socialist-standard-2005-1215-nov

Socialist Standard November 20052

November 2005

socialist standardwebsite: www.worldsocialism.org

contents

“Having respect for people and ourenvironment - acknowledging and caring foreach other's strengths, needs, weaknesses,ambitions - is not compatible with capitalism'scompetitive, repressive nature”Greasy Pole, page 19

Better off without it? Page 12

"Reverend" Jim Jones, page 10

Subscription Orders should be sent to The SocialistParty, 52 Clapham HighStreet,London SW4 7UN.

RatesOne year subscription (normalrate) £12One year subscription(low/unwaged) £7Europe rate £15 (Air mail)Rest of world £22 (Air mail)Voluntary supporterssubscription £20 or more.Cheques payable to ‘TheSocialist Party of Great Britain’.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain

The next meeting of theExecutive Committee will beon Saturday 5th November atthe address below.Correspondence should besent to the General Secretary.All articles, letters and noticeshould be sent to the editorialcommittee at: The SocialistParty, 52 Clapham High street,London SW4 7UN.tel:020 7622 3811 e-mail:[email protected]

Tough on treachery...Page 6

Do We Need Money? With the world organised the way it is we couldn't live without money.But what if the world was organised differently? Paul Bennett investigates.

FEATURES

12

EDITORIAL 3CONTACT DETAILS 3

PATHFINDERS 4LETTERS 5COOKING THE BOOKS 1 9

COOKING THE BOOKS 2 13

REVIEWS 1750 YEARS AGO 18

GREASY POLE 19VOICE FROM THE BACK 20

REGULARS

The Cult of the Professional RevolutionaryAdam Buick asks how humans can be persuaded to committhemselves to what most people can see is a delusion.

Doubtful BenefitsDavid Blunkett thinks the incapacity benefit is mad. The 2.7 millionpeople on it may disagree.

16

Hugo Chavez: revolutionary socialist or leftwingreformist? Chavez, new revolutionary on the block, cast in theCastro mould, is winning the applause of radicals around the world.

8

MEETINGS 18

FREE LUNCH 20

If This be Treason...The revival of the treason charge by the Blair government after theJuly bombings was one of many tactics designed to stimulate panic.

6

There Are Words for It...Capitalism, with its globalisation and its tendency to make everythinghomogeneous, is killing off languages. Does it matter?

14

10

Editorial

The only man to enter Parliament withgood intentions". So some describeGuy Fawkes, though this isn't theofficial line on the Gunpowder Plot

which was uncovered four hundred yearsago this month. Actually, this saying iswrong on two counts. Guy Fawkes did notenter Parliament with good intentions, andto wish to blow up Parliament can't really besaid to be a good intention (blowing them upwouldn't achieve anything; voting them outis the intelligent thing to do).

Four hundred years ago the Englishruling class was engaged in a life-and-deathstruggle with Spain which, with the backingof the Pope, was trying to incorporateEngland into a revived Holy Roman Empire.Capitalism had only come into being in theprevious hundred years or so and theEnglish ruling class was in the process oftransforming itself from a serf-exploitingfeudal nobility into a class whose wealth andpower would be based on producing for andtrading on the world market. To achieve thisit was essential to avoiding beingincorporated to an economically stagnantAbsolutist Empire such as Spain was tryingto establish in Europe.

The ideological smokescreen underwhich this conflict of economic interest wasfought out was Protestantism versusCatholicism. Henry VIII had broken withthe Pope in 1529 and Protestantism becamethe ideology of that section of the Englishruling class striving for a national capitaliststate. Catholicism that of its enemies.Throughout the 16th century in England,Catholics and Protestants were successivelyburned at the stake. Guy Fawkes was aCatholic and had entered Parliament with aview to blowing it up in a bid to re-establisha Catholic regime in England.

From the point of view of the Englishruling class, he was a traitor, and hastraditionally been portrayed as such inschool history books. In fact, anti-Catholicism remained a key feature of

English nationalism right up until the end ofthe 19th century. By then it had become ananachronism. England - since the union withScotland in 1707, "Great Britain" - had longsince established itself as the leadingcapitalist power in the world and was nolonger under even the remotest threat ofbeing incorporated into some backward-looking Absolutist Catholic Empire.

In view of the anti-Catholic aspect themedia didn't know quite how to mark the400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot.

They had no such doubts about how to markthe 200th anniversary of the Battle ofTrafalgar - by an obscene display ofjingoistic nationalism.

The ground had already been preparedby London's successful bid to stage the 2012Olympics and England's regaining of theAshes from Australia, both of which saw amindless mob gather in Trafalgar Square tosing jingo songs known to socialists as"Fool Britannia", "Land of Dopes andTories", "God Save the Queen (and all whosail in her)" as well as - though quite it's outof place - Blake's "Jerusalem".

Socialists are utterly opposed to suchmanifestations of nationalism. In fact, wefind disturbing the revival of nationalism inBritain in recent decades, as seen in theacceptance into the mainstream of things

which once had fascist connotations such asthe term "Briton" and the flag of St. George.At one time, British patriots used to call onpeople to die for their "country", i.e. for thestate which for accidental historical reasonshappened to have jurisdiction over thegeographical area where they lived.Nowadays, the appeal is to the "nation", i.e.to an imaginary community. But there nevercan be any real community undercapitalism. A "nation" is a false community,and a dangerous illusion because of itsdivisive nature.

Britain, like every other country orstate in the world, is class-divided: aminority of rich owners and the rest of us.We have no interests in common with themand anything which encourages the illusionthat all the people of Britain form acommunity with a common interest can onlyserve their interests. They need us to believethis because their rule and privileges dependon our acceptance. They are few but we aremany. They know this but most of us don't,yet.

When we do then we will see that theonly community possible today, given theintegration of the world economy, is a worldcommunity. But to be a real communitythere must be no class division. There mustbe common ownership of the globe'sresources so that they can be used for thebenefit of all the members of the humanrace. We will then recognise ourselves, notas British, French, American, Australian orany of the other labels our rulers impose onus, but as members of the human race,citizens of the world, Earthpeople. Then thesort of narrow-minded nationalismorchestrated on Trafalgar Day - and let'shope it's not going to become an annualevent - will be looked back on with ashudder as a manifestation of a barbarouspast when ruling classes incited people toregard themselves as members of rival,competing "nations".!

Socialist Standard November 2005 3

Forget, forget the 5th of November - and Trafalgar Day

Fawkes


Nature can sometimes do worse things than capitalism. Anearthquake kills 40,000 in a few minutes. A tsunami wipes out200,000 in hours. And now the Department of Health contingencyplan for bird flu in Britain is contemplating a 'not impossible'750,000 deaths if the H5N1 virus goes pandemic. The governmentis buying up 14m doses of Tamiflu, a general-purpose antiviraland probably not very effective prophylaxis against a virus strainthat hasn't evolved yet, which in any case won't be available untilApril next year and is only enough to treat 25% of the UKpopulation. Meanwhile the United Nations is facing wildly varyingestimates of the death toll, from 150m from its own advisors to apaltry 7.4m from the WHO, while newspapers range from tabloid'We're all doomed' sensationalism to an 'It'll be all right on thenight' conservatism from the better informed but possibly morecomplacent qualities.

A pandemic may well be on the way. The government ChiefMedical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, has announced his estimateof 50,000 'excess' deaths (over and above the average annual deathrate of 12,000 each flu season), stating: "We can't make thispandemic go away, because it is a natural phenomenon, it willcome." However, other scientists dismiss the figure of 50,000 as acomplete guess. "It could be worse, it could be better. I thinkinitially it could be worse than that", says Dr Martin Wiselka,consultant in infectious diseases at Leicester Royal Infirmary(BBC News Online, Oct 16).

The problem is that everybody is guessing, and governmentsare not willing to spend money on hunches. Currently H5N1 hasan exceptionally high mortality rate of 50%, but is very hard totransmit, especially from one human to another, which is why only60 people worldwide have so far died. The current guess is thatthe most likely threat is from H5N1 recombining with ordinary fluduring the annual winter flu season. This is known to havehappened during the Spanish flu outbreaks of 1957 and 1968,when the hybrid strain was much less deadly but spread veryrapidly and thus killed more people. On the basis of this guess, abest-case scenario, the government plans to rely on its standardseasonal vaccination programme for at-risk groups includingchildren, old people and asthmatics, with the additional purchaseof the Tamiflu antiviral drug just in case. However, new researchis showing that the 1918 pandemic, thedeadliest ever recorded, which killed between20 and 40 million people, was a pure bird flu,not a hybrid, and that H5N1 is evolving inominously similar ways. The 1918 virusinfected almost everyone on the planet within ayear of its appearance, and without the aid ofmodern transport and cheap mobility (NewScientist, October 8). Donaldson dismissescomparison with the 1918 pandemic becauseantiviral drugs and other advanced medicalpractices were not available then, yet manyscientists are worried that the disease couldspread so rapidly that it will outrun any attempt

to contain it, and the government in any case has rejectedplans to curtail population movement as largely pointless.

Capitalism is no more to blame for bird flu than forthe recent earthquake in Kashmir; however, it can becriticised for its way of dealing with natural disasters andthreats. In capitalism, whatever the urgency, nothing canhappen until agreement has been reached over money.As one example, the EU is currently unable to spend anymoney on purchasing vaccines and antiviral drugsbecause, according to officials, Britain is blockingagreement on the overall EU budget for 2007 to 2013(Guardian, Oct 15). In another less publicised example,scientists have expressed horror that the team which hasrecreated the 1918 virus, 'one of the deadliest viruses ofall time' have been testing it in live mice at only thesecond highest level of containment, and withoutwearing protective suits. The obvious question, when itis known that Soviet scientists in the 70's accidentallyreleased a mild member of the 1918 family of virusesinto the environment, is: why not the highest level ofcontainment? The answer can only be cost. If there is achance to keep cost down, even if it involves a risk,capitalism will exert pressure to take that chance. Itwould be an incredible irony if H5N1 turned out to be acase of mild sniffles but we all died anyway from anartificially recreated laboratory virus because somebody

tried to save a few quid from their research budget.It could also be argued that capitalism's peculiar and illogical

ways of working can conspire to make a deadly pandemic morerather than less likely. The secrecy of the Chinese state-capitalistregime has already held back study on H5N1 as, like the SARSepidemic before it, China has refused to allow researchers accessto samples or to reveal actual mortality statistics. Then there is theincentive for poultry farmers to allow isolated cases of flu to gounreported rather than see their entire stocks destroyed, as hashappened in South East Asia, where billions of birds have beenculled. The manufacture of an effective antiviral drug, once theinfectious strain has been identified, would be enormouslyaccelerated if the drug company making it were to provide thedetails to other drug companies, but in view of the money to bemade by not doing so, we may not be able to rely on such publicspirited cooperation. And if the worst happens, and governmentsgive out the useless advice to stay indoors and not travel, how areworkers supposed to make a living? Will bosses look kindly onany worker who takes a day off sick every time she sneezes or herkids have a temperature? Will banks look kindly on businessesthat curtail activity because of staff absences? Will capitalism lookfavourably on anyone who falters in their perpetual and relentlesspursuit of money because of an altruistic concern for social healthand welfare, or will it instead reward those who have no suchconcerns?

Capitalist governments are gambling that H5N1 won't mutateto humans, or that if it does mutate to humans, it won't be deadly,or that if it is deadly, it won't spread fast, or that if it spreads fast,it will be treatable with an antiviral, or that if no antiviral can bedeveloped in time, that it won't kill anyone rich or important.Workers, as so often in wartime, appear in this calculation in thesection at the end, under the heading 'expendable assets'. We'rejust not worth spending too much money on, provided some of ussurvive to keep working.

Diseases among social animals are common, and since theagricultural revolution brought humans into close and sustainedcontact with other social or herd animals, we have acquired manyof their diseases (over sixty from dogs, for instance). Many ofthese now harmless childhood diseases started life as epidemics

that brought empires to their knees and destroyedcivilizations. A new virus strain unleashed on a virginpopulation is a more terrible event than any volcano,any earthquake or any tsunami, and yet capitalism iscontent to gamble that it won't happen, just as it didover the tsunami, or that it won't be that serious, just asit's doing over global warming. Capitalism is alwaysgambling with our lives in this way, without giving usany say at all. If the gamble comes off, the rich win. Ifit doesn't, we die.

Nature can sometimes do worse things thancapitalism. But to fight them and protect ourselves, weneed something better than capitalism.

Bird flu: howcapitalism couldmake it worse.


Animal testingDear Editors, I am pleased to see you state [Octoberissue] that the abolition of the savagery ofcapitalism will undoubtedly do its part toabolish all unnecessary suffering by non-human sentient creatures. Yet you say thatthe socialist approach to animal testing ispragmatic. What suffering is necessary? Onwhat grounds? How many animal deathsequal one human life?

Animal testing is anything butscientific. Thalidomide tested safe onanimals but when given to humans was adisaster. Drugs for arthritis were harmlessto animals but proved to greatly increaseheart attacks in people. Blue sky testingwhere animals are harmed and killed in thevague hope that something useful, andprofitable, to humans is both daft and cruel.

I hope a socialist world would bemore compassionate with people trying tolive in harmony with the environment andanimals rather than seeing them as assets tobe exploited and plundered for the financialgain of vivisectionists and drugmonopolies. Socialism should abolish theseas well as the many other horrors ofcapitalism.

I am sure there are many peoplesuffering from ailments capitalism can'tcure right now (I would be one) who wouldvolunteer to try new drugs and thereby saveanimal lives while perhaps improving thequality of their own.

TERRY LIDDLE, London, SE9

'Health' systemDear Editors,I become annoyed when I hear of theincreasing numbers of retired workers(hence unexploitable) who are beingreminded by their GPs that their ailmentsare age-related and are told "what do youexpect at your age?" instead of beingoffered proper care. Precious 'health care' isthen devoted to those that capitalism is ableto continue to exploit.

But can multi-million profiteers indrug companies be trusted to be moreinterested in population health than theprofit to be made? Who is able to double-check their laboratory tests and results andhow can study statistics be guaranteed notto have been exaggerated or distorted? Withsuch vast wealth at stake would even acapitalist government really care aboutworking-class health under such rewarding(for them) conditions? It has to be facedthat no capitalist government assists thereally needy - that task is left for charities todo and prop up a system that benefits onlythe wealthy ruling class.

If the health system is unable orunwilling to properly test and cureworking-class patients then I personallybelieve being ignored and left to suffer orbeing officially kept alive to suffer is notgood enough. The obvious third option ofbeing allowed access and advice on how toquickly and efficiently terminate life shouldbe made available.

The utter independence and freedomto choose the time and place of my owndemise certainly appeals to me and is aright I am keen on exercising. If you can

help out with attractive suggestions on howthis can be accomplished it would beappreciated and I can depart - when thetime comes - thumbing my nose atofficialdom who have dictated in life what Ican and cannot do. It would be a great wayto go!

RON STONE, Gelorup, Australia

Blinkered Nationalist Why on earth are you standing in a Scottishseat? Smacks a little of imperialism topeople up here. "Great Britain" is a statefounded for empire - the centre colonisingthe island - it is outdated so anyone with theslightest knowledge of politics now sees"Great Britain" as outdated, hencesupporting independence. You are the onlyparty with "Britain" in the title apart fromthe BNP!

ANON, Livingston, Scotland

Reply: As far as we are concerned,"Great Britain" is merely a geographicalname. And we were the only party standingin the Livingston by-election without"Scottish" on the ballot paper - that'sbecause we don't stand for an independentScotland any more than we stand for anindependent "Great Britain" or even "LittleEngland". We stand for world socialism, aworld community, without frontiers, wherethe resources of the Earth, industrial andnatural, will have become the commonheritage of all humanity - Editors.

Letters

5

UK BRANCHES &CONTACTS

LONDONCentral London branch. 2nd & 4thMon. 7.45. Carpenters Arms, SeymourPlace, W1 (near Marble Arch). Corres:Head Office, 52 Clapham High St.SW4 7UN Tel: 020 622 3811

Enfield and Haringey branch. Tues.8pm. Angel Community Centre,Raynham Rd, NI8. Corres: 17 DorsetRoad, N22 7SL.email:[email protected] London branch. 1st Mon.7.45pm. Head Office. 52 ClaphamHigh St, SW4 7UN. Tel: 020 76223811West London branch. 1st & 3rdTues.8pm, Chiswick Town Hall,Heathfield Terrace (Corner SuttonCourt Rd), W4. Corres: 51 GayfordRoad, London W12 9BYPimlico. C. Trinder, 24 Greenwood Ct,155 Cambridge Street, SW1 4VQ. Tel: 020 7834 8186

MIDLANDSBirmingham branch. Thur. 8pm, TheSquare Peg, Corporation Street. Tel: Ron Cook, 0121 533 1712

NORTHEASTNortheast branch. Corres: JohnBissett, 10 Scarborough Parade,Hebburn, Tyne & Wear, NE31 2AL. Tel: 0191 422 6915 email:[email protected]

NORTHWESTLancaster branch. P. Shannon, 10Green Street, Lancaster LA1 1DZ. Tel:07863 165321

Manchester branch. Paul Bennett, 6Burleigh Mews, Hardy Lane, M217LB.Tel: 0161 860 7189Bolton. Tel: H. McLaughlin.01204 844589Cumbria. Brendan Cummings, 19Queen St, Millom, Cumbria LA18 4BGRochdale. Tel: R. Chadwick. 01706 522365Southeast Manchester. Enquiries:Blanche Preston, 68 Fountains Road,M32 9PH

YORKSHIREHuddersfield. Richard Rainferd, 28Armitage Rd, Armitage Bridge,Huddersfield, West Yorks, HD4 7DPHull. Keith Scholey. Tel: 01482 44651Skipton. R Cooper, 1 Caxton Garth,Threshfield, Skipton BD23 5EZ. Tel: 01756 752621

SOUTH/SOUTHEAST/SOUTHWESTBournemouth and East Dorset. PaulHannam, 12 Kestrel Close, Upton,Poole BH16 5RP. Tel: 01202 632769Brighton. Corres: c/o 52 ClaphamHigh Street, London SW4 7UNBristol. Shane Roberts, 86 High Street,Bristol BS5 6DN. Tel: 0117 9511199Cambridge. Andrew Westley, 10Marksby Close, Duxford, CambridgeCB2 4RS. Tel: 01223 570292Canterbury. Rob Cox, 4 StanhopeRoad, Deal, Kent, CT14 6ABLuton. Nick White, 59 HeywoodDrive, LU2 7LPRedruth. Harry Sowden, 5 ClarenceVillas, Redruth, Cornwall, TR15 1PB.Tel: 01209 219293

NORTHERN IRELANDBelfast. R. Montague, 151 CavehillRoad, BT15 1BL. Tel: 02890 586799Newtownabbey: Nigel NcCullough.Tel: 02890 860687

SCOTLANDEdinburgh branch.1st Thur. 8-9pm.The Quaker Hall, Victoria Terrace(above Victoria Street), Edinburgh. J. Moir. Tel: 0131 440 [email protected] website:http://geocities.com/edinburghbranch/Glasgow branch. 3rd Wednesday ofeach month at 8pm in CommunityCentral Halls, 304 Maryhill Road,Glasgow. Richard Donnelly, 112Napiershall Street, Glasgow G20 6HT.Tel: 0141 5794109 Email:[email protected]: D. Trainer, 21 Manse Street,Salcoats, KA21 5AA. Tel: 01294469994. [email protected]. Ian Ratcliffe, 16 Birkhall Ave,Wormit, Newport-on-Tay, DD6 8PX.Tel: 01328 541643West Lothian. 2nd and 4th Weds inmonth, 7.30-9.30. LanthornCommunity Centre, Kennilworth Rise,Dedridge, Livingston. Corres: MattCulbert, 53 Falcon Brae, Ladywell,Livingston, West Lothian, EH5 6UW.Tel: 01506 462359Email: [email protected]

WALESSwansea branch. 2nd Mon, 7.30pm,Unitarian Church, High Street. Corres:Geoffrey Williams, 19 Baptist WellStreet, Waun Wen, Swansea SA1 6FB.Tel: 01792 643624Cardiff and District. John James, 67

Romilly Park Road, Barry CF62 6RR.Tel: 01446 405636

INTERNATIONAL CONTACTSAFRICAGambia. World of Free Access.Contact SPGB, London. Kenya. Patrick Ndege, PO Box 56428,NairobiUganda. Socialist Club, PO Box 217,Kabale. Email:[email protected]. Mandia Ntshakala, PO Box981, Manzini

EUROPEDenmark. Graham Taylor, Spobjervej173, DK-8220, Brabrand.Germany. Norbert. Email:[email protected] Miller. Email:[email protected]. Robert Stafford. Email:[email protected]

COMPANION PARTIESOVERSEASWorld Socialist Party of Australia.P. O. Box 1266 North Richmond 3121,Victoria, Australia.. Email:[email protected] Party of Canada/PartiSocialiste du Canada. Box 4280,Victoria B.C. V8X 3X8 Canada. Email:[email protected] Socialist Party (New Zealand)P.O. Box 1929, Auckland, NI, NewZealand. Email:[email protected] World Socialist Party of the UnitedStates P.O. Box 440247, Boston, MA02144 USA. Email:[email protected]

Contact Details

Socialist Standard November 2005u056

If this beTreason...

As soon as he could after the bombswent off in London on 7 July TonyBlair came on the TV to address thenation, as is expected of all great

national leaders at times of crisis and danger.His message, in the sense that it had alreadybeen largely worked out for him by themedia, was unexceptional. "This is" he said,"a very sad day for the British people but wewill hold true to our way of life". Whetherthat "way of life" was represented by wagingwar on a country on the basis of lies about itbeing an immediate threat to world safetywith its massively powerful weapons he didnot say. But in case there were any lingeringmisapprehensions about it he plunged on:"When they [the bombers] try to intimidateus, we will not be intimidated".

ProtectionThis use of the words "us" and "we"

was designed to create the impression thatBlair was facing the same dangers, of beingblown to pieces on the London Tube orbuses, as the rest of us. In fact he made hisdefiant speech on a brief break from the G8at Gleneagles, where the participants wereprotected by a high, impenetrable metalscreen backed up by a few thousand policeofficers. When, back in London, he travelsthe quarter mile or so between his home inDowning Street and his workplace in theHouses of Parliament he does not face thesame risks as working Londoners because heis whisked on his journey in a bullet-proofcar, among a swarm of police on motorbikes, through streets which have been sweptclear of other people. By most reasonablestandards anyone who behaves in that waycan be described as "intimidated". Not thatBlair lives by the same standards as the restus, who are merely expendable members ofthe working class.

But after his intimidated bravado Blairhad to give some attention to tracking downthe bombers' organisation and being seen tobe actively working against another suchincident. During this it leaked out that infuture our "way of life" may be subject tothe decisions of secret "anti-terror" courts,ruled over by "security cleared" judges withthe accused being represented by "specialadvocates" who had also been vetted for"security". Other news revealed that some ofthe defendants before such courts, if Britishsubjects, may find themselves charged with

the offence of treason. It seemed fairlyobvious that these proposed changes, in thepanic after 7 July, were designed to induce aretributive thrill among those whoseenjoyment of our way of life made themgrateful for the protection of such a stoutlyunintimidated government.

TreasonTreason is defined as a violation or

betrayal of allegiance which is owed to asovereign or a country, usually throughjoining, or giving support to, enemy in a waror attempting to overthrow the government.This definition is more comprehensive andmore complex than it may at first seem tobe. There have been cases when the personaccused of treason has argued that they werenot of the alleged nationality and so did notowe allegiance to that country or itssovereign. Anyone who regards the world'spopulation as a mass of human beings maymarvel at capitalism's need to disastrouslycomplicate what are essentially simplematters - for which many a lawyer isgrateful. It may be taken as an example ofthis that of the four categories of treasonremaining from the Treason Act of 1351there is still the offence of "violating" thewife of the king's eldest son, which mayhave caused some lost sleep among the menwho consorted with Princess Diana whileshe was still married to the Prince of Wales.

For a long time treason was a capitaloffence and to satisfy the thirst of thepopulation to witness that traitors had gottheir just deserts the sentence was often to behung, drawn and quartered in public. (In factthis sentence was not formally abolisheduntil 1947 - one of the reforms for which theAtttlee government did not, for some reason,claim any credit.) After capital punishmentwas abolished in 1965 treason remained asone of the few offences which could still"attract" (as lawyers are fond of putting it)the death penalty. Wandsworth prison inLondon, just in case anyone was in need ofbeing hanged, kept a scaffold in goodworking order.

CasementOne of the more famous examples of

treason trials, which came to its appointedgrisly end on the scaffold in 1916, was thatof Roger Casement. He was an Irish manwho at the turn of the century had been

7Socialist Standard November 2005

employed as a consul of the Britishgovernment in what was then the BelgianCongo. There he was appalled by the slaveconditions and the butchery imposed on theCongolese people by the Belgian rubbercompanies, under the authority of KingLeopold II. Casement's character wassummed up by his manager, whocomplained that "He is very good to thenatives, too good, too generous, too readyto give away. He would never make moneyas a trader". He retired in 1911, with aknighthood and a British governmentpension and two years later he returned tolive in Ireland where, not entirelyjustifiably, he drew parallels between whathe had seen in the Congo and Irishproblems. In the cause of Irish nationalismhe helped to form the Irish Volunteers, anarmed militia.

When the First World War began headvised Irish men against joining the BritishArmy, on the grounds that the war withGermany was no concern of theirs. On afalse passport he went to Germany with theintention of persuading Irish prisoners ofwar to fight against Britain. This was not aswelcome as he might have hoped; theGermans found him an embarrassment andhastily shipped him, in a submarine, back toIreland where he was quickly captured. Athis trial he tried to argue that he was anIrishman, a case which was fatallyweakened in law by his acceptingemployment as a British consul, aknighthood and a pension. He was quicklyconvicted and executed at Pentonville on 3August 1916. After his death his diariescame to light, providing evidence that hewas not only a traitor but also ahomosexual, which was enough to provokepopular satisfaction that it was entirelyappropriate to do away with him. It was nota time notable for rational assessment ofsuch issues.

JoyceThere were similarities between that

case and of William Joyce, whosebroadcasts from Germany during theSecond World War eventually earned himthe name of Lord Haw Haw and a deathsentence at the Old Bailey. Joyce wasaccustomed to dazzling people with hissomewhat undisciplined knowledge and hisoratory. Organisations found it difficult to

cope with him and he had to leave theArmy, the Conservative Party and then theBritish Union of Fascists. All of this wasexpressed in his virulent anti-semitism;typical of his descriptions of Jews was as"submen with prehensile toes". But for thishe might have done well in the Tory Party(he was once close to being theirparliamentary candidate in Chelsea) and inthe BUF he held a position only a littlebelow that of Oswald Mosley. Joyce wasejected from the BUF in what Mosleydescribed as an economy drive; he went onto form the National Socialist League,which was closer to the Nazis (theirmeetings ended with shouts of "Sieg Heil")but the NSL never made any headway andwas about to be wound up when Joyce wentto Germany just before the start of the war.

Although there is little evidence thatJoyce's broadcasts had any significant effecton the war morale in Britain, he didprovoke a kind of bemused fascination andbecame the stuff of myths and rumours. Atall events his pro-German activities wereenough to ensure that when the war endedhe would be arrested and brought toEngland to be tried for treason. Anticipatingby some 60 years the Blair government'smanipulation of the legal system,Parliament rushed through the Treason Actof 1945, which replaced the elaborate andprolonged trial procedure which had been inforce in cases of treason with a simpler andbrisker style, similar to that of a murdertrial.

It soon emerged that Joyce had aserious defence against the charge. He hadbeen born in the USA of Irish parents whohad become naturalised Americans in 1894.But as a young man he had come toEngland and had applied for a Britishpassport by lying about his place of birth.His defence argued that, however he haddescribed himself, he was in fact not Britishbut the prosecutor - handsome, brilliantHartley Shawcross, Attorney General in the1945 Labour government - persuaded thejury, with a little help from the judge, that"common sense" should override procedure.The long queues which had formedovernight to witness Joyce's trial werehungry for a guilty verdict and it took thejury only 23 minutes to agree. A little overthree months later Joyce, having exhaustedall the avenues of appeal, was executed at

Wandsworth prison. Popular revenge hadbeen satisfied.

Class and PatriotismAmong his admirers Joyce had a

reputation as a relentlessly logical thinker. Itwas a strange kind of logic whichaccommodated his support of Germany'swar effort against Britain with his rabidBritish nationalism. ("The white cliffs ofDover! God bless old England on the lea"he exclaimed to his guard when he wasbeing flown across the Channel to his trial).At the end he tried to escape the hangmanby claiming to be an "alien", which was thekind of accusation he was accustomed tomake, in suitably contemptuous invective,about Jewish people. There was - and still is- nothing exceptional about suchinconsistencies, which expose the fallacy ofpatriotism, with its essential creed of "mycountry right or wrong". Workers, whomake up the majority of capitalism's people,have no country; however the systemarbitrarily divides them according to rulingclass rivalries, the workers are united intheir poverty. For example it was not acoincidence that the number of victims ofrecent disasters such as the Asian tsunamiand the Katrina hurricane was clearlyrelated to the degree of their poverty. If youcould afford it you got out in time; if youcould not afford it.

That its workers should be patriotic isvital to each national ruling class and this,fertilised by official lies, is exploited by allgovernments. Following the 7 July bombsin London one politician after anotherrushed to denounce the bombers for killinginnocent people, as if the British andAmerican forces in Iraq were not also doingthat, on a much larger scale. The responseof the Blair government was very much aswe have come to expect - distortions offacts, the creation of new offences and therevival of the treason charge, designed tostimulate a panic under cover of which thepoliticians could feel free to do what theywould. The strategy in all this was tocement the workers' patriotism, their loyaltyto British capitalism. But as the smoke ofthe bombs cleared and the dead werecounted the central fact remained that forworkers to accept such a weary, discreditedcase is treason against their class.!IVAN

From left: Roger Casement, William Joyce and Wandsworth prison gallows

8 Socialist Standard November 2005

His name is HugoChavez, President ofVenezuela, and he isthe mastermind of the

country's "socialist" revolution,presenting the "threat of thegood example" that continues topanic the USA.

It is understandable whythe left love him when he isregularly heard mouthingslogans and making the kind ofdemands you normally see in

papers like Socialist Worker.Addressing the 2005 WorldSocial Forum in Porto Alegre,Brazil, earlier this year Chavezsaid:

"It is impossible, withinthe framework of the capitalistsystem to solve the graveproblems of poverty of themajority of the world'spopulation. We must transcendcapitalism. But we cannot resortto state capitalism, which wouldbe the same perversion of the

Soviet Union. We must reclaimsocialism as a thesis, a projectand a path, a new type ofsocialism, a humanist one,which puts humans and notmachines or the state ahead ofeverything. That's the debate wemust promote around the world,and the WSF is a good place todo it."

By all accounts, Chavezwas not inebriated or stonedwhen he made this statement.He was sober and deadlyserious. He had never talkedabout much socialism before,only about being a "Bolivarian",a humanist and a supporter ofthe Cuban revolution. But nowhe bandies the word "socialism"around with the glee of a fiveyear old learning a newschoolyard profanity, andregularly mentions Marx,Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg.

"Socialism" is thebuzzword of Venezuela's"Bolivarian Revolution" (socalled after Simon Bolivar wholed the army that freedVenezuela from Spanish rule). Itis a word Chavez is keen toexpunge of what he sees as itsnegative connotations, namelystate capitalism - despite thefact that he seems unclear justwhat is meant by the term.Speaking recently to seniorheads of the country's military,Chavez asked that they carry thequestion of socialism "into thebarracks", to initiate debate andto reassess everything they hadhitherto been told aboutsocialism and to help strengthenthe ideological offensive.

In the TV programme AloPresidente, broadcast on 1September, he pleaded forVenezuelans to "leave to oneside the ghosts with which theidea of socialism has beenassociated" and revealed theresult of an independent opinionpoll carried out in May and

June. He informed his countrythat 47.9 percent said theypreferred a 'socialistgovernment', that 25.7 percentsaid they preferred a capitalistgovernment and that some 25percent were yet to respond.

Since Hugo Chavezdeclared that the way forwardfor Venezuela was to steertowards socialism, this hasturned into the main debatewithin the "revolutionaryBolivarian" movement, and

society generallyReforms

Chavez's heart may be inthe right place, even if he issomewhat muddled as to themeaning of the word"socialism," and he may wellhave decent intentions. But his"socialist" agenda amounts tolittle more than one vastreformist programme that islargely being financed by thecountry's oil, which is currentlyselling for five times its 1999price.

The generous profits fromoil price rises have gone intofinancing programmes toimprove health, provide cheapfood, extend educational access,and to organise some landreform. Chavez has initiatedoperations aimed at endingpoverty and improving theeconomic and cultural lives ofVenezuelans. He is keen oneducating the population vialiteracy drives. He is re-nationalising universities andbuilding new housing. The statehas taken over some sections ofindustry and a TV station hasbeen set up to transmit the"socialist" ideas of theBolivarian "revolution".

While Chavez faces a lotof opposition in urban centres, itis clear why, in the poorworking class shantiessurrounding the city, support forthe government is vocal andwidespread.Cooperatives

Chavez, is also keen onworkers' cooperatives. In his 1September TV broadcast hepointed out that the kind ofcooperative he is proposing isone that "generates collectivewealth through joint labour,going beyond the capitalistmodel which promotesindividualism". If companyowners found the goingdifficult, he said, the state wasprepared to come to their aidwith low interest credit, thoughon the understanding that "theemployers give workersparticipation in management,the direction and the profits ofthe company." And whichcapitalist could resist that offer?Chavez observed that 700closed companies had beenidentified with a view toexpropriation; that many hadassets and the machinery readyto start producing.

Expropriation comes at acost to worker organisationhowever. The first company tobe taken over was the paper millVenepal, now renamed Invepal.There, union leaders broke upthe union - against the betteradvice of others in the tradeunion movement - and now lookforward to buying out the state'sstake in the company so theywill have sole control over

Hugo Chavez:revolutionarysocialist or leftwingreformist?

For years, the Left in Britain and elsewhere,have sung the praises of Fidel Castro andChe Guevara, ready always to defend the"gains" of the Cuban revolution as thatcountry withstood everything the US had tothrow at it. Now there is a new revolutionaryon the block, cast in the Castro mould,flicking the V's at Western imperialists as heimplements social reform after social reformand, like Castro, winning the applause ofradicals around the world.


company and profits.Overnight, former militanttrade unionists have turnedinto aspiring capitalists.

As far as the US isconcerned with Venezuela,the "good example" that the"Bolivarian revolution"poses is the least of theirproblems at the moment.The real concern stems fromthe fact that Venezuela hasconsiderable oil wealth.Venezuela is the fifth largestoil exporter in the world - 13per cent of the world's oilcomes out of the country -and Chavez controls thelargest oil supplies outsideof the Middle East.

At a time of rising oilprices, instability in theMiddle East, and with Chinaemerging as a majorchallenge to US economicinterests in the near future,Chavez earlier this yearsigned an agreement withChina's vice president ZengQinghong, smoothing theway for the ChineseNational PetroleumCorporation to invest in thedevelopment of Venezuelanoil and gas reserves. Chavezfurther agreed to sell fueland crude oil to China atreduced prices tocompensate the highshipping costs of oil to EastAsia.

Moreover, Caracasrecently signed up to amuch publicized agreementfor a group of sales repsfrom the Venezuelan state oilcompany to be trained by

Iranian experts on strategiesfor penetrating the Asianmarket.

And who else doesChavez cosy up to? Noneother than arch enemy of USconservatism Fidel Castro.In the past two years,Venezuela has supplied Cubawith vital shipments ofsubsidized oil to ease thecountry's perpetuallyfaltering energy andtransport systems, and in

return Cuba has sent anarmy of professionals toVenezuela to help theongoing social programmes,inclusive of 14,000 doctors,3,000 dentists, 1,500 eyespecialists and 7,000 sportstrainers.

And then there areVenezuela's recent armspurchases - 40 helicoptersfrom Russia, attack lightaircraft and 100,000Kalashnikovs from Brazil -which will no doubt providethe Bush regime with theexcuse to channel still moreweaponry to neighbouringColombia, escalatingregional tension and thelikelihood of futureinstability.

Little wonder the US isbecoming a mite anxious atthe ongoing antics of theLatin American upstartChavez. And just to makematters a little moreprecarious, Chavez hasrepeatedly made it plain thatif the US starts flexing itsmuscles at Venezuela thenhe would not hesitate to cutof all oil exports to the USA.

Pat Robertson, tele-evangelist, entrepreneur,one-time presidentialcandidate and close friend ofthe Bush family,undoubtedly expressed thesentiments of many US neo-cons when, speaking on hisTV show on 22 August, hereferred to Chavez as "adangerous enemy to oursouth, controlling a hugepool of oil, that could hurt

us badly". He went on:"You know, I don't knowabout this doctrine ofassassination, but if he[Chavez] thinks we're tryingto assassinate him, I thinkthat we really ought to goahead and do it. It's a wholelot cheaper than starting awar, and I don't think any oilshipments will stop."

Acknowledging thatthe US had the ability tobump Chavez off, Robertson

continued: "I think that thetime has come that weexercise that ability. Wedon't need another $200billion war to get rid of one,you know, strong-armdictator. It's a whole loteasier to have some of thecovert operatives do the joband then get it over with."

Robertson's "un-Christian" outburst quicklybrought condemnation fromthe Republican hierarchy,keen to keep Bush awayfrom further criticism.Whilst Robertson may claimnot to know "about thisdoctrine of assassination",the simple fact is thatconsecutive US governmentshave attempted, arranged orsupported the elimination ofscores of leaders around theworld. That Chavez haslasted so long is undoubtedlydue to the internationalattention he has attracted oflate.

Venezuela is no nearersocialism than Russia waswhen it claimed to haveestablished it. Not only is itthe case that it is impossibleto establish socialism in onecountry, but it could neverbe established by a leader. IfChavez can take his countryinto socialism, which isdownright absurd, then someother leader could just aseasily lead them out of itagain. Similarly, the reformshe has implemented could betaken away the moment he isremoved from office.

Despite his popularityamongst the poor that couldwell carry him to anotherelectoral victory next yearand assure Venezuela ofanother six years ofBolivarian reformism,Chavez is compelled bycircumstances to governwithin the confines ofcapitalism..

The country still has amonetary system. The banksand big business,particularly oil interests, arestill in private hands. Therehave been no seizures ofland. International oilcompanies have bent overbackwards to provide newinvestment, in spite ofVenezuela having increasedthe royalties that they haveto pay. There is stillcommodity production, stillexploitation, still trade onthe terms laid down byinternational capital and stillarmed forces ready topdefend the economicinterests of Venezuela'scapitalist class. !JOHN BISSETT

Things canonly getworseAlthough Labour waselected to office in1997 to the sounds of'Things Can Only GetBetter', Blair is nowsinging a different tune. In the past theLabour Party used to argue that thestate could, and should, be used toprotect people from the worst effects ofworld market forces, through suchmeasures as import controls, tariffsand subsidies to protect homeindustries and the employment theyprovided, and bans on the export ofcapital so that it was invested at home.Such views are still held by tradeunionists, Leftwing reformists and theGreen Party (which has taken over theLabour Party's discarded policies inthis area).

Blair now derides this as "theEuropean social model of the past" andis actively campaigning to get other EUgovernments to abandon it too. In hisLeader's speech to the annual LabourParty Show in Brighton he told theaudience (they can hardly be calleddelegates since the resolutions theypass count for nothing):

"In the era of rapid globalisation,there is no mystery about what works:an open, liberal economy, preparedconstantly to change to remaincompetitive. The new world rewardsthose who are open to it. … Thetemptation is to use government to tryto protect ourselves against theonslaught of globalisation by shutting itout - to think we protect a workforce byregulation, a company by governmentsubsidy, an industry by tariffs. It doesn'twork today. Because the dam holdingback the global economy burst yearsago. The competition can't be shut out;it can only be beaten" (Guardian, 28September).

In other words, as the othermember of the Thatcher-Blair MutualAdmiration Society used to put in:TINA. And, given capitalism, they areright; there is no alternative. WhatMarx called the "coercive laws ofcompetition" can't be overcome; theyhave to be applied, not just bycapitalist enterprises but bygovernments too.

But at what cost to workers andsociety in general? It means runningfast - in fact, running faster and faster -just to stand still, continuallyintroducing new methods oforganisation and production so as tobe able to keep down costs and wardoff or beat the competition. It's a raceto the bottom, involving, for those whoactually produce and distribute thewealth of society, speed-ups, stress,precarious contracts, deregulations,redundancies, retraining, changing jobs- and the scrap heap for those whocan't keep up.

And, despite Blair's optimism,there is no guarantee that, even withthese changes, British capitalism willcome out on top - who sayscompetition, says losers as well aswinners. Capitalism really is a rat race,or rather a treadmill, from which there'sno relief.

Cooking the Books (1)

Soldier of Christ: Pat Robertson says ‘kill the unbeliever’.


Acult is generally consideredto be a group thatindoctrinates its membersinto regarding themselves as

a select group different from the rest ofsociety. Some, but by no means all, suchgroups seek to isolate themselves. A typicalexample would be the closed PlymouthBrethren who avoid association with "theungodly" (you and me). But others, such asthe Scientologists and the Moonies activelyengage with the rest of society in order togain new recruits.

Cults are organised around acharismatic leader whose views areregarded as authoritative. The leader issurrounded by a group of seconds whotransmit his or her views to the otherfollowers. New members are encouraged tobreak off all relations with their previouslife, often to change their name andsurrender their property to the group; theyare encouraged to identify totally with thegroup and to subordinate their individualityto it.

In some cases so total is theidentification that the followers can be

persuaded tovoluntarily follow their

leader in committing suicide, asnotoriously in 1978 when some 900members of the "Reverend" Jim Jones'People's Temple cult committed masssuicide in Guyana and in 1997 when 39members of the Heaven's Gate cult did soin California. The 7 July suicide bombers inLondon could be another example.

But how can humans be persuaded tokill themselves for what most people cansee is a delusion? A recent attempt toexplain this has been made by Janja Lalichin her book Bounded Choice, subtitled 'TrueBelievers and Charismatic Cults'(University of California Press). Herexplanation is given in the book's title: bymeans of a number of psychologicaltechniques to which the cult membersvoluntarily, and often eagerly, submit, theycome to so identify themselves with the cultthat their freedom of choice becomeslimited - "bounded" - to those offered by itsideology, however bizarre this might be.

Thus, for instance, in the Heaven'sGate cult, which is one of her two case

studies, the members came to believe thatthey really were aliens who had assumedhuman form and who were striving toreturn to their previous higher level ofexistence. Given this core belief, it was alogical - "bounded" - choice to decide toleave their human bodies, considered asmere "vehicles", to await rescue by an alienspaceship their leader told them was hiddenbehind the Hale-Bopp comet that was thenpassing by the Earth.

From 1975 to 1985 Lalich was amember of a Maoist group in San Franciscocalled the Democratic Workers Party. Thisis her second case study. Having ourselvesbeen many times labelled a "sect" we arenaturally wary about the concept of a cultbeing applied to political organisations. ButLalich makes out a good case for describingthe DWP as a cult - in view of the type oforganisational and psychological techniquesemployed, as by some religious groups, toweld the members to their organisation andits leaders - though one, of course, morelike the Moonies than the Closed Brethren.And it is true that the Leninist principle of avanguard party of professional

“Marriage and children arediscouraged so that the

professional revolutionaryhas only a loyalty to the

group”

The Cult of the Professional Revolutionary


revolutionaries does, outside the politicalcontext of an openly repressive regime, lenditself to the would-be professionalrevolutionaries being organised as a cult.

We are of course opposed to Leninistorganisational methods but we can see how,in the context of Tsarist Russia, a vanguardparty organised on hierarchical andsecretive lines would be one political optionfor anti-Tsarist revolutionaries, even if not asocialist form of organisation. TheBolshevik Party could not legitimately becalled a cult; it was a political organisation.But why, in conditions of relative politicaldemocracy allowing people to organiseopenly, would some want to organise onsuch a basis? Why would anyone want toorganise a corps of professionalrevolutionaries when there was no politicalnecessity to do so?

The DWP aimed to be a party ofdisciplined, full-time professionalrevolutionaries under a strong leader,dedicated to serving the cause of "theproletariat" (perceived, in accord withLeninist theory, as being incapable of actingby and for themselves). The party wasorganised on a hierarchical basis with theLeader at the top surrounded by a smallstaff, an intermediate level of departmentheads (appointed and revocable by the topleadership) and the ordinary rank-and-filemembers.

There were three levels ofmembership: trial, candidate and general:

"All General Members had full votingrights and were considered full-time, whichmeant they were to be on call, at the Party'sdisposal, twenty-four hours a day. TrialMembers had no rights; they were to learn.If the Trial Membership stage was passed(based on study, level of participation andgood behavior), then appropriate leadershippersonnel commended that the youngmilitant be moved up to the status ofCandidate Member, with partial politicalrights".

As in the Heaven's Gate cult, allmembers had to adopt a new name:

"Once a Party name was chosen, onlythat name was to be used; and immediatelynew members learned others' Party names.Militants were never to reveal their realname to other members, not even toroommates. Party names were used in allmeetings or gatherings, in all DWP facilitiesand in all houses where members lived. Forthe new member, taking on a name was thefirst stage in losing his or her pre-Partyidentity and assuming a Party-molded one".

And to sacrifice their income andproperty:

"The dues structure was set up so thateach militant gave over all monies receivedabove a group-determined living amount,set at approximately poverty-levelstandards. All monetary or substantial gifts(such as a car), job bonuses, legalsettlements, and inheritances were turnedover to the Party".

The poverty-line income forcedmembers to live together in communalhouses, thus making them even moredependent on the party and its leaders. Itsleader (one Marlene Dixon) did not have tolive on the poverty line, but had othermembers assigned to cook and clean for her.

The DWP was committed to theLeninist concept of "democraticcentralism". On paper this means that thereis a full discussion of some policydocument but that, when it has been

adopted, all members, including those whovoted against it, have to be committed tocarrying it out. Some Leninist groups do tryto operate on this basis, allowing thepreliminary democratic discussion, but notthe DWP. According to Dixon, in adocument entitled 'On the Development ofLeninist Democracy':

"[D]emocracy is a method for theselection of leadership and a method ofassuring that the most developed and testedcomrades, the cadre, the bones of a Leninistparty, govern the party".

What this meant in practice was: "[T]he leaders would give a

presentation on a change in direction ofsome work, or would open a denunciationof a militant for some error. Each militant

present was expected to say how much heor she agreed with what was just said".

Members were subject to publicsessions of criticism and self-criticism inwhich they had to confess to any "pettybourgeois" failings or lapses the leadershippointed out to them. There were alsosanctions for breaches of discipline (andeven a security service trained by an ex-Marine):

"Given the emphasis on obedience anddiscipline members understood that theycould be sanctioned for not following rulesor for in any way breaking the discipline.Militants were 'punished' in a variety ofways besides submitting to collectivecriticism sessions and writing self-criticisms. More practical sanctions, forexample, were increased quotas, extra workduty, demotion from a particular position orfunction, removal from a practice, andinstructions to leave a workplace or ceasecontact with a particular person. In moreserious cases, there were periods ofprobation, suspension, or even house arrest(which could mean being confined andguarded by security forces)".

It might be wondered why themembers put up with such a regime.Lalich's explanation is, once again,"bounded choice" in that they hadconvinced themselves, and had had thisconviction continually reinforced by thegroup's practices, that such a hierarchically-disciplined party was necessary to furtherthe cause of the proletariat. In the end theydidn't put up with it. When Dixon was awayon a trip to Europe in November 1985 theother leaders, including Lalich, met anddecided to expel Dixon and dissolve theorganisation.

It's a disturbing story but is oneconsequence of the application of theLeninist theory of a vanguard party ofprofessional revolutionaries in conditionsother than a political despotism. All

Leninist groups engage in some of thepractices described by Lalich, for instance,different levels of membership, leadership-dominated meetings and a willingness onthe part of the members to be told what todo. That doesn't mean that all Leninistgroups are cults in the sense that the DWPwas. But some are. It is clear, for instance,from their external behaviour that theSparticist League (who publish WorkersHammer) must be and there is documentedevidence that the French Trotskyist groupLutte Ouvrière and the 'left communist'International Communist Current are. In his1999 book La vraie nature d'Arlette ('TheTrue Nature of Arlette' - Arlette Laguiller,LO's permanent presidential candidate) thejournalist François Koch describes LOmilitants as "soldier-monks", because oftheir self-imposed life-style (marriage andchildren are discouraged so that theprofessional revolutionary has only aloyalty to the group). In 2000 a group of ex-members of the French section of the ICCpublished a pamphlet Que Ne Pas Faire?('What Is Not To Be Done?') which exposedsimilar practices to some of those describedby Lalich in the DWP (an older, charismaticleader; adoption of a new name; an order-giving hierarchy; interrogations; a securityservice).

Because these organisations use someof the same terminology as we do - even tothe extent of allowing us to engage in anapparently rational debate with them overthe best way to get rid of capitalism - thissort of thing discredits the whole idea ofsocialism and organisation for socialism.Fortunately, a Leninist vanguard party ofprofessional revolutionaries is not the onlyway that those who want socialism canorganise. There is another way, which we inthe Socialist Party have adopted andpractice: an open, democratic organisationin which all members have an equal say andin which policy is made by a conference ofmandated branch delegates or by areferendum of the whole membership; inwhich there is no leadership and where theexecutive committee's role is merely tocarry out policy decided by conference orthe membership, apply the rulebook, dealwith correspondence, pay bills, etc withouthaving any policy-making powers.

With such an organisational structureit is simply inconceivable that anythingremotely like what happened in the DWPcould happen nor indeed like what happensin non-cultic but still leadership-dominatedLeninist organisations such as the SWP.

Leninists imagine that workers areonly capable of reaching a trade unionconsciousness and flatter themselves thattheir consciousness as a vanguard is higher.Actually, it's the other way round. Mosttrade unions have democratic constitutions,even if largely these days only on paper.The Leninist theory of organisation is athrow-back to political conditions such asexisted in Tsarist Russia, and itsintroduction into more politically-developedWestern Europe following the coming topower of the Bolsheviks in Russia has beenan unmitigated disaster for the workingclass and socialism. As a theory ofleadership it is anti-socialist and to berejected on political grounds. In practice itcan easily lead to such aberrations as theDWP and so is to be rejected on grounds ofhuman dignity too.!ADAM BUICK

Vanguardist: Lenin

It sounds like a silly question,doesn't it? Of course we

need money: we need it topay our rent ormortgage, to buy foodand clothes, topurchase cinematickets and DVDs, and

so on. There's noquestion that, withthe worldorganised the wayit is, we do needmoney, and wecouldn't livewithout it. Creditcards and cheques

make no difference,they are justdifferent ways ofpaying by money, so

that we don't have tocarry huge amounts ofnotes and coins aroundwith us.

But let's step back a bit andask ourselves, why do weneed money? It's becausewe can't get hold of the

food, clothes, tickets or DVDs, oroccupy our house or flat, unless wehave the money to pay for them. Wecan try to take food or whateverwithout paying, but if we're caught wewill very soon be toldthat this is theft and it'sagainst the law, andwe'll be punished for it

in some way.Basically, it has

been decided (butby who?) that peoplein general cannot gethold of things (moreformally, cannot gainaccess to them) unlessthey pay. Thepayment transfersownership from theshop or supermarketor manufacturingcompany to thecustomer. Onceyou've boughtsomething, you canthen do more or lesswhat you like with it.

So the money isjust a means ofsaying 'This is mine,not yours'. And that'swhat the shop issaying too: 'Unlessyou pay us, you can'tuse this.' Now, fromsome points of view,

this is a strange way ofgoing about things. In the

first place, some areas of

our lives aren't arranged like this at all. Manypeople do things for other people - lend or givethem something, or perform some service -without expecting any payment: they do this outof friendship or for their neighbours or familymembers. Furthermore, not everything we wantto have access to requires payment. Usually wecan all go to the local park without having topay to get in. Many towns have free shuttlebuses to transport people around the towncentre, or to and from the local railway station.But try to travel on the train without a ticket andyou'll be in trouble.

However, let's just imagine that the worldwas run differently, that everything was free(though in that case the concept of 'free'presumably wouldn't mean anything!). Supposeyou could go to the supermarket, collect thefood you wanted for yourself and your family,and then just leave without having to queue atthe checkouts. You'd probably choose the best-quality food without having to worry about itscost. In fact, since nobody would have to buycheap and nasty food, all the food availablewould be top quality. There'd be no point intaking more than you needed, because you'dalways be able to go back and get more if youran out, and it's just wasteful (and, in fact, daft)to take lots of milk and bread, say, if you knowyou won't be able to use them.

This probably sounds like quite a goodidea, but would this same principle work withclothes rather then food? Wouldn't people justwant masses of clothes, and always from the topdesigners and brand names? Well, let's just thinka bit about the implications of a world withoutmoney along the lines I've just begun todescribe. Nobody will be able to show off byflaunting an expensive dress or tie, and nobodywill want brand names or designer labels sinceanyone can have them (if they still exist) so abrand name won't mean anything. Quiteprobably people will still want to look smart andattractive, but this won't be by wearing clothesthat 'cost a fortune'. And like food, there wouldbe no point in having lots of clothes lyingaround in a wardrobe gathering dust: people

Do

We

Need

Money?


would just take from the shops orwarehouses what they wanted for theirpersonal use, not what would be intended toimpress others. Also, since nobody wouldprofit from selling more clothes, therewould be no relentless pushing of newfashions each year.

So it's not difficult to imagine a worldwithout money, a world where what peopleconsumed and enjoyed would not be limitedby the size of their wage packet, whereeveryone could gain access to the best ofeverything. But again, questions arise.Would there, for instance, be enough to goround? Well, think firstly, about how mucheffort, and how many people's work, goes

into money and all its paraphernalia.It's not just the shopworkers whosework is mainly or entirely concernedwith money. There's everyone whoworks for a bank or insurancecompany, who deals with accountsand prices, who issues or collectstickets. In a world without money,these people and many others (thosewho manufacture guns, for instance)would devote their labour toproducing goods that people need.The money system doesn't justprevent people gaining access to whathas been produced, it also seriouslyreduces what is produced.

But then again, would peoplework in a world where there was nomoney and they were not gettingpaid? Yes, they would. Thealternative, after all, would be a lifeof idleness, which may be great for atwo-week holiday period everysummer but soon becomes veryboring. Work, too, would be made asenjoyable as possible, which means itwould be safe, satisfying and fun.People would enjoy working witheach other, never doing one kind ofwork for too longbut appreciatingthe variety thatcan be provided.Producing useful

things is pleasant initself.

You can see that aworld without moneywouldn't just be liketoday except that there would be no pricetags on anything. Rather, it implies acompletely different way of organisingthings. For a start, production would becarried on for use and not for profit. Thismeans goods would be produced becausethey satisfied people's wants and needs,rather than because they produced a profit.In such circumstances, dangerous, unhealthyand shoddy goods would never see the lightof day, as there would be no reason toproduce them. In addition, the factories,

offices and land would not be the exclusiveproperty of a small number of millionaires,which is what happens now. Instead, theywould be owned by everyone (which isequivalent to saying they would be ownedby no one). And they would therefore becontrolled by everyone, not by a smallbunch of owners.

But it doesn't stop there. There wouldbe no need for governments either, becausegovernments exist to run the system onbehalf of the small number of people whoown the lion's share of the wealth. It's thegovernment, for instance, that runs thepolice and court systems that will teachanyone who takes without paying a lessonabout who owns what. Along withgovernments, there'd be no countries either,because the division of the world intocountries simply suits the interests of theowners in particular parts of the world. Norwould armies be needed, as they fight forthe owners against the armies of the ownersfrom other countries, in disputes over accessto raw materials like oil.

A world without money also means aworld without poverty, because that's theflipside of money controlling access tothings. 'No money, no chance' is the current

motto, but one that resultsin the obscenity ofdestitution and starvation ina world that could easilyprovide plenty for all.

So doing away withmoney would also meandoing away withgovernments, countries andarmies, as well as the

division into rich and poor. We, the humaninhabitants of the planet, don't need money -it gets in the way and stops us fromenjoying this world and what we couldmake of it. One word for the world withoutmoney is socialism, but it's not the namethat matters, it's the idea. If the idea soundsattractive to you, then you should find outmore about the SocialistParty and our views. !Paul Bennett

MoreconservativemottosThat wage increases causeprice increases is an old lie. Thisassumes that capitalist firms canraise the price of their productsat will. But they can't. They canonly charge what the market willbear. Workers are in a basicallysimilar position. But the marketfor products and the market forlabour power are two differentmarkets. Assuming that firmsare charging what the marketwill bear - and they'd be foolishnot to - then, if the labourmarket allows the workers achance to push up wages, firmsjust have to live with increasedcosts and lower profits for thetime being.

It is because wageincreases eat into profits - notbecause they supposedly cause"inflation" - that employers fightthem and, as far as they and themedia are concerned, any oldargument, even one that's not

true, will do to oppose anddiscredit groups of workersdemanding a wage increase.

In any event, even if awage increase in a firm did leadto an increased price of thatfirm's products, that would notbe inflation, which is an increasein the general price level. Suchan increase can come about forvarious reasons - increaseddemand for products in a boom,a fall in the value of gold whenit's the money-commodity, andan overissue of a inconvertiblepaper currency. Even though thedouble-digit inflation of the1970s is over, inflation still existstoday and is mainly caused byinflating the currency. The Bankof England has a remit to inflatethe currency by 2 percent ayear. Which is why both pricesand wages tend to increaseannually by more or less thisamount, depending onconditions in particular markets.

The view that wageincreases cause price increaseshas long been argued over. In1865 the General Council of theInternational Workingmen'sAssociation in London devoted

four meetings to discussing it. Atthe last of these Marx decisivelyrefuted the argument in a lecturethat was published after hisdeath as a pamphlet Value,Price and Profit. This has nowbeen republished, under whatwas its original title of Wages,Price and Profits, by theCommunist Party of Britain,which publishes the MorningStar and which is the realpolitical successor to the oldCommunist Party of GreatBritain (and not to be confusedwith another group which hasusurped this name and whichpublishes a paper called theWeekly Worker).

After explaining whyworkers should always press forthe highest wages they can get,Marx famously urged theunions:

"Instead of theconservative motto, 'A fair day'swage for a fair day's work!' theyought to inscribe on their bannerthe revolutionary watchword,'Abolition of the wages system!'"

In his introduction, RobertGriffiths of the CPB's EconomicCommittee can't ignore this and

has to pay lipservice toMarx bywriting thathe held that"workerswould foreverbecommoditiesto be exploited until capitalismand its wages system wereabolished". But he then ignoresthis completely, going on toadvocate that unions should aimat, as well as higher wages,"statutory price controls", "betterstate benefits and pensions","more public services", "controlson the export of capital". All ofwhich assume the continuationof capitalism.

If Marx returned today weknow what he would say:Instead of the conservativemotto 'statutory pricecontrols/better state benefits,etc, etc' the unions ought toinscribe on their banners therevolutionary watchword'Abolition of the Wages System'.

Cooking the Books (2)

On the Road to Nowhere

“'No money, no chance'is the current motto, butone that results in theobscenity of destitutionand starvation in a worldthat could easily provideplenty for all.”



There Are Words forIt...

Around five thousand languages arespoken at the moment, a numberlikely to be halved by the end ofthe twenty-first century. This is

partly due to the impact of the world's'major' languages, such as Spanish, Russianand (above all, of course) English. AsEnglish becomes a truly global language,the main language of films, popular musicand the internet, not only do its words findtheir way even into languages like German,but it completely displaces many local orminority languages. The decline in numbersis also caused by the growing role of'national languages', those taught in schoolsand recognised as a country's main languageof communication. TupÆ, for instance,once widely spoken in Brazil, is now downto a few hundred speakers, pushed out bythe expansion of Portuguese (though it willlive on in words it has given to English,such as jaguar).

Endangered languages like this haveexisted throughout history, but are now farcommoner than previously. The reasons forthis are usually seen as straightforwardlypolitical:

"large centralized political units (boththe old-fashioned empire and the all-modernnation state) cause the total number oflanguages in their territory to decline. In so

far as the world goes on being apportionedin such units, the total number of languagesin the world will go on falling." (AndrewDalby: Language in Danger)

This statement is correct as far as itgoes, but it plays down the economicfactors behind language death. Languagesdecline and die when the communities oftheir speakers are disrupted (by conquest,exile, disease, and so on) or when childrengrow up speaking in daily life a languageother than that of their parents. This canhappen for various reasons, one being thatthe 'new' language is seen as a means ofeconomic advancement, perhaps justbecause it has more speakers and can offerbetter employment prospects or a biggermarket. Languages with a few thousand, oreven a few million speakers, can hardly'compete' with English, the language ofinternational business.

Even the way a language is writtencan be affected by political and economicconsiderations. After the collapse of the

Russian Empire in 1991, the governmentsof the new countries of Azerbaijan,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan decided toswitch from the Cyrillic to the Romanalphabet to write their respective nationallanguages, which are all related to Turkish.This was partly due to anti-Russiannationalism - the Cyrillic alphabet, which isused to write Russian, having been imposedby Stalin in the 1940s. But it is also clearlymotivated by a desire to attract tourists andbusiness visitors and to make it easier forpeople there to learn English. Returning tothe Arabic alphabet (which was used inthese countries before the Cyrillic) wouldhave been possible, but would not haveserved the new rulers' westernising aims.

Besides undermining the status oflanguages, economic factors can lead to thecreation of new languages. In The Power ofBabel, John McWhorter traces the origins ofRussenorsk, a kind of mixture of Russianand Norwegian, which came into being inthe nineteenth century when Russian tradersbrought timber to Norway every summer tosell. Russenorsk was a very basic kind oflanguage, useful for bartering and variousother kinds of social interaction, but notusable for political debate or discussion ofany abstract ideas. Languages like this aretermed pidgins, and they usually arise whentwo groups of speakers come together inspecific circumstances. Many NativeAmericans at first spoke Pidgin English

BUSHMEN AND THE PROGRESSOF CAPITALISM

It has been estimated that the so-called Bushmen of the Kalaharihave lived in southern Africa for at least 20,000 years, but thatcuts no ice with the zealots hell-bent on the development ofcapitalism in that part of the world.

"The Bushmen of the Kalahari - among Africa's lastindigenous peoples - are on the verge of losing their ancestralhomeland after the Government of Botswana stepped up acampaign to force them into squalid resettlement camps" (Times, 12September). The government has sent heavily armed wildlife guardsinto the Central Kalahari Game reserve - an area that had beenpromised to the Bushmen "in perpetuity". Their aim is to removesome 200 to 250 Gana and Gwi who have returned there from theresettlement camps. The Times report continues: "Stephen Corry,director of Survival International, which has been highlighting theBushmen's plight, said: 'The Government seems hell-bent onfinishing them off this time. The situation is very urgent. Unlesscircumstances change through outside intervention, this could verywell be the end of these particular people'".

The plight of the Gana and Gwi people is by no meansunique. The development of capitalism crushes all the tribal

societies itcomes intocontact with.In the past wehave had theslaughter ofthe nativeAmericans inthe USA, thebutchery of theAustralianaborigines andmore recentlyof theYanomami inNorthernBrazil. Theconcept of atribal societythat lives bygathering and

hunting with no recourse to capitalism's markets is anathema to aproperty-based social system.

The Botswana government has destroyed the tribal wells andbanned hunting in its efforts to restrict tribal groups. The growth offarming and diamond mining probably lie behind the government'srecent actions. Some government ministers have hinted that theevictions are needed because deposits of diamonds have been foundin the area, although the state diamond company, which is anoffshoot of De Beers claim they are uneconomic to mine."However, De Beers doesnot rule out mining themat a later date."

The development ofcapitalism in Africa mustcrush tribal communitiesjust as it did in Europeand America . The onlyhope for a communal life-style is not a return toprimitive tribal society,but the transformation ofpresent day privateproperty, profit-producingsociety into the new socialsystem of world socialism.!

Bushmen of the Kalahari Australian aborigines

Yanomani of Venezuela


Is Marxism dead?Surely before we cheer or weep over the bier of Marxism we

should clearly identify the corpse. What exactly do wemean by Marxism?

Marxism is a materialist method of interpreting history; anexplanation of social class and a labour theory of value. However,rather than getting involved in Marx's rather complicated theories,it is simpler to look at his vision of a proposed alternative tocapitalism, which he called socialism (following Robert Owen) orcommunism - he and the pioneers of the socialist movement usedthe terms 'communism' and 'socialism' interchangeably.

Marx saw wage labour and capital as two sides of the samerelation and affirmed that one could not exist without the other. Headvised workers to remove from their banners the conservativeslogan of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and instead inscribe'Abolition of the wages!' He saw the state - by its nature - as anexecutive committee of a ruling class and held that in socialismgovernment of people would give way to asimple, democratic administration of things.

In other words, Marx's vision of socialismwas of a social system of common ownership ofthe means of production, the resources of natureand the means of distribution essentiallyachieved by a conscious democratic process andadministered necessarily by the widest possibleforms of participative democracy.

It is important to emphasise - howeverobvious it should be - that the wageless,classless, moneyless and stateless world heenvisaged could not be established by other thanthe conscious democratic action of a majority.

Today Left and Right are meaninglessterms; each is one side of the spectrum ofcapitalism; and, because both accept to take onthe political stewardship of capitalism, economicand political necessity frequently means theyadopt each other's positions. Always when theLeft gains power it creates dissidence within itsown outer ranks when its aspirations clash withthe requirements of the system and the capitalistruling class.

In Britain today, 'Old Labour' - with a veryshort memory of old Labour governments! -bemoan the activities of Blair, Brown, Straw,

Blunkett and Clarke. We should remember that most of these menwere Lefties and CNDers and that none of them invented 'Blairism'.Blairism and its outcrops are simply the logical application of theillogical reformist thesis that capitalism can be made to function inthe interests of the working class; a bit like saying that theslaughterhouses can function for the benefit of the cattle.

Socialism/communism has never existed anywhere, nor couldit exist in just part of the world, because it is the global alternativeto a decadent global system. Socialists in open debate withupholders of capitalism will shatter their arguments and throw itsphilosophers to the wind. But the political agents of capitalism havelearnt never to attack socialism as Karl Marx envisaged ; insteadthey attack a perversion of Marxism which they call Marxist-Leninism - a contradiction in terms - or the limping incompetenceof Left reformism in government,

Those who want to see socialism must first unequivocallydelineate what they mean by the term, as all scientific practice callsfor. Once this is done, it can be seen that socialism as advocated byMarx is still very much alive. !

Doyou think we could

run the slaughterhouse inour own interest,

Daisy? Ithink you’d find our

aspirations clashing withthe requirements of the

system, Daffodil.

when speaking to white people, whilemaintaining their own languages too.Unlike Russenorsk, which was a genuinemixture, this Pidgin English consistedalmost entirely of words from the languageof the dominant group - English - sinceEnglish-speakers rarely had any desire ormotivation to learn a local language. This isthe usual situation: the language of theconquerors or colonists provides thevocabulary of the pidgin, which theconquered people have to use to talk withtheir new masters.

Pidgins often die out after a while: thesubordinate group may well adopt the

language of their conquerors, as happenedin North America. Russenorsk ceased to beneeded when the Russian Revolution put anend to the timber-trading. But sometimes apidgin is expanded to become a full-fledgedlanguage, not one just used for a fewspecial purposes, but one with its ownindividual structure and a vocabulary aslarge as that of any 'normal' language. Apidgin which has become a full languagelike this is called a creole; formation of acreole usually happens when peoplespeaking different native languages andonly sharing a pidgin are brought together.McWhorter mentions the case of Sranan, acreole spoken in Surinam, on the northerncoast of South America. This was a British-owned slave colony, and slaves fromvarious parts of Africa who were broughtthere had only Pidgin English in common atfirst. This eventually expanded to becomeSranan, which is widely spoken in Surinamnowadays, alongside Dutch.

In fact the slave trade is thecommonest causal factor in the origins ofcreoles. This appallingly cruel andimmensely profitable system of trading inhuman beings resulted, among other things,in millions of people being uprooted fromtheir homes and families, transported acrossthe world, and set to work in desperate andscarcely-believable conditions. It shouldcome as little surprise to learn that many

languages of the West Indies are creoles(Jamaican creole, for instance), as is TokPisin, one of the official languages of PapuaNew Guinea. As creolised forms of pidginEnglishes, these still have vocabularies thatare partly derived from English, but theyare absolutely not debased forms ofEnglish. The languages of other colonisingnations have also given rise to creoles, suchas a Portuguese-based creole in the CapeVerde Islands in the North Atlantic, and theFrench-based creole spoken in Haiti. AsMcWhorter says, "most creoles have arisenamid conditions of unthinkably stark andineradicable social injustice."

One, rather controversial, claim is thatthe development of agriculture about tenthousand years ago led to the wiping out ofmany languages, as cultivators expandedtheir territories and settled down, thusoverrunning existing groups of hunter-gatherers, who may well each have spokentheir own language. Be that as it may, thereis no doubt that capitalism, with itsglobalisation and its tendency to makeeverything homogeneous, is now killing offlanguages like nobody's business. Anexamination of the current state andhistorical development of the world'slanguages shows how capitalism leaves itsugly footprints everywhere, even in the waywe speak. !Paul Bennett


It's another day with a 'Y' in its name, sothe government must be attackingbenefits scroungers again. The routinepieties of the modern political age are to

talk about 'helping people' out of 'thebenefits trap' and 'back into work' - joiningthe perennial political duties like cutting redtape and reducing government spending.The reason why these problems never goaway is because they are problems causedby the very system which puts thepoliticians in power, and which they cannotresolve without destroying themselves andtheir own elevated statuses.

David Blunkett - now returned to thecabinet after resigning last year for abusinghis office for personal gain in helping hislover's nanny get a visa quicker - has beenmaking loud noises about the 'crackers'Incapacity Benefit system. It is Blunkett'srole to sound like a bruiser, to talk toughand act tough, seen by many as appealing toLabour's core constituency - former Toryvoters on council estates. He bemoaned thecontinuing rise of people on incapacitybenefits (many driven there by previousefforts to try and cut benefits claimants,helped by staff driven by targets to reducecertain types of benefits).

There are currently 2.7 million peopleon incapacity benefit in the UK, withsomething like 29 million people inemployment (possibly the highest UKfigure ever). According to the BBC, that isfour times the number of IB recipientscompared to 30 years ago. Of course, manythings have changed since then, not least thestructure of the benefits system as a whole.Blunkett, however, still wants to drasticallyreduce the numbers on incapacity.

Revealing his new status as a medicaldoctor, Blunkett pronounced that getting outto work is a better cure for depression thanstaying at home watching daytime telly.This startling revelation must have shockedhis fellow healthcare professionals who hadbeen labouring under the impression thatdepression is a medical ailment of the brainas much as a break is a medical condition ofthe leg. Perhaps Blunkett will now advise abrisk walk as a cure for that.

Behind the tough rhetoric, though, asever with the modern Machiavellian LabourParty, is some old-fashioned Old Labour-style reforms: plans to make the benefits

system 'a ladder to self-reliance' and to giveassistance with training and finding jobs topeople who are on IB. Simplification of thesystem may actually help people who aresupposed to be too ill to work but have tobe well enough to run from pillar to post tofill in their 2,000 page benefits claim formsigned in triplicate in blood. Or somethinglike that.

This is cut from the same cloth as theNew Deal and all their previous schemes to'help' the unemployed back to work bybadgering them and managing them intobeing full-time professional job seekers. Ofcourse, this runs counter to any notion thatthey can quickly cut costs. This month alsosaw the National Audit Office reveal thatonly 5% of people on IB were able toaccess back to work schemes. To assistmore people through such structures willactually increase the cost of managing thebenefits, not decrease it, as massiveexpansion would be required.

This is the central conundrum forgovernments: caught between a realproblem beyond their control, trapped bytheir own eternal propaganda of costcutting, they cannot pursue their eternalpropaganda of getting people off benefits.Instead, all we have is a Groundhog Day ofpronouncements and denouncements as theMinisters try to be seen doing something,usually by trying to portray the people whoare dependent on benefits as somehowculpable and at fault for the whole of thecosts of the benefits system.

Politicians are struggling to define thetypical benefits recipient, to legitimise theidea of welfare so they can attack it andreduce costs and also increase downwardspressures on wages and the labour market.Most people in the UK are probably onlytwo pay cheques away from needing to callon benefits, but rather than portray it as asystem to help people and preventcatastrophe it is universally presented as alocation of cheats, frauds and scroungers,riddled with layabouts and otherundeserving poor types. Benefits and beingon benefits is to be despised and feared.

Despite this, though, people arecompelled to claim them because of thewages system, because they are too ill towork or because work is not available. Thebenefits system actually benefits employers

who otherwise would face the costs anddisruption of having to keep on peoplewhose illness makes them turn up to workirregularly, who would lie in desperation togets jobs about their illnesses, and pushmuch of the cost currently borne generallythrough taxes directly onto capitalists whoemploy many workers.

Herein is the rub of the £3 billion lostfrom the system by fraud and 'error' - muchof it will have been small sums given topeople which will have made their liveseasier. Some of it will have contributed tothe real living needs of claimants. The realtragedy is not the fraud or the overspend,but that much of the £109 billion budget iswasted assessing people, categorisingpeople and cheeseparing their entitlements.There is enough food, clothing and housingto go round. The world today is not shortof wealth. In order, though, to maintainlabour discipline, to keep the labour marketin existence, a massive welfare budget mustbe expended to deny access to the thingspeople need.

The simple fact is that we live in asociety overripe for socialism. The materialpossibility has been around the corner foryears. When we remove the barriers to theaccess of wealth, we also remove thebarriers that make some peopleunemployable, that make socialising andcommunity a cost that has to be scraped outof local authority and social servicesbudgets. We would remove the binds, theneed to support a restrictive welfare systembut simultaneously to attack it and try toreduce its budget, by the principle ofproducing freely together.

Socialists, unlike leftists, do notsupport the welfare state, do not see it as away to socialism, but as an inevitable partof capitalism, of administering poverty.The abolition of poverty - not in far-flungimagined foreign fields where poverty isvividly drawn by the masters ofpropaganda, but on the very streets wherewe walk and it is painted out by those sameillusionists - will mean an end to thewelfare ideology. With luck, it will alsomean seeing less of David Blunkett's facerevelling in his own 'stern compassion'.!

PIK SMEET

DoubtfulBenefitsMinisters try to portray the peopledependent on benefits as somehowculpable for the whole cost of thebenefits system. “Bruiser”:

Blunkett


Gilded SocialismDarrow Schechter: Beyond Hegemony.Manchester University Press. £55.

This turns out to bean attempt to workout a philosophicaland sometimesn e a r l yincomprehensible(at least outside thelittle world ofacademia) basis foran alternative toliberal democracy( f r e e - m a r k e tcapitalism), social-d e m o c r a c y

(regulated capitalism) and what Schechtercalls "state socialism" (state capitalism).

Schechter identifies that what is wrongwith these is that all three of them involvecommodity production and consumption("production for exchange and the generationof money and capital rather than direct use"),and that the alternative has to be a systemwhere there is production directly for use.Unfortunately, he sees the answer in theUtopian scheme devised in the 1920s by theLabour historian (and Labour Party activist)G.D.H. Cole, which he called "GuildSocialism". Although Cole's blueprint didprovide for close links between consumersand producers which could be interpreted as"production directly for use", it stillenvisaged the continuation of finance, pricesand incomes. And it was to come into beingthrough the guilds eventually outcompetingcapitalist industries in the marketplace(though, to be fair to Schechter, he doesn'texplicitly endorse this and may well notsupport it).

But if Schechter stands for "GuildSocialism" why doesn't he just campaign forit? Does it really need the elaboratephilosophical basis he has constructed for it?Perhaps it's just that university lecturers haveto publish to justify their jobs.ALB

Dreadful CatalogueJessica Williams: 50 Facts that ShouldChange the World. Icon £6.99.

The obviousreaction to the titleis to say that it'speople that changethe world, not facts.But JessicaWilliams begins byclaiming that thefacts she hasassembled canchange the waypeople think. Thei n f o r m a t i o ngathered here does

indeed provide many reasons why the worldneeds to be changed.

Much of what is said will probably befamiliar to readers of the Socialist Standard.One in five of the earth's population go

hungry each day, for instance, while oneBritish child in three lives below the povertyline, and life expectancy is strikingly low inmany countries, especially in Africa. Othersare perhaps not so appalling: is it really sobad that Brazil has more Avon ladies thanmembers of its armed forces? But many willfind much that is new and enlightening here.For example, far from slavery having beenabolished, there are more slaves in the worldtoday (27 million) than at any timepreviously. More people die from suicidethan from armed conflicts: in 2000 aroundone million people killed themselves and atleast ten times that number tried to do so.What sort of world is it in which so manyfind their lives insupportable to this extent?

Or where over two hundred millionchild labourers exist? In nine countries,same-sex relationships are punishable bydeath, while over 150 states make use oftorture. One third of the world's populationlive in countries involved in armed conflict,and black American men stand a one-in-three chance of going to prison at some timein their lives. Two million women aresubjected to female genital mutilation eachyear, while over one million people are killedin road traffic accidents.

The book presents a dreadful catalogueof poverty, violence, degradation and waste,a vivid picture of 21st-century capitalism, allbacked up with useful references. Williamsadds commentary of her own, together withideas for solving the problems. Some of thisis OK - she recognises that famine andmalnutrition are not caused by foodshortages. But far too much of it is concernedwith what governments should do and how'we' should influence them. The real lessonto draw, though, is that we truly do need tochange the world, not just get the rulers tobehave in a more enlightened way.PB

The Measure of All ThingsPostmodern Humanism. By JackGrassby. TUPS books. 2005. £9.95

Until the 1960s Secularists, Rationalists andFree Thinkers as they were variously calledhad a reputation, rightly or wrongly, of beingnegative god-killers, bible-debunkers andpriest-baiters. Then, in 1963, a group whichfelt the need to appear more positive set upthe British Humanist Association. They stillseem to be working out what their positivecase is beyond promoting a non-religious butstill ethical approach to life. Recently theyset up a working group to examine their corevalues. Jack Grassby is a member of theNorth East Humanists and his book isintended as a contribution to this debate.

It is not certain that it will appeal to hisfellow Humanists as he embraces twoapproaches most of them would not normallylike any more than we do: sociobiology (withits biological determinism) andpostmodernism (with its rejection of anyuniversal human values). Also, it contains anumber of embarrassing howlers, such asstating that homo sapiens emerged from theNeanderthals and that Socrates preached that"man is the measure of all things" whereasthis was the view of the Sophists thatSocrates set out to rubbish. Come to think ofit, "man is the measure of all things" could

well be the core-value that the Humanists aresearching for.ALB

Simply OddA Rebel's Guide to Lenin. Ian Birchall.Bookmarks. £2.

This is an odd, 58-page top-pocket-sizepamphlet. Odd because it is written in verysimple language and seems to be aimed atschoolkids who might be influenced byanarchist ideas.

Thus, Birchall tells us, "Lenin's goalwas the same as the anarchists', but herecognised that the path it would becomplex". Yes indeed, by means of thedictatorship of a vanguard party whichwould last for years and which would,supposedly, in time give up its power andprivilege and abolish the state.

Birchall quotes from ex-anarchists whocame over to the Bolsheviks such as AlfredRosmer and Victor Serge and tells us thatLenin "spent hours discussing withanarchists such as Emma Goodman from theUS and Makhno from Ukraine" and arguedthat "the syndicalist idea of an 'organisedminority' of the most militant workers andthe Bolshevik idea of the party were the samething".

This may have worked in the aftermathof the first world war and the Russianrevolution to temporarily win over a numberof anarchists and syndicalists, but it is hard tosee it working today to get any buddinganarchists to join the SWP.ALB

17

Book Reviews

Correction

Two mistakes found their way into the article"Why They Dropped the Bombs" in theOctober issue. The date of the Potsdamultimatum to Japan was 26 July not 21 Julyas stated and there was a reference to acomment of the Joint Intelligence Committeein "March 1940". Readers will have realisedthat this cannot have been since the US andJapan were not even at war at that point. Itshould of course have read "March 1944".

Declaration of PrinciplesThis declaration is the basis of ourorganisation and, because it isalso an important historicaldocument dating from theformation of the party in 1904, itsoriginal language has beenretained.

ObjectThe establishment of a systemof society based upon thecommon ownership anddemocratic control of themeans and instruments forproducing and distributingwealth by and in the interest ofthe whole community.

Declaration of PrinciplesThe Socialist Party of GreatBritain holds

1.That society as at presentconstituted is based upon theownership of the means of living(i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.)

by the capitalist or master class,and the consequent enslavementof the working class, by whoselabour alone wealth is produced.

2.That in society, therefore, thereis an antagonism of interests,manifesting itself as a classstruggle between those whopossess but do not produce andthose who produce but do notpossess.

3.That this antagonism can beabolished only by theemancipation of the working classfrom the domination of the masterclass, by the conversion into thecommon property of society of themeans of production anddistribution, and their democraticcontrol by the whole people.

4.That as in the order of socialevolution the working class is thelast class to achieve its freedom,

the emancipation of the workingclass will involve the emancipationof all mankind, without distinctionof race or sex.

5.That this emancipation must bethe work of the working classitself.

6.That as the machinery ofgovernment, including the armedforces of the nation, exists only toconserve the monopoly by thecapitalist class of the wealth takenfrom the workers, the workingclass must organize consciouslyand politically for the conquest ofthe powers of government,national and local, in order thatthis machinery, including theseforces, may be converted from aninstrument of oppression into theagent of emancipation and theoverthrow of privilege, aristocraticand plutocratic.

7.That as all political parties arebut the expression of classinterests, and as the interest ofthe working class is diametricallyopposed to the interests of allsections of the master class, theparty seeking working classemancipation must be hostile toevery other party.

8.The Socialist Party of GreatBritain, therefore, enters the fieldof political action determined towage war against all otherpolitical parties, whether allegedlabour or avowedly capitalist, andcalls upon the members of theworking class of this country tomuster under its banner to theend that a speedy terminationmay be wrought to the systemwhich deprives them of the fruitsof their labour, and that povertymay give place to comfort,privilege to equality, and slaveryto freedom.

18 Socialist Standard November 2005

TROUBLE IN SCHOOLFew of us have seen a jungle but all

of us know, from the adventure stories weread in childhood, what a jungle is like. It isa dark, dangerous agglomeration of weirdflora and horrid fauna, where the nativesare permanently hostile. Fang, claw andpoisoned dart lie in wait and savage,malignant creatures leap, crawl and slithereverywhere, all the accompaniment ofwar-whoops and gibberings.

And that, according to recentaccounts, is how things are in schoolthese days. At the same time as "TheBlackboard Jungle" was first shown in thiscountry, the News Chronicle (early inSeptember) published "Jungle in theClassroom," a series of three articles inwhich Dr. John Laird reported on London'ssecondary modern schools. Five of theseschools comprised Dr. Laird's jungle: theyare, he claims, typical of the rest. In them

children run amok; teachers are resisted,ridiculed, even assaulted; educationalstandards are almost incredibly low. About30 per cent of the children leave school"unable to read much beyond the level ofan eight-year-old child, and unable to writea letter that would be easily deciphered."

Not surprisingly, there were indignantdenials. "Sensational and one-sided,"wrote Sir Ronald Gould, of the NationalUnion of Teachers; "fantastically distorted .. . absurdly untrue." The Secretary of theLondon Head Teachers' Association. Anofficial of the London County Councilaffirmed their view; so did most of theteacher who sent letter to the NewsChronicle. Few, however, dealt with thefacts, and certainly none mentioned thatDr. Laird is not the first to have said allthose things: little more than a year ago anovel called "Spare the Rod" painted asimilar picture of secondary modernschooling and wrung from the Times anadmission that "it probably has some truth

in it."The secondary modern school is the

lowest, most prolific unit in the Stateeducational system of this country. It looksafter the children between 11 and 15 whohave not passed scholarshipexaminations, whose parents cannotafford private school fees or don't careanyway. It sets out to impart the minimumof necessary knowledge and inculcate anumber of basic social attitudes. To saythat is not to accuse the ruling class ofconspiracy, but simply to point to whateducation means in any society: theequipment and adjustment of the youngfor what they have to do.

(From an article by R. Coster,Socialist Standard, November 1955)

Fifty Years Ago

MANCHESTER BRANCHMonday 28 November, 8pm

DISCUSSION ONPREJUDICE

Hare and Hounds, Shudehill, CityCentre

MeetingsCENTRAL LONDONBRANCHMonday 14 November, 7.45 pmCarpenters Arms, Seymour Place,W1 (near Marble Arch)

'DON'T TAKE ME TO YOURLEADER'A discussion meeting on socialistviews on leadership will be openedby Stan Parker

CENTRAL LONDONDAY SCHOOLSaturday 12 November, 13.30 to 17.00

THE HUMAN REVOLUTION

13.30 Welcome. Tea. Coffee. Biscuits.14.00 Guest Speaker: Chris Knight(Professor of Anthropology, Universityof East London)Chair: Bill Martin (Socialist Party).16.00 Tea break16.30 More questions and discussion

Room 7, Friends Meeting House, 173Euston Rd, London NW1 (opposite Euston mainline station;nearest tubes: Euston, EustonSquare).

NORWICHSaturday 5 NovemberWelcome and informal chat for newvisitors1pm: Meal2pm: Discussion/possibility offorming an East Anglian branch3pm: Discussion of ADM items3.45-4pm: Recent and future activity.

The Conservatory, back room of TheRosary Tavern, Rosary Road,Norwich

19Socialist Standard November 2005

The Respect ThatMakes Calamity

When was it that TonyBlair decided thatRespect would be anattractive, vote-catching

election theme? Was it a long timeago, before he had felt the first stirrings of political ambition and wasmerely a rebellious, disrespectful schoolboy? Or later, when he wassafely ensconced in Downing Street and his son was collected from aWest End gutter after disrespectfully celebrating the end of hisexams? Whatever the truth of this, the theme now looks about tobecome another New Labour obsession. Here is Blair, speaking onthe steps of Number Ten after his victory in the 2005 election,vowing to bring back "A proper sense of respect in our schools, in ourcommunities, in our towns and villages". And here is Charles Clarke,a Labour Home Secretary doing his best to forget his past as a stroppyleft winger: "Tackling disrespect in our society is an absolute priorityfor the government".

Blair has made it clear where he thinks the blame lies for anyshortcomings in this matter: "it is in the family that we have to cometo terms with the idea of give and take and respect for other people".And what if the family does not come up to these expectations? Well,"People need to understand that if their kids are out of control andthey are causing a nuisance to the local community, there issomething that is going to happen". And that "something" is to applyParenting Orders, now to be extended and strengthened, which forceparents to be instructed in how to bring up their children - teachingthem to respect others, give up their bus seat to an old lady, stand upwhen the national anthem is played, always wear their full schooluniform and obey the general laws and orders of capitalist society. Ifthe parents succeed in this and their kids behave in an orderly,respectful way, Blair will be a happier man and, the argument runs,New Labour will win yet another election.

StrawThis is all very well, but as a spokesperson for the children's charityBarnado's pointed out, it is not only children who are the cause ofnuisance behaviour and it is not only in family homes and schoolsthat the problem reveals itself. There was the recent example ofLabour Party member Walter Wolfgang, who was so lacking inrespect for figures of power and authority that he recklessly calledout, slumped in his seat at Labour's conference, that ForeignSecretary Jack Straw was a liar. At the time Straw was only doing hisjob, giving the conference (which was very sparsely attended at thetime) the Labour Party line, perhaps flavoured by a Foreign Officebrief, that Iraq was attacked in order to get rid of Saddam Husseinand establish a modern democracy there, whatever the Iraqi peoplethought about it. Now, the Foreign Secretary holds one of the greatoffices of state, is a person of considerable influence and standing insociety (although in the unusual case of Jack Straw his standing, forreasons connected with the ruthless game ofpolitics, is rather lower than is the custom) whoshould command respectful silence when he istelling lies. It is no excuse for Wolfgang to arguethat he was carried away by the contrast betweenStraw's original doubts about the invasion of Iraqand his passionate support of it now. It is anessential of being respectful to keep extremes ofemotion - like outrage at a blatant, cynical betrayal- strictly under control.

It was especially unwise of Wolfgang to interrupt Jack Strawwho, when he was Home Secretary, was liable to become excited indiscussing the symptoms of social disturbance. It was Straw who firstpublicly condemned the "squeegee bandits" - people who, withoutthe driver asking, cleaned the windscreens of cars which were haltedat traffic lights. We never did hear what happened to all thosedangerous criminals who went about their nefarious business withwet sponges in their hands - and Straw forgot about them as well.Then he complained about his evening drive home from the officebeing marred by the spectacle of young people out on the streets laterthan a respectable Home Secretary thought they should be. Thatparticular neurosis lingers on, in the ASBOs and the campaign aboutrespect. And it was Straw who had to take his son to a police stationafter he had been exposed by a tabloid newspaper for offeringcontrolled drugs for sale. Not, in other words, someone for Wolfgangto tangle with. It is just as well that Straw was so effectively protectedfrom him.

CaseyUnfortunately, when Wolfgang embarked on hisone-man campaign to wreck Labour'sconference there was not enough time to referhim to his local branch of the new anti-socialbehaviour units (of which more later), with aview to cracking down on his parents who, asBlair has told us, must be held responsible for

raising so disruptive a character. This was clearlyconsidered an unrealistic option when Labour's

spin doctors were told about Wolfgang's age. So it was entirelyappropriate - indeed there was no other way - for a couple ofimpressively beefy, enthusiastically respectful, Labour Partymembers who had volunteered to police the conference, to eject himfrom the hall. Along with another member who was disrespectfulenough to protest at an 82-year-old man having his collar felt in thatway. Perhaps now Wolfgang, like other offenders against the law, willbe taught to keep his place by being deprived of his state benefitsunder the rules dreamed up by David Blunkett, who used to be HomeSecretary but is now in charge of the Department of Work andPensions.

Meanwhile the new task force with the job of teaching respectto people who heckle government ministers is getting down to itsvital work. At its head is Louise Casey, who was already in charge ofthe Anti-Social Behaviour Unit. Her new job requires her to "focus"(a word much loved by New Labour hopefuls) on "working togetheron the neighbourhood renewal and anti-social behaviour agendas,highlighting respect for others and respect for the community."Whatever talents Casey can bring to this task, sensitive publicrelations is not among them. A few weeks before her newappointment, when she was merely the ASBO tsarina, she informedan audience of Home Office staff and senior police officers that"Doing things sober is no way to get things done…I suppose youcan't binge drink any more. I don't know who bloody made that up.It's nonsense…There is an obsession with evidence-based policy. IfNumber Ten says bloody evidence-based policy to me one more timeI'll deck them and probably get unemployed."

QuestionsAll over the country breath will be bated while we learn what kind of"respect" Casey will introduce us to. Wolfgang will probably beparticularly apprehensive. Meanwhile Labour has been mostgenerous in its response to his deplorable lack of respect for one oftheir senior politicians. One minister after another queued up to offertheir humblest apology to him. Party chairman Ian McCartney wentso far as to promise to take him out for a meal - a traditionallypacifying treat for stroppy pensioners - although whether eating incompany with the myopically loyal Labourite McCartney would benutritious and mollifying, or further punishment, was not clear. Asthe dust settled it had to be asked whether the apologies and thethreatened dinner with McCartney were motivated by the fact that theLabour stewards had so clumsily committed their assault onWolfgang in full view of the TV cameras. For some viewers it wasreminiscent of Mosley's infamous fascist rally at Olympia in 1934. Ifthere had not been the same damning TV exposure, would all thoseministers have been so eager to grovel?

There are other questions which need to be asked in the wholematter of "respect". What kind of "respect" was shown by Jack Strawwhen he changed his mind over something as important as the war inIraq? What sort of "respect" is shown by the Blair government's driveto undermine the established legal rights of people who are arrestedby the police? And on the other side, what degree of "respect" do wefind in the attitude of someone like the heckling Wolfgang, whoundisturbedly keeps his membership of both CND and the LabourParty, although he must know that there is no prospect of thisgovernment, or any future Labour government, agreeing to throwaway their nuclear weapons? Let it be clear. Having respect forpeople and our environment - acknowledging and caring for eachother's strengths, needs, weaknesses, ambitions - is not compatiblewith capitalism's essentially competitive, repressive nature.Capitalism makes heroes of those who rise to the top, no matter howruthlessly they achieve that. Tony Blair, for example, did not getwhere he is by allowing himself to be diverted through any respectfor truth and human interests. And then what about the people - theworking class - who in their millions support capitalism's politicalparties through thick and thin, disaster and triumph, contempt andrespect? They need to understand that in the mouth of a politician"respect" is a fine but meaningless word. Unhappy and disillusionedpeople like Wolfgang should know this because they haveexperienced "respect" at the sharp end.!IVAN

Walter Wolfgang

Former ASBOtsarina Casey

Produced and published by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UNISSN 0037 8259

THE RICH GET RICHER "The US's richest tycoons increased theirpersonal wealth in the past year, with thetop 400 worth $1.13 trillion (£640bn), saysForbes magazine.... To make this year'slist of the top 400 fortunes in the US aminimum net worth of $900m wasrequired - up from $750m last year." (BBCNews, 23 September) The old popularsong "Aint We Got Fun" cynically stated"The rich get rich and the poor getchildren", but it is no laughing matter.

YOUR TWO CENTS WORTH An analysis of the gap between the richand poor in Manhattan by Dr Beveridge ofthe CityUniversityof NewYork isrevealing."IncomeDisparity inCityMatchesNamibia.TrumpTower onFifth Avenue is only about 60 blocks fromthe Wagner Houses, a public housingproject in East Harlem, but they might aswell be light years apart. They epitomisethe highest and lowest earning tracts inManhattan, where the disparity betweenrich and poor is now greater than anycounty in the country. ... The top fifth ofearners in Manhattan make 52 times whatthe lowest fifth make - $365,826compared with $7,047 - roughlycomparable to the income disparity inNamibia. ... Put another way, for everydollar made by households in the top fifthof Manhattan earners, households in thebottom fifth made about 2 cents." (NewYork Times, 17 September)

BIG SPENDER "The minute he walked in thejoint, they could tell he was areal big spender. ... By the timehe left the Aviva bar in the five-star Baglioni Hotel inKensington,West London, onThursday night, he had spentnearly £36,000. He bought 851cocktails, emptied the place of

Louis Roederer Cristal champagne, andgave a waitress a £3,000 tip. (Times, 1October) This hedge fund manager fromNew York spent £16,500 on champagneand £6,000 on a variety of cocktails. It canbe safely assumed this high-roller doesnot live in the Wagner housing project inEast Harlem.

DOUBLETHINK According to George Orwell in 1984,doublethink is the power of holding twocontradictory beliefs in one's mindsimultaneously, and accepting both ofthem. This spectacular mental gymnasticfeat seems to have been accomplished byKaren Hughes, a public relationsspokesperson for President Bush in herrecent trip to the Middle East. Trying tosugar the pill for her Turkish listeners shecame out with this classic of Doublespeak."To preserve peace, sometimes mycountry believes war is necessary."(Observer, 2 October)

PROGRESSING BACKWARDSSome years ago the press and TV wasfull of conjecture about the wonderfulleisure-based life we would have insidecapitalism. Futurologists and other mediapundits speculated that with the advanceof technology we would all be workingfewer hours and fewer days per week.The big problem of the future would behow to spend all our leisure hours. Suchscenarios have proven completely wrongwith many of us now working longer hoursand now it seems probably working formany more years. "The state pension ageshould be raised to 70, the Confederationof British Industry says in light of newfigures detailing extended life expectancy."(Times, 4 October)

THE DIGNITY OF LABOURIn an edited extract fom Maxwell's Fall: An

Insider's Account by Roy Greensladewe learn something of the contemptthe owning class feel for the workingclass. When Maxwell took over TheDaily Mirror he wanted to speak toKelvin MacKenzie then the editor ofThe Sun but his secretary reported thatMacKenzie would not accept his call."Maxwell demanded that the secretaryrelate the conversation in full, but she

was hesitant."No, no, no,"screamedMaxwell. "Tellme everythinghe said." Shesaid she wouldprefer not to,but Maxwellshouted: "Youwill not get intotrouble,Patricia. But if you refuse, you will be introuble. "Well, Mr Maxwell, he said, "Idon't want to speak to the fat Czechbastard." Two weeks later Patricia left intears, escorted from the building by asecurity man (Times, 6 October).

THE DECLINE OF RELIGION It used to be an argument of supporters ofcapitalism that socialism was impossiblebecause of the working class's adherence

to religion. A recent article by thecolumnist Magnus Linklater sems to givethe lie to that notion. "Whereas in 1851between 40 and 60 per cent of thepopulation went regularly to church, todaythat figure is less than 7 per cent. Inrecent years the trend has accelerated -by 28 per cent in the last 20 years for theCatholic Church, and 24 per cent for theAnglican Church; in Scotland, the fall hasbeen so dramatic that the once all-powerful Kirk reported recently that itcould well be extinct as an organisationwithin the next 50 years." (Times, 13October) Any other arguments againstsocialism?

by RiggFree lunch

Documents

socialist-standard-2005-1215-nov