND “no to cruise missiles”, or “no to trident”. These pleas, no matter from how many mouths they come, are lame. Apart from this, many of the phenomena which frighten people into CND to try and stop happening actually exist now: starvation of millions of people, lack of sanitation and hygenic water for thousands, riots, totalitarian regimes and military conflict all over the world.

As the Tory Party becomes increasingly associated with war-mongering policies and militarism there is a danger that the ideas of the Labour Party will be regarded as better and more beneficial to us. In fact the party under which the atom bomb was developed in Britain, and which recruited workers to fight for the bosses in two world wars, has not got any answers to the problem. The interests of workers and capitalists are diametrically opposed. The idea of nationalism has been supported by the ruling class because it deludes the workers into believing that within one territory. under one flag, they have a united interest with the bosses. Nationalism is divisive among workers and is used to help work up antagonism between workers from different places for them to fight the cause of their masters. Yet the Labour Party has always engaged in the promotion of nationalism. One recent example appears in the latest draft of their election campaign document, which will soon appear as part of their manifesto.
  Labour is determined that our country shall play a full part in the struggle for peace . . . Labour will pursue and win international support for policies designed to stimulate trade, investment and growth and we shall work inside the appropriate institutions to end the financial chaos which now threatens the stability of so many countries.
It is not "our” country; it is theirs — the capitalists’. In Britain the top 2 per cent own 64 per cent of the land (Inland Revenue Statistics 1980) and the top 13 per cent own 91.3 per cent of all housing. Workers of the world have no country, we only have a class. We are not interested in “stimulating trade" or “investment". We do not wish to streamline the efficiency of our own exploitation. We want a new social system. We do not want to sort out the "financial chaos” of capitalism, and try to make the system run well. This system can, by definition, never work well for us. It is working well for the bosses which keeps this system going.

We want a system based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of producing wealth. From each according to ability, to each according to need. Imagine it. All developments have at one time been merely ideas or dreams scoffed at by those who did not think historically. “The sun travels around the earth . . . the earth is flat . . . man will never fly . . . man will never split the atom . . . stand on the moon . . ." History is ripe for socialism and there are clear reasons for its urgent establishment.

The voice apologising for capitalism and defending "reality" grows quieter and less confident as we give up adjusting to fit painfully in with reality and start adjusting reality to suit our self-determined needs.
Gary Jay

Letter: The rusted mirror (1983)

First edition hardback cover
Letter to the Editors from the April 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard
The following letter and essay appear exactly as submitted. While we cannot agree with some of the points made, the writer's perceptiveness contrasts sharply with most of what usually passes for social criticism.
Dear Editors

Recently at my school we were set an essay to write: its theme being the good and bad aspects of the world today, with reference to The Chrysalids by John Wyndham, which we are reading at the moment. Incidentally, this book is set in the future which has reverted to the past after a nuclear holocaust — or "tribulation" as it is known in their world.

I spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the posed title; writing an essay which was depressing but, I felt, true. I admit my conclusions from the essay were highly influenced from reading some copies of your magazine, which I was sent on inquiry. I was not entirely pleased with the final product, but I was definitely convinced that my principles were right.

As I am still convinced. I am sending a copy of the essay to you; I hope you enjoy reading it. I certainly enjoy reading the Socialist Standard and will continue to do so. Please accept my appreciation for being able to learn a lot from your magazine, and also for being able to quote it in my essay to strengthen my standpoint.
Yours for socialism 
Charlotte Brown (age 14)
Hatfield. Herts.


Talking about ‘The Old People”, i.e. those in our world, it is said “Nobody knows . . . where they were right and where they were mistaken”. Give your views on the good and bad aspects of our world.

I would like to begin this discussion with a comment on a quotation from The Chrysalids. In it, Uncle Axel says of the word “tribulation": "A word, a rusted mirror, reflecting nothing. It'd do the preachers good to see it for themselves. They'd not understand, but they might begin to think”.

This phrase is useful, as I believe it can be used in the context of world leaders of today; that they wish to attribute all the wrong in the world to certain phrases when really, if they could only realise that their “mirror was rusted", they would be able to be more constructive.

This is, then, my first point about a bad aspect of our world: that the people who are able to improve conditions (whether they should be in this position or not), seem to be unwilling to do so. As thousands of people in the world starve to death many politicians say that this cannot be stopped by financial aid since this would cause inflation. So thousands of people continue to starve. This sort of attitude (that of "let it be") is also present in other problems: unemployment, evil dictatorships, poverty, repression, etc. And then there is, of course, the arms race. Much negotiation seems to be impossible because of the threat of nuclear war. Millions of pounds are spent daily on weapons — the instruments of destruction — while people in the world struggle to survive, let alone manage to enjoy their natural environment.

Before I discuss the world’s problems in greater detail. I feel compelled to suggest a reason for so much of the misery present in the world. I have valiantly attempted to think of another reason for the pointless aspects of the world. None is forthcoming. I condemn world capitalism for a lot of the bad aspects of the world. This quotation, taken from a socialist publication, I feel illustrates my point well (all quotations in this essay are taken from the Socialist Standard):
  The Official Coroner’s Statistics for 1981 reported nearly 5.000 suicides in Britain that year an average of one every other hour. Of those they leave behind, in one hour, six were made redundant in Britain alone, and in the world as a whole 3,500 people starved to death.
This statement clearly shows the insanity of the world at present. I do not pretend that I am "world wise" and have experienced any of the evil things that exist in the world. But I hope that I am capable of realising their existence. Speaking of Britain specifically, here are the things which, in my view, are causing unhappiness:

Unemployment. This predicament is affecting 4½ million people in Britain in 1983 (this figure includes "housewives"). People struggle to live on the small amount given to them through social security. They struggle with boredom and frustration, ever-present in an unemployed person’s life. They struggle to remain sane and rational. They struggle to find other employment. And they struggle to stay optimistic that there is a job for them. But they struggle in vain — their lives are not self-controlled.

Employment (Yes!) and “the Rat Race”. Even people in employment have to face difficulties. Apart from having the worry that perhaps tomorrow there will not be a job for them, they are often underpaid and over worked. Jobs can be stressful physically and mentally. Many people slog at a boring job all of their lives, going from home to work, then back home again, to demand supper from the woman of the household (whether working or not) and then to collapse in front of the television — the substitute for what really should be happening to them, for example, seeing oil tycoons "living it up”, or endless advertisements for holidays in the sun. I shall give another quotation, which describes perfectly the reality of "the rat race":
  After a tiring, often frustrating and humiliating day at work and a crowded, stressful journey home, thousands of workers in Britain eat a meal at roughly the same time and flop in front of the television set. What they see and hear must not disturb their recreation this period of rest and recuperation which, together with a night's sleep, enables and encourages them to go to work tomorrow and tomorrow.
Violence. In Britain (Scotland. Wales and England. at least), there is no official war. The army trains but on this isle never has to make its practice reality. So what I am referring to here is the violent attitude of Britain. The "triumph" of the Falklands War proved that British people accepted having their money spent on weapons and death. 70 per cent of the British population, according to reliable surveys, wish capital punishment to be re-enforced in Britain. This is not limited to the death penalty — many people also believe that criminals should be publicly whipped and humiliated. One group of people stated that they thought capital punishment was justified, even if it was not a deterrent against crime. People (especially men) resort to violence towards people they know because of their frustration with themselves or, more truthfully, their situation.

Violence breaks out on the streets, be it in the form of shop burglary, muggings, rape or victimisation. Most of these acts of violence can be explained because of people being emotionally insecure, or because they need money, or because they need someone to be responsible for their own misery. Although I do not condone people acting violently, or encourage them to do so, I can understand why they are forced to do so. Because Britain is a violent nation. Whether violence is approved of (for example, in wars) or condemned (as in muggings), it is noticed.

Prejudice. Violence leads to another bad thing present in Britain: prejudice. Prejudice towards women, or men, towards white people or black people, towards Indians or Jews, towards Catholics or Protestants, towards young people or old people, towards poor people or rich people, towards clever people or stupid people. It is all bad and unjustifiable. I admit that black people often have cause to hate white people, or that the Irish people often have cause to despise the British people, but my opinion still remains the same: it should not exist. But it does exist because our society is so unfair; for it not to exist would seem odd. Some people have reason to hate their "opposite", while others do not. But whatever the prejudice, it results from the fact that someone is "better" or "worse" than yourself, and should be hated for that reason. No one seems to accept that differences do not equal "better" or "worse". Prejudice is an attitude of a capitalist doctrine.

As I have mentioned the main problems of Britain I am unable to spend so much time on the problems of the rest of the world. In most cases, problems in other countries are far, far worse than in Britain. Many nations have no system of democracy whatsoever; they have to suffer under evil dictatorships, and people are punished for possessing any views of their own. Many nations are extremely poor, and the people of these countries consistently suffer from famine and starvation. Many nations are troubled with wars of religion; religion rules their lives and often prevents them from seeing the truth. Many nations are unfair to certain groups of people; especially to women, who are still second class citizens in the majority of countries in the world.

Many nations have civil wars raging; they also have unfair imprisonment, sadistic "lawful” punishments, and torturing. Many people in the world are too ignorant to be able to alter their situation.

My conclusion from all this is that most problems have their roots embedded in certain attitudes: that being able to destroy another is more important than to be able to feed another, that people are never equal and should never be treated as such. It is an evil situation that these attitudes are so embedded. I hope that soon the rusted mirror will be able to shine, but most of all to reflect.

Are there any good points, then?
Comparatively, yes. This means that I am more fortunate than my ancestor, and that I am more fortunate than my foreign neighbour. At least I am able to give my views. No doubt some will disagree with them, but no one will be able to stop me declaring them. I am warmer now than I would have been before electricity. I am more healthy than I would have been a hundred years ago. The whole texture of living is undoubtedly richer than the past; it is also more interesting. It is the attitudes of today which are harmful.

I have a better chance of getting a job (as a girl) and of being accepted as an equal being. I am certainly more enlightened about many things than my ancestor, although not really because of education but because of the opportunity, not to only survive but also to think. Newspapers. books, television programmes and radio are all available to teach me. I always have enough food.

But what about the rest of the world? Well I believe, despite all the evil present, that modern advancements will make it easier for us to abolish evil. We can communicate with people thousands of miles away. We do have the ability, now more than ever before, to give everyone enough to eat. enough clothes, good living conditions. to make the best use of the world's resources. Why. then, when our knowledge is so exceptional, can we not use it correctly? Because of the awful attitudes about war and peace which exist. Destroy world capitalism and I believe we have destroyed the nuclear threat, poverty. starvation, violence, war. and so to a certain extent unhappiness.
  You want to eat, to live in a decent home, to be fully mobile, to enjoy the pleasures of the world — but the world refuses to let you.

Markets are trash (2020)

From the WSPUS website

I’ve never wanted to restart a year so bad in my life. We lost Kobe Bryant, Trump almost started World War Three with Iran, and now we’re living in a real-life version of Contagion that’s got us on a trajectory rivaling The Great Depression – and we’ve barely entered the second quarter. 2020 so far has been absolute garbage. On the bright side, at least this pandemic is waking people up to the fact that markets are garbage too.  

I know that many people reading this may already understand what a market is. However, watching a YouTube video of Sam Seder debating a Libertarian before writing this made me realize that I need to clarify the meaning of markets before I demonstrate precisely why they are trash. 

The almighty Google sources their meanings from the Oxford Dictionary’s website Lexico.com, which defines a market as an area or arena in which commercial dealings are conducted. 

For example, someone voluntarily calling into a radio show for free doesn’t constitute a commercial dealing since no money or commodities have been or will be exchanged. However, the host monetizing the call later does constitute a commercial dealing with the entity that distributes it, assuming that entity is different. In other words, a market only exists when a commodity is directly exchanged for another commodity, whatever happens later. The commodity most commonly exchanged is money. Markets suck for a lot of reasons, but right now I’ll focus on the contradictions between effective and notional demand and supply, as well as on profit.  

Lexico.com defines effective demand as 
 the level of demand that represents a real intention to purchase a good by people with the means to pay.
In contrast, notional demand is the demand of people who want a commodity but are unable to buy it for some reason, like not having enough money or a ban. Effective supply is the amount of a commodity furnished on the market, as opposed to notional supply, which is the amount of a commodity that would be furnished on a market if there were no market constraints, such as below-average profit margins for the commodity or a ban. 

Another critical concept is derived demand, which Lexico.com defines as 
 a demand for a commodity or service which is a consequence of the demand for something else.
A good example is Nevada governor Stephen Sisolak ordering temporary closure of all non-essential businesses in the state to curb the spread of Covid-19. The order led to lower derived demand for public transportation since fewer people are traveling to work, drink at the bar, get a haircut, and so on.  

The Covid-19 outbreak itself is an excellent example of how effective demand and supply can lead to negative results. It’s widely believed that the Covid-19 pandemic started in November of 2019 as a result of consumption of bats or pangolins sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market – a live animal and seafood market in Wuhan, China that also sold the flesh and organs of various exotic wild animals, referred to as yewei or bushmeat. The other two major coronavirus outbreaks of the past decade, MERS and SARS – of which Covid-19 is a variant – are believed to have originated in bats as well. Although no one has found evidence of anyone selling bats or pangolins at the market, Covid-19’s genetic similarity to another coronavirus found in bats (see here) suggests that it did originate with them and was most likely transmitted to humans through an intermediate animal – widely believed to be a pangolin (see here). Considering that two thirds of the first 41 people hospitalized for Covid-19 had direct exposure to the market (see here), pangolins could have been sold there — under the table, since they are a protected species. Assuming that was the case, the effective demand for yewei, which is known to have already caused two significant outbreaks this decade, met with the effective supply of yewei. Markets can incentivize the supply of dangerous goods – for instance, bombs, the only use of which is murder, or infected meat, leading to a global pandemic like the one we’re dealing with right now.  

Another excellent example of the negative results of effective demand is the impact of Covid-19 on my hometown, Las Vegas. The town’s economy revolves around the Strip, which caters mainly to tourists’ and locals’ leisure activities. The effective demand for goods and services was drastically lowered on the Strip after stay-at-home orders were issued to curb the spread of the virus, causing a domino effect. The lower effective demand for goods and services on the Strip led to lower effective demand for labor on the Strip, causing many workers employed on the Strip to be laid-off. With their derived demand for healthcare coverage and housing coming from their employment, these workers being laid-off led, in economic terms, to them losing effective demand for healthcare coverage and shelter during the pandemic. 

I give kudos to Wynn Resorts for committing to pay all their employees through mid-May, even though it may only be because it would be too expensive and time-consuming to bring all their employees back if they lay them off. Still, I haven’t heard of any other companies committing to that. 

Thank god, also, that Governor Sisolak issued a moratorium on all evictions during the pandemic. Still, he did make it clear that any unpaid rents or mortgages would have to be paid after the pandemic, essentially postponing the homelessness of many Las Vegans to a later date.  

The absurdity doesn’t end there. A resident at St. Vincent’s – the town’s homeless shelter for men, where I happened to live for about a month – was diagnosed with Covid-19. As a result, they shut the shelter down until further notice as a “safety precaution” — meaning that they wanted to avoid legal liability if other residents got sick. Now they have as many as 500 residents sleeping outside in the parking lot of Cashman Center, sectioned off into “social distancing” boxes. And this is on the same street as hotels with thousands of empty rooms, which are now only a notional supply due to the ban on non-essential business. Even if that were not the case, these homeless men would have only notional demand for these rooms that could help curb the spread of the disease among them, because they can’t afford them anyway. They are basically leaving these residents out to die, since a vaccine may not be available until at least early 2021 – a vaccine for which they may anyway have only notional demand.  

Vaccines usually take 2—5 years to be ready for market, but the urgency of the pandemic has experts hoping optimistically that it can be done in 12—18 months. The long timespan is due partly to the complexity of the vaccine development process, but in large part also to the need for funding. Over 60% of vaccine research and development funding comes from for-profit companies (see here), which was a major stumbling block in the development of vaccines for SARS and MERS. For-profit companies tend to be hesitant to invest in vaccine development since it’s much more lucrative to invest in other medications. Even if they do invest, a pandemic may pass before they can get a vaccine to market – an outcome that they see as a waste of money. Publicly funded research would be subject to the same sort of prioritization, so the only way to guarantee that we develop vaccines promptly is to remove market forces entirely.  

In a socialist society there would be no markets, because there would be no money. Since production would be for use rather than for profit, vaccine research and development would not be dependent on securing investment. It would depend only on having the necessary resources at hand. We would not stop developing a vaccine just because a pandemic has passed; we would continue to develop it, so that we would have a head start in case a future pathogen arises with a similar genetic makeup, as with SARS and Covid-19. Since there would be universal free access to all products, we would have an incentive to stockpile a buffer of supplies so we can isolate ourselves for long periods if that is necessary in order to fight a pandemic. Since healthcare would be free, anyone could get tested, use a vaccine, or get a ventilator without impediment or significant delay. Our decisions would no longer be subject to the anarchy of the market, because we would finally have achieved coordinated cooperative control over production and distribution. 
Jordan Levi

Dirty work in the Indian Ocean (1998)

From the May 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard
A small island in the middle of the Indian Ocean was of such strategic importance that its whole population was expelled to make way for a military base.
The island of Mauritius, which lies about 500 miles east of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean, is only 40 miles from north to south and 25 miles from east to west at its widest, yet with a population of over one million is one of the most densely populated areas of the world. Formerly a French colony it was ceded to Britain in 1814.

In 1964, Mauritius was granted self-government; and in March 1968 it became fully independent, but on condition that the British government was allowed to purchase from the newly-independent colony the Chagos Archipelago, which lay 1,500 miles to the northeast, and which had been previously administered from Mauritius. This was forced upon the government of Mauritius despite a UN resolution, passed by the General Assembly in December 1965, which called on Britain “to take no action which would dismember the territory of Mauritius” or “violate its territorial integrity”.

Mauritius, like other islands and territories in the Indian Ocean, was all-important to Britain as well as France, South Africa and, later, the United States because of the trade routes, and particularly the Gulf oil tanker routes, possible off-shore oil deposits along the East African coast, and the monitoring of Soviet shipping and submarines. These countries were also much concerned about the spread of what they called “communist subversion” in the area, particularly among young people.

In the defence policy review of 1967, the British government decided to move the naval communications station at HMS Highflyer in Sri Lanka to the town of Vacoas in Mauritius, where it was renamed HMS Mauritius. On obtaining independence in 1968, the Mauritian government signed a defence treaty with Britain, allowing for the continued use of HMS Mauritius. In exchange, Britain trained the island’s security forces.

For most of the time since independence, Mauritius has been governed by the Labour Party either alone or in coalition with such parties as the Parti Mauricien Social Democrat (PMSD) or, later, for a short period in 1995, the Mouvement Militant Mauricien ((MMM), led by Paul Berenger.

In December 1976, the hard-line anti-British, nationalist MMM, which from 1970, had only held one seat in the Assembly, won 34 of the 70 seats, and became the largest single party. Only a rather shaky coalition of the Labour and Social Democratic parties kept the MMM from power. With the predictable collapse of this coalition, the MMM achieved power. It joined the non-aligned block of Tanzania, India, the Malagasy Republic (Madagascar) and the Seychelles; and called for the demilitarisation of the Indian Ocean. Mauritius attempted, on a number of occasions (the last time in 1991), to raise the issue of returning the islands and atolls of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, but without success.

But why did Britain want to retain control of Chago Archipelago? Officially named the British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965 it is the only British colony created since decolonisation after the Second World War. In 1814, because of their importance “astride the trade routes to the East”, the islands of the Chagos Archipelago were annexed by Britain, and administered as a dependency of Mauritius until 1965.

The population of the islands, when they became the British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965, was around 1,500, of whom most lived on Diego Garcia. They were the Ilois who were descended from slaves introduced to work on the small copra plantations. Most were fifth generation islanders. The new colony was given a flag, a Commissioner, a customs office and a police station. A few Royal Marines were stationed on Diego Garcia. A post office was established; and the Territory even issued its own postage stamps.

The base
In 1966, however Britain signed a “defence” agreement with the United States, leasing the British Indian Ocean Territory to America for 50 years, with an option of a further 20 years. America did not, of course, want the islands for their copra or their fish; and they did not want to establish hotels for tourists. Far from it. They particularly wanted Diego Garcia, with its huge lagoon, as an intelligence, military and naval base and, later, as a nuclear weapons depot and refuelling point for US bombers. As the British discovered in the 19th century, whoever controlled the Chagos Archipelago controlled the Indian Ocean.

There was only one problem for Britain: America required the islands without the people who lived there. Britain had to get rid of them, particularly from Diego Garcia. The evacuation, or to be more accurate, the deportation, of the Ilois began in 1965 and was finally completed before the end of 1972, despite UN articles IX and XIII which state that “no one should be subjected to arbitrary exile”. The British government assigned the job of resettling the islanders to the Chagos-Agalega Company, coconut exporters and the only employer on Diego Garcia. They were deported to Mauritius; and the last few remaining islanders were told “if you don’t leave you will not be fed”. By 1972, the US Defense Department told Congress that “the islands are virtually uninhabited, and erection of the base would thus cause no indigenous political problems”.

In December 1974, a joint UK-US memorandum stated that there is “no native population on the islands”; and a British Ministry of Defence spokesman denied that this was a deliberate misrepresentation by saying the “there is nothing in our files about inhabitants or about an evacuation”. For Britain and America, the Ilois of the British Indian Ocean Territory had become an unpeople.

In fact, they were dumped in Mauritius, in the words of a Minority Rights Group report by John Madeley, “without any workable settlement; left in abject poverty”, and given a tiny amount of compensation on condition that they renounced their rights to return to the islands. By 1980, only a very few owned any land or houses, and 40 percent still had no jobs. Not surprisingly, most still live in Mauritius in poverty.

U.S. priorities
The United States Join Chiefs-of-Staff first sought the Chagos Archipelago island of Diego Garcia as a base as early as 1959, and persuaded the British to hive off the island, and other atolls and islands in the archipelago, from Mauritius prior to independence. In order to finance the base, the US Department of Defence established a secret Polaris Trust Fund (as Britain was unable to pay for the Polaris nuclear missiles for its submarines) to pay for the leased base rights. The money from the Trust Fund was then deducted from Britain’s Polaris research and development costs, set at five percent.

The first American contingent moved on to Diego Garcia in 1971; and the first US project was to establish a naval Signals Intelligence (SIGNIT) station to monitor radio signals in the Indian Ocean. With British Royal Navy participation, a United States National Security Group monitoring station was set up in 1972. It became a “ground control” base for the US-Australian-British CLASSIC WIZARD Ocean Surveillance Satellite System network for electronic satellites. Also set up, in 1974, was a major GCHQ/NSA Signals Intelligence station. Of the facilities, Jeffrey Richelson and Desmond Ball observe: “Not only is Diego Garcia ideally situated for monitoring naval traffic in the Indian Ocean, but during the 1970s, it also acquired many functions previously performed by the NSA facility at Kagnew station, at Asmara in Ethiopia” (The Ties That Bind, Sydney, Australia, p.205), abandoned because of the civil wars raging in that part of Africa.

A second US-UK treaty, in 1972, sanctioned the “limited naval communications facility”. A US airstrip and port facilities were developed; and access to Diego Garcia was restricted to British and American military personnel and civilian construction workers. In 1976, a third treaty regularised the construction of an “anchorage, airfield, support and supply elements and ancillary services”. Aircraft using Diego Garcia have included RAF Hawker Siddely Nimrod MR2 marine reconnaissance aircraft, Lockheed P-3 Orion transport aircraft, and USAAF Boeing B-52 Stratofortress heavy bombers capable of carrying nuclear devices stored on the island. During the 1991 war against Iraq, Diego Garcia was used as a refuelling point for US bombers.

During the recent crisis, the British Indian Ocean Territory was once again an important base for military operations. Yet more dirty work in the Indian Ocean.
Peter E. Newell

50 Years Ago: Decline of the German Social Democratic Party (1983)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Long before the war the British ruling class learned how to incorporate radical politicians and labour leaders in the parties of capitalism. The German capitalists in 1918 jettisoned the Kaiser for a similar end. Fifty per cent of the German voters had registered their disillusionment and war-weariness by voting for the reform programmes of the Social Democratic Party German capitalism thereupon "digested” the SDP and watched it stabilise German capitalism in the troubled post-war years. The military and civil associates of the Imperial Kaiser humbled themselves to the upstart labour leaders because they had to have someone who could control the workers and keep them loyal to the fundamentals of capitalism. So, for fourteen years, the Social Democrats, either in coalition or in ‘‘friendly opposition” worked out their policy of bargaining for reforms as price of their support. The outcome was inevitable. They have shared the fate that has always overtaken "Labour" politicians and parties when they accept responsibility for the administration of capitalism. Discontent with the effects of capitalism cannot for ever be stifled by Labour promises of better times or apologetic assurances that things might be worse. The membership and influence of the SDP declined year by year until it has shrunk to a third of its former size. Part of the loss was picked up by the Communist Party, but in the meantime a new group has arisen, led by Hitler. At the election on March 5th he received 17,266,000 votes (43.9 per cent), and his allies, the Nationalists, received 3,132,000 (8 per cent), giving him a clear majority. The Social Democrats received 7,176,000 (18.3 per cent) and the Communists 4.845,000 (12.1 per cent).

(From an editorial “The Rise of Hitler — A Warning to the Workers”. Socialist Standard, April 1933.)

Transport 2055: the missing scenario (2006)

From the March 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 2020 a global economic slump as severe as that of the 1930s breaks out leaving millions of unemployed in all countries. By 2022 GDP in Britain has fallen by a fifth to 80 percent of its previous level. Two years later the UK banking system collapses. Power cuts had already been routine, as in Third World countries today. In the years that follow GDP continues to fall and most people, to survive, leave the cities and settle in small communities that have to be as self-sufficient as possible, bartering with other communities for what they can’t produce themselves. Some local transport is still by car but most is by bike or horse. Armed bands roam the roads between communities, and the communities have to protect themselves by equipping some of their members with Kalashnikovs. By 2043 the population of Britain has fallen from its present 60 million to only 42 million, as a result of millions migrating to other countries and millions of others dying either from sickness and disease or in armed clashes and massacres.

This is a scenario painted in a document published in January by a government thinktank, Foresight, which is attached to the Department of Trade and Industry, entitled Intelligent Infrastructure Futures: The Scenarios – Towards 2055 (www.foresight.gov.uk). It is one of the four “possible futures” described in the document prepared to inform government decisions on transport policy. The other scenarios are not so nightmarish as the one above dubbed “Tribal Trading” by the government’s futurologists. There are also “Perpetual Motion”, “Good Intentions” and “Urban Colonies”.

Perpetual Motion is a scenario based on the assumption that a viable alternative to carbon-based fuels for powering transport other than aviation has been found (in hydrogen). No restrictions on the use of personally-owned vehicles for individual transport are therefore necessary. At the same time Information and Communications Technology continues to develop, making possible “telepresencing” (a combination of videoconferencing and virtual reality to allow a virtual meeting where people are “present” as holograms), so reducing the need for business travel. ICT also allows people to be “always on”, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. “Even low-paid service workers are so used to being ‘always available’ that their holidays are no longer a real break”. As a result, already by 2020, stress is “the new obesity”. By 2050 over 90 percent of UK citizens are equipped with an electronic ID device “that does everything from advise them on entitlement to public benefits to alerting them when their children leave the school grounds”.

The Good Intentions scenario assumes that oil continues to be the main source of fuel for transport and that a Kyoto-type agreement on limiting carbon emissions is eventually signed by all countries and enforced by the threat of UN sanctions. As a result the government is forced to confront the right-to-drive car lobby and impose restrictions on the use of private cars. This is assumed to take the form of each person being allocated an individual carbon-use entitlement which can be traded for cash: “After bitter political conflicts, sometimes violent, a tough national surveillance system means that people only travel if they have sufficient carbon quotas – and these are increasingly tightly rationed”. This doesn’t just apply to driving a car. The “carbon credits smart card” is “needed by any citizen who wishes to use any kind of carbon resources, from having a shower, to driving, to eating out, to listening to a digital music system”.

The assumption underlying the Urban Colonies scenario is that the government does actually carry out the green agenda politicians are always talking about and “put clean environment practice at the heart of its economic and social policies”. Most people live and work in more compact cities than today. Car use falls and is replaced by walking, cycling and public transport. “Local electric vehicles are ubiquitous”. More food is grown locally, so reducing the need for transport. “Everything either gets recycled as a raw material for another production process, or returned, clean, to the earth or water. Every council runs its own ‘freecycle’ scheme to help people who have things they want to dispose of find a willing recipient”. In 2026 a Consumer Goods Act is passed requiring all goods to be repairable. The use of open source software is widespread and “the public Internet is used only for public messages”. The result is “a world in which the main aims of policy are to reduce energy consumption and eliminate waste”, where “corporations have retreated from the high water mark of influence they enjoyed at the end of the 20th century”.

Foresight organised a number of workshops at which their scenarios were discussed. Perpetual Motion appealed to “the business community” and the technological optimists amongst the scientists, though Good Intentions (“too much, much too late”) was seen as “in some respects the most plausible scenario”.

Surprisingly perhaps, the final outcome of Tribal Trading – decentralised “community-based schemes to grow food, with bartering and alternative currencies coming to the fore” – was not seen as unattractive by everyone. An outside futurologist is cited as claiming that some (presumably, Deep Greens) see this as having much in common with their aim of “ecocommunalism”, though of course preferring a more planned and orderly transition to it than that set out in Foresight’s scenario (though quite how the population of Britain could be reduced from 60 million to 42 million within less than forty years – by 2043 – without some enormous catastrophe is hard to see). Most workshops participants, however, saw this scenario as the least likely to happen, on the grounds that political action would be taken to avoid the event assumed to precipitate it (the sudden end of the Oil Age), even if this took the form of the “use of military force to secure additional energy supplies”.

The first two scenarios – Perpetual Motion and Good Intentions – both explicitly assume the continuation of capitalism. Mobile phones and hand-held computers linked to the Internet will have their use in any future society, but the main use Foresight envisages for them is to order and pay for goods and services; at the same time they serve as a means for firms and advertisers to keep tabs on what people are buying – and for the state to keep tabs on what they are doing. A society in which workers would be subjected to such Big Brother surveillance and be forced to be available to work 24/7 is another nightmare scenario. As is one where people have to acquire “carbon-use units” just to eat out or have a shower.

The only scenario that has any sort of attraction is Urban Colonies. But, given capitalism, this is the least likely to happen as its attractive features are precisely the ones that go against the logic of capitalism. It would still be capitalism, but a capitalism unrealistically assumed to have been tamed and humanised by taxes and government action. A capitalist world in which the main aim of policy is to reduce energy consumption and eliminate waste rather than to maximise profits? A capitalist world in which corporations have lost the influence they now have? The Internet under capitalism freed from advertising? Futurologists are allowed some flights of fancy, but this is ridiculous.

To be fair, Foresight themselves point out that this scenario “carries with it an implicit critique of market capitalism and conventional economics”. They also claim that among its “guiding spirits” might be included “the Victorian socialist, William Morris”. If Morris had to choose just between the four scenarios on offer he might well have chosen this one, but he wouldn’t have regarded it as socialism. He once asked why in a socialist society would a law against adulteration be needed since no one would then have any reason to adulterate food. Such a law only makes sense in a society based on competition for profits where some firms will always be tempted to take this short cut to profitability. Much the same could be said of the 2026 Consumer Goods Act passed to force firms to produce products that are easily repairable. Why in a socialist society would anyone want to produce something with welded or moulded parts just so that people have to get a new one if it breaks down (quite apart from wanting to make something scientifically calculated to break down earlier than it need)?

Foresight have missed out one other “possible future”: a scenario in which sometime in the course of the next fifty years a world-wide political movement sweeps away capitalism and production for profit and ushers in a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources. On this basis humans are in charge of their social environment and what they decide to do can be implemented without coming up against the barriers of profit and the market or the vested interests of an entrenched propertied class.

In the field of transport, it can be imagined that a “right to mobility” is available to everyone by means of a comprehensive and efficient free public transport system and access to free public vehicles. This could involve, in an urban context, a hydrogen-powered automatic transit system, flexible and demand-responsive public vehicles which are a hybrid between buses and taxis (both as in the Urban Colonies scenario, but free), supplemented by a fleet of public self-drive vehicles for hiring without charge when needed for a specific journey or period. Under these circumstances, privately-owned vehicles for the exclusive use of one person or family would not be necessary and the congestion and pollution caused by present-day dependency on private cars for travel avoided. All this would be in the overall context of a society where production would no longer be for sale on a market with a view to profit, but for use so that only good-quality, easy-to-repair products would be made and, as a society geared to serving human welfare, clean environmental practices would be adopted as a matter of course.

This of course is only a scenario. But at least it does better than the Foresight document with its three nightmares and one non-starter.
Adam Buick