The Road To Socialism

 

The road to socialism is not easy, that’s for sure. Two hundred years after the word ‘socialism’ was first used we still seem no closer to realising it. For the most part socialists content themselves with opposing the forces of reaction that rage around us. But, if all we do is stand on the sidelines shouting that things could be better we are little better than those men who used to frequent town centres with their ‘The End Is Nigh’ signs. Still can’t decide whether they were genuinely crazy or amazingly prescient.

 

I am going to propose that the mistake of the left historically is to over-estimate their own role in the process. This is based, in part at least, in my understanding of the Hegelian influenced views of Karl Marx which came to be called dialectical materialism. What this unwieldy sounding phrase means is that things hold within them the seeds of their antithesis. To put that simply, if you think of a daffodil, it was first a bulb. The bulb held within it the daffodil, and in becoming a daffodil the bulb was transformed out of existence.

 

Apply this to society and we can suggest that as capitalism transformed feudalism out of existence, so socialism will (eventually) transform capitalism out of existence. Socialism is not a break from capitalism, but rather it’s completion. For those who think of socialism as a totally different sort of society this might take a little convincing. The fact is without capitalism there could not be socialism. For it is capitalism, big bad nasty capitalism, that has provided socialism with all the tools it needs for the future socialist society. 

 

Think of the tools we have, and try to forget about how the tools are in others hands for a moment. We already have democracy, we have expanded the productive capabilities of the Earth to provide in abundance for everybody (admittedly not without some environmental issues), we have roads, rail, and an infrastructure even the Romans would have envied, we have hospitals, schools, farms, factories, even offices and shops at least some of which might still be useful. Perhaps, most crucially we have technology which allows us to connect beyond our immediate environs. Indeed, almost everything we need to take humanity to a new level already exists. So when people say what will socialism look like, the answer is much like this only better and arranged to the benefit of all not a few.

 

This all being true there are a couple of minor hitches. Namely, the avaricious rich and the comfortable, smug, middle classes who do all they can to support the rich. Unfortunately, between them these groups control parliaments, war machines, propaganda industries and indeed just about everything else. So, how do we prise their control from them?

 

One possibility, the one dreamed of by generations of socialists, includes the equivalent of storming the Bastille. Or, an armed insurrection a la Fidel Castro. I’m not saying these would not be effective or desirable but they would also involve many people giving their lives in what might well be a futile gesture. There is nothing romantic about being dead incidentally. But I see this happening another way. Change will most likely come at a time of shortages and hardship, as people take to the streets against their rulers, and as their rulers lose their legitimacy by failing to provide the basics. The middle classes, so important in maintaining the status quo, will lose faith in the ruling class and quite likely defect to the class that seems best equipped to provide it with something resembling the lifestyle to which they feel they are entitled (entitlement figures large in middle class life, as I’m sure you know).

 

Harvard academic Erica Chenowith has calculated that it takes just 3.5% of the population to affect radical change. But the crucial factor in successful movements are general strikes which, she says “are probably one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, single method of nonviolent resistance.” A successful “revolution” can not occur by disgruntled middle class lackeys turning on their erstwhile providers. They do not have anything like the power they like to think. 

 

I hesitate here to use the word revolution because it has become a cliché. And, whilst revolutions do occur they are usually the end of an evolutionary process. But, the transformation to socialism is likely to be brought about by general strikes of manufacturing workers who still comprise a sizeable portion of the workforce. In the USA almost 12 million workers are employed in manufacturing. In the U.K. in 2018, according to government statistics, manufacturing accounts for 10% of GDP, but 42% of exports. It employs almost 3 million people.

 

What Marx called the industrial proletariat has not disappeared as many sociologists would have you believe, but has simply relocated. Of course, general strikes will involve more than just industrial workers: teachers, nurses, firefighters, office workers, bar workers will all play a role. I used to think that workers were most likely to take action when times were good, because they had more confidence. That may be true, but it is also true that when times are good and profit margins high employers can make concessions which can always be taken back at a later date.

 

Transformative change will not occur when the capitalist class and its lackey class are themselves confident. This is why the gradual, reformist road to socialism proposed by generations of Labour Party activists is so wide of the mark. In good times those reforms are used to buy off radicalism. In bad times they are snatched back from a movement weakened from within. 

 

There is a balance between demands for change and the capacity of the system to allow that change. The reason those of us in the so-called developed nations have decent homes, jobs, holidays, access to education, even the vote was not because capitalists are a benign group of humanitarians, but rather because generations of ordinary people have fought for better conditions. By constantly moving capital, and importantly production, around the globe the ruling class have been able to buy off dissent at home whilst maintaining profit margins. Our better standards of living have been bought at the expense of exploited workers elsewhere. But rather than feeling guilty about that it is the job of socialists to stand with those workers as they pressure capital for the conditions we take for granted.

 

Capitalism has always relied on pitting workers against each other. There is no particularly good reason to discriminate against people on grounds of gender or ethnicity. From a capitalist perspective one worker is pretty much the same as another. However, individual capitals do benefit from playing off workers against one another. If male workers think they are worth more than female ones it helps keep the wages of both lower than they would likely be if they were united. So the transformation to socialism will have to sweep away centuries of prejudice and discrimination. And, it is here that socialists (together with other radical thinkers who don’t necessarily identify as socialists) come in to the equation.

There are some on the left who believe that they can foment socialist revolution. But, revolutions do not occur because of revolutionary parties. Revolutions occur when there is a class who can no longer rule and a class that can rule ready to replace them. Socialists however are not engaged in fruitless activity. Well, not necessarily and not by design. It is important that as we get closer to a period of upheaval that the new dominant ideas are not just a variant of the old ones. If humanity is to progress it is not just the material basis of socialism that is important, but the ideas that accompany it.

 

For some people on the left, the socialist revolution will sweep away all the old ideas and we will all live happily ever after. Of course, this is a fairytale. At the point of transformation millions of people will be cut adrift with all their beliefs challenged by circumstance. We can imagine who they will blame for the loss of their certainty. And, it won’t be capitalism. How strong socialism is at this intersection of decaying capitalism and emergent socialism may well be crucial in whether we do, as Rosa Luxemburg said, descend into barbarism or rise into a socialist future. Arguments had in the here and now, ideas spread through social media, discussions among fellow socialists will help to shape the future.

 

What is important is to realise that there is an end goal. Not a Labour (UK) or Democrat (USA) victory at an election, but the goal of influencing the transformation of society when it inevitably occurs. The more discussed socialist ideas are, the more we counteract the vile racist, sexist, nationalism of the mainstream, the more likely the end of capitalism will result in a freer, more democratic, more equal society rather than the authoritarianism which lurks on our horizon permanently.

 

The road to socialism is in sight. As capitalism is unable to survive its own contradictions, it will result in shortages, strikes, mass demonstrations. Has this process begun? Possibly, I don’t know. How will we know? Can’t help there either. Which demos, which strikes, which shortages will be fatal to the capitalist epoch it is not possible to say. As socialists we must prepare ourselves for the possibility it won’t happen in our lifetime, but at the same time keep the flame burning so that if it does we are not a tiny minority. We can’t make socialism happen, what we can do is ensure that the idea of socialism grows to that of a counter dominant idea.

 

 

Can you imagine...

Can you imagine a World without war, without refugees, without multinational companies, without billionaires? Can you imagine a World where nobody, especially children, goes hungry? A World where people are judged on their character not on where they were born, or their skin colour, sexual preference or gender. A World where ordinary people have a say in the decisions that affect them, where democracy is valued more highly than weaponry and where every decision taken has at least one eye on the environmental impact so that the World is preserved for future generations. If you can then you are a socialist. You may also be a feminist or an environmentalist – these things are not mutually exclusive. To hold these beliefs you don’t have to be British, European or English-speaking, because socialism is an international language.

 

Contrary to what some people might think you do not need to be poor to be a socialist. Actually, it makes little difference how much wealth you currently possess, socialism is not a creed based on envy. You do not have to hate billionaires, I don’t know any billionaires, do you? But, in a socialist society whilst nobody would be a billionaire (simply because nobody needs that much of the cake) those who currently have wealth will benefit just as much as those who are currently poor. Not in terms of their material wealth, but rather in terms of their general well-being. They will no longer live in fear of losing their wealth, but rather will live their lives as human beings engaged in a common endeavour to raise the well-being of everybody not just a tiny minority. Increasingly, a minority who were born with wealth, acquire more wealth and are encouraged to think that this alone makes them superior to others who have not been so lucky.

 

As socialists we want to create a society in which work is not just a means to earn a living, but a way in which we express our inherent creativity. Where boring, repetitive work rather than being the function of a class of people is either mechanised or done collaboratively. Nobody will want to have servants, cleaners or menial workers. More importantly, no self-respecting citizen in a socialist society would be prepared to be so demeaned as to be reduced to cleaning up after others, apart perhaps from their own family.

 

Would there be wage differentials? Indeed, would there be wages as we currently understand them? It is relatively easy to imagine a World without money for, as Marx described it, money is the ‘universal panderer’, a more efficient means of exchange than simple barter. But, money has become more and more obsolete, a process speeded by the pandemic where most transactions are done using an electronic transfer of figures on a sophisticated spreadsheet. Where once currency was related to something material – the gold standard, which both Britain and the United States abandoned in the 1930’s, it is now related only to a country’s need to print currency. So, what does money represent? It represents value, specifically surplus value which is the means to capitalist profit. Without profit as the goal of all human endeavour what role would money play?

 

Can you imagine working for the intrinsic pleasure of doing so? Not in the job you do now necessarily, but in socially useful work of one sort or another? Can you imagine a society where instead of working to earn a wage that barely allowed you to survive, you worked because there were jobs to do that would benefit your community? Such a World is not only possible but is pregnant within capitalist society. Let us be clear that capitalism has achieved plenty in terms of lifting the living standards of millions of people and creating efficient systems of production. But it is now a fetter to the further development of humanity. It can only reproduce the structures we now have that work only for the few, a few that are constantly at war with each other in a desperate attempt to maintain their market position. Socialism has to change the relations of production using all the methods bequeathed by capitalism.

 

Work, specifically production, would no longer be organised on the basis of private capital. We have been victims of a great fraud in which natural resources, which should be common resources, have been stolen by private individuals and companies. We have been conned into thinking that private enterprise is efficient and innovative whilst public enterprise is wasteful and inefficient. This is plainly not the case. Without public schools, hospitals, universities, roads, electricity grids etc private enterprise could not exist. Without public expenditure the private sector would certainly not appear efficient, and it is arguable that it is any more innovative than the public sector.

 

People do not have good ideas because somebody pays them to do so, they have good ideas because they have a curious mind. The private sector is a parasite, creaming off the profits when times are good and demanding state handouts when times are bad. If you want to know who are the real benefit scroungers look no further than the banks. On October 8^th 2008 they received a rescue package worth £500 billion in the U.K. alone to bail them out because of their pitifully poor (and greed driven) business practices. In April this year, £7.5 billion was paid to big business to help them survive the COVID pandemic. In 2019 EasyJet which received £600 million in the package posted pre-tax profits of £427 million; Greggs which received £150 million had profits in 2019 of £108.3 million. 

 

Now perhaps there is an argument for not letting banks go to the wall, but why should you and I pay our taxes to support a budget airline and a sandwich maker? Admittedly these are unusual times but these transfers from the public purse to the private are not unusual. A socialist society would not see profits as the be-all and end-all of human endeavour. Far more important than how much would be what worth? Worth would no longer be counted in dollars or pounds, but in whether it would increase the well-being of people whilst at the same time protecting the environment for future generations. And, innovation far from being left in the hands of a privileged elite would emerge from ordinary people having good ideas, that their community wanted to develop. And, what worked in one community would be shared in others allowing all humanity to benefit from the innovation of each other.

 

But, how would things be organised if there were not employers, managers and professional politicians to tell us what to do, how to do it and, critically, what to think? Can you imagine a society where ordinary people would have a say in all those important decisions? From whether there should be a new school, road or housing estate to how rubbish was collected, streets were cleaned or what the speed limits should be? The experts, the real experts, on your local community are the people who live in it, not the egoists who profess to speak on your behalf. Democracy will not be casting a vote for one of an identikit array of people who want to “represent” you. A socialist democracy would create an informed electorate who would make decisions based on both evidence and their lived experiences. The officials and administrators would not work for the mayor or the local council but for the people. All positions of civic responsibility would be open to all, shared and subject to democratic recall.

 

We have been conditioned to think that the epitome of democracy is the possibility to vote for a representative every few years. These representatives then go some way from the communities they ostensibly represent and make decisions in their own career interests, which may not always align with the interests of those who voted for them. Liberal democracy is held up as some kind of gold standard in which the only debate is how to vote for those representatives: essentially a choice between first-past-the-post or some form of proportional representation. But it is possible to imagine a democracy which was more direct. They had such a democracy for a short time in the Paris Commune. Liberal democracy is certainly preferable to autocracy. But, the debate we never have is what do we want the democracy to provide? Is it a means to provide a good career and networking opportunities for a small cadre of people, or is it the means by which decisions are taken which have the consent of a majority of people affected by them? Is it a place to discuss the concerns of a small elite or a place or places where ordinary citizens can express their views and pursue projects they consider worthwhile?

 

Autocratic rule is always accompanied by an attempt to close down the free press. Presently in western democracies the press and media serves the interest of a minority and rather than holding power to account, assists power to cover up the defects of its own system. Socialists do not fear a genuine free press, we encourage a press that can report the news impartially and ask awkward questions. The media will not, as now, be dominated by the privately educated but as private education would be an anachronism, would be staffed by people from all walks of life. Ordinary people in a socialist society would have a significant role to play in the media, in culture, in the judiciary, in decision making, indeed in every facet of socialist life. In short, in sweeping away social class socialism would bring ordinary people from the shadows into the light.

 

Of course, this sounds ridiculous because the petit bourgeois and bourgeoisie have convinced us that they, and they alone, have what the Liberal theorist John Rawls describes as “talent and abilities”. This is quite a neat trick for it has convinced generations of workers that the boring, low paid jobs that they are forced to do in order to survive are exactly what they are supposed to do in order that those with “talent and ability” can have better jobs, better houses and just a better life all round. But what is a ‘talent’ or an ‘ability’ – is it really the case that the children of better off parents are born naturally talented? Do poor people possess none of the abilities that bring esteem in our society? The future socialist society in bringing about an end to class society will also sweep aside such childish notions. 

 

At the heart of the socialist endeavour will be lifelong education. What this will mean is that every citizen will be continually able to test their abilities, for without trying things how is anybody supposed to know whether they can do them well? How is it that those from wealthy backgrounds can find out that they can (or can’t) play the piano, or dance, or act or compose? Where exactly is it written that if your parents are rich you will have talent, but if your parents are poor you do not? In a socialist society the ending of class distinctions based on wealth and income will mean that every child, no matter who their parents, will have a, roughly, equal chance to excel in whatever natural tendencies they possess. 

 

Can you imagine an education system which is not obsessed with cramming children’s heads with “facts” that mean little to them and then testing them on their memory of those disconnected facts? Education should be about preparing young people for adult life, but it should also be about teaching people how to solve problems and make decisions. In case anybody thinks that in the society I am describing children would be forced to recite Marx, Lenin and Mao, rest assured whilst these theorists would be accessible for study nobody in a society based on maximising freedom will be forced to recite obscure texts, and that includes the bible, Quran and Torah, though of course all of these texts will be accessible so that people can explore their spirituality or not, as their predilection takes them.

 

The socialist education system would be, because it will have to be, holistic. Currently education is used as a means to further the class system by turning out pegs for holes. Thinking skills are low down the list, as are basic survival skills. Of course, we will still want people to learn math, science and technology, but to do so in an environment where life skills – problem solving, morality, ethics, politics, physical and emotional well-being -  are developed.

 

Can you imagine a World where the concept of nationality was of no more importance than the concept of height. Where Nationalism would be as unimportant as the colour of your hair? In such a World racism would be swept away as we learned to relate to each other on a human level. There would be no more “illegal” immigrants because we would live in a World without borders. And, whilst naturally people on different parts of the planet would have different cultures related to their particular circumstances, they would share freely with one another the fruits of their labour.

 

In short, where do we want to be? A World without irrelevant distinctions, a World where men and women, regardless of skin colour, ethic background, religion or other arbitrary factors would be accorded the maximum freedom compatible with the same for others. A World where civic duty and responsibility would be the background to everything we do. A World where resources far from being scarce and something to hoard and fight over would be marshalled to the benefit of all. A World, one World, where the sum of individuals would not be isolated individuals but a Worldwide commonwealth of freethinking, free acting citizens pursuing their individual abilities for the benefit of all. A World in which each would put in what they were able and take out what they needed. A socialist World.

 

How do we get to this World? That is the subject for next week’s blog.

 

Where we are? Capitalism works, for some

 

If you are a socialist there are three questions you need to ask:

1.  Where are we?

2.  Where do we want to be?

3.  How do we get from 1 to 2?

All we need to do is answer those 3 questions and we’ll be on the way to socialism. So here goes with question 1.

 

The majority of people in the World are living in, broadly speaking, capitalist societies. There are arguments about whether that is a description of Russia, China and Cuba but let’s leave them to one side.

 

Capitalism works well for a minority and not so well for many millions of people who have, literally been left behind.

 

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world’s richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 44 percent of the world’s wealth. Their data also shows that adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 56.6 percent of the world’s population but hold less than 2 percent of global wealth.

 

In 2018, the three men at the top of the Forbes 400 list — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and investor Warren Buffett — held combined fortunes worth more than the total wealth of the poorest half of Americans. (Inequality.org)

 

In short, the rich continue to get richer whilst the poorest remain in destitution. We are taught to aspire to be rich rather than to help the poor. By definition rich people are not in debt. By definition poor people are. That debt is often, indirectly, owned by the rich. So, in addition to living in poverty and not having enough to eat, the world’s poor are forced to give what little income they do have to those with huge houses, yachts, cars and extremely comfortable lifestyles. If that is not a definition of immorality, I don’t know what is!

 

In the U.K., according to a House of Commons briefing paper, the total amount of household debt rose from £747 billion in 2001 to £1,785 billion in 2018. The ratio of debt to disposable income increased over the same period from 98.9% to 133%. In simple terms household debt is now running at one-third more than people can afford to pay off, even if all they did was pay down their debts. According to research by the Money Charity the average household in the U.K. was £60,636 in debt in January 2020. This amounts to more than £31k per adult which is 112% of average earnings. 

Just to be clear, debt is only a problem if it is called in. Most debts are repaid over a time period so that people still have enough to live. For many people though debt is out of control and they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. In 2019 there were 4,580 house repossessions in the U.K., an all time low but housing experts predict these numbers could rise again following Brexit and the pandemic. In December 2019, The Big Issue reported:

 

An estimated 320,000 people are homeless in the UK, according to the latest research by Shelter. This equates to one in every 201 Brits and was an increase of four per cent on the previous year’s number.

 

The economic recession of 2008-9 was caused by banks lending ever increasing amounts of money to people who had no realistic chance of paying it back. Those debts were then bundled with other debts and sold on, until eventually the bubble burst. Thousands of people worldwide lost their jobs, their homes and their dignity, and the banks greed led to the policies of austerity that have been responsible for so much misery. I don’t do predictions but it started with unsustainable debt, so what do we think might happen shortly?.

 

By any measure being in debt which you cannot pay is miserable. But it pales into insignificance compared to being forced to live in a war zone. Since 2001 over 800,000 people have been killed in armed conflicts. Currently around one-third of the land mass of this planet have ongoing armed conflicts. If you need proof that our system is dysfunctional it is that 75 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki heralded the end of World War 2 we still regard war as a legitimate means of solving conflicts. In 2019 the United States alone spent around $718.69 billion on its military. 

 

Wars may be bad for the people caught up in them, but they are good for business. Lockheed Martin Corporation (USA) sold  $44.9 billion of arms in a single year, Boeing  (US) around $26.9 billion, Raytheon (US) $23.8 billion, whilst the UK’s biggest manufacturer BAE Systems (UK) sold $22.9 billion in 2017. 

Between them the top 15 arms manufacturers sold $231.6 billion in 2017 amounting to over 50% of their sales. Arms manufacturing might be entirely immoral but it is also highly lucrative. Just 4 of the top arms manufacturers employ close to half a million people. And, there sole business is the destruction of human life. The Watson Institute reports:

 

“The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of November 2019, 335,000 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars. Civilian deaths have also resulted from the US military operations in Somalia and other countries in the U.S. war on terrorism.”

 

War, and its toll, is built into the fabric of capitalism. People become socialists for many different reasons but any socialist who supports an imperialistic war is no socialist at all. As I pointed out last week Labour MP’s voted to bomb women and children in Syria mainly so that they could embarrass a leader they didn’t support. War is not about heroic feats on the battleground but the devastation that is left behind including the civilians left displaced.

 

Capitalism’s greed has created a situation where 79.5 million people are displaced (according to UNHCR). This amounts to 1% of the World’s population. Of these people 40% are children. In any civilised social system we would be providing all children with safe environments to enjoy their childhood. These displaced people’s have few rights and what few they do have are under constant threat.

 

UNICEF reports that some 385 million children live in extreme poverty. In the U.K. it is estimated by the Child Poverty Action Group that around 4.2 million children live in poverty. Worldwide, around 3.1 million children die from undernutrition each year. UNICEF estimate that more than half of global child deaths are related to hunger and under nutrition which make children more vulnerable to illness and exacerbate disease. According to the US Department of Agriculture, more than 11 million children in the United States live in, what they term, "food insecure" homes which means that those households don't have enough food for every family member to lead a healthy life.

 

It’s easy to blame parents for childhood poverty, as if that somehow lets the system off the hook. But, if you are born to parents who become impoverished through bad luck, ill health or misfortune, that is hardly their blame. The fact is that we have privatised childhood so that communities rather than caring for children can simply point the finger at those who fail to do so. 

 

The reality is that in our society most people exist by working for a living. Being out of work or unable to work is not like taking a holiday unless your idea of a holiday is not having enough money to eat and pay for luxuries like gas and electric. Yet, unemployment is an endemic feature of the social system. In the U.K. alone there are currently 1.4 million people who are unemployed. Worldwide it is estimated that in the so-called developed economies the unemployment rate is over 8% of the adult population.  This amounts to over 190 million adults with no paid employment and many of those in countries where there are no adequate benefits.

 

Unemployment can seem like a private tragedy rather than a systemic problem. Capitalism has always required a pool of what Karl Marx called a ‘reserve army of labour’ in order to drive down wages and conditions. But, as unemployment grows so does child poverty, crime and prostitution. Whilst that reserve army might benefit capital it does not benefit society as a whole.

 

Workers first line of defence against capital is trade union membership. In the U.K. there has been a decline in union membership as the large industrial sectors – coal, steel, ship building etc – have been destroyed, and production moved elsewhere where labour is cheaper and unorganised. According to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy trade union membership in the U.K. now stands at 6.35 million (as of June 2018). However, whilst 52% of public sector employees are in unions, the comparative figure in the private sector is 13%. This represents a real challenge for the left as we are constantly drawn into defending the pay and conditions of public sector trade unions. This has a real danger of promoting a divide amongst workers as private sector workers, already on far worse conditions, become resentful of what to them may appear to be the more pampered conditions of those in the public sector. It is worth making the point that what were termed “essential” workers during this pandemic were probably fairly evenly split between public and private sector.

 

As of December 2019 the ONS estimated that there were 5.44 million people employed in the public sector, of which 1.73 million were employed by the NHS alone. The private sector is 5 times the size of the public sector, accounting for 27.55 million workers. In 2016, the average public sector worker earned 13% more than their private sector counterpart. Despite this, recent research has suggested that some public sector workers are thousands of pounds worse off compared with 2010, before the introduction of limits on public sector pay. Private sector employees are more likely to be in non-unionised, casual work with no holidays or sick pay.

 

Work is dominated by the demands of a handful of multi-national companies. The largest of these used to be General Motors which has a net worth of $228 billion, and employs 164,000 people in 396 facilities on 6 different continents. But in a sign of the times General Motors is no longer in the top ten companies in the world. All of those are technology or financial companies including Microsoft (151,000 employees), Apple (137,000 employees), Amazon (840,000 employees), Alphabet/Google (123,000 employees), Facebook (52,000 employees) and Visa (19,500 employees).  These multi-nationals are often not subjected to legal restrictions, often avoid paying tax and act, in effect, as mini-states. Governments court these companies with sweetheart deals to encourage what has come to be called ‘inward investment’. The emphasis on inward investment distorts local labour markets and creates an economic dependency on companies who have no loyalty to any particular government.

 

Capitalism works on the basis of investing capital for a return. Capital cares little, if anything, about the welfare of ordinary people. What drives investment is the rate of return. Michael Roberts, a Marxist economist has analysed historical data to show that Marx was right, the rate of profit does have a tendency to decline. The basis of these calculations is quite technical but his summary is interesting:

 

“…whatever measure is used, the rate of profit in 2015 is lower than in 2012; lower than in 2006 (the peak of the last cycle); and lower than in 1997 when most measures peaked.  So there is currently a downward phase in the rate of profit. .”

 

This is significant because if Marx is right, and historically his analysis has been shown to be remarkably prescient, capitalism exists in a cycle of peaks and troughs with the gap between them getting shorter over time. The way in which larger companies stay competitive is by eating up the competition. As Michael Roberts says in another blog post, whilst the American economy is contracting the ‘fearsome four’ (Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Alphabet Google) are continuing to be competitive. They have achieved this domination by effectively squeezing out competitors, often by acquiring companies simply to destroy them:

 

“But this is not new in the history of capitalism.  Successful companies in new expanding fields of capitalist accumulation have grown from small to large and eventually to ‘monopoly’ positions: railways, oil, motor vehicles, finance and telecoms.”

 

So, where are we? As socialists we are about where we have always been. Caught between our internationalist impulses and seeing the World as ending at our national borders. A seeming minority that probably has far more support than we realise. At the dawn of a new era, but not entirely sure when the current one will end.

 

Capitalism is in crisis, but this is nothing new. Capitalism is nothing if not flexible. It is a system driven purely by acquisition without moral responsibility. What is rational for a single capital may destroy lives, may even destroy the planet, but will provide the short term adrenaline rush of success measured in the accumulation of wealth.

 

Those who think that capitalism can be beaten by rational, or moral, argument entirely misunderstand, that whilst capitalists (and their many acolytes) may be rational, and moral, the system they exist within is neither of those things. 

 

So, we face a World riven apart by ethnic tensions, nationalist and imperialistic war, environmental degradation and now the threat of untreatable disease. A world where for a few people to live in opulence previously unimaginable, and a supporting layer to live relatively comfortably, millions, literally hundreds of millions, have lives of destitution, degradation and demoralisation. For the richest citizens of this planet to “enjoy” their bounty the poorest must be driven into ever more extreme poverty.

 

But, because capitalism is constantly lurching from one crisis to the next, there are possibilities for socialists and, more importantly, for socialism. As more and more people are pushed into in-work poverty, as debt rises and working conditions deteriorate in order to maintain unobtainable rates of profit, then workers have a choice. Accept the lowering of their own living standards and see their children’s opportunities diminished, or organise and fight back. First in trade unions but also in progressive political parties. 

 

Whether capital or worker wins is largely determined by material factors which are difficult to predict. General strikes in France and Bolivia show that workers can only be pushed so far before they push back. The concessions granted are a sign of the relative strength of the ruling class. An audit of where we are shows that for many millions of people capitalism isn’t working, for many millions more it is working only to keep them just above the poverty level. The question is: where do we want to be. And, that is the question for next week’s blog.

While you’re here: if you like what you’ve just read why not use the subscribe button on the top right to get notified of future posts.

Support Chris Williamson and other Labour members against EHRC smears. Donate here

Marx out of 10: why every socialist should read Marx

When I first got involved in politics I did not have a worked out political philosophy. My guess is that would be true for regular readers of this blog (and her Mum). I knew what I disliked – mainly the Tories – but I had no idea how society worked, or what forces were ranged against my ambition to change things. I did not understand that I was on the left, or even that I was working class. I’m not sure I even knew that we lived in a capitalist society.

It was only when I joined the Labour Party that I found an outlet for my anger and frustration. Whilst the party was really poor at answering the more important questions I wanted answered, it was in the party that I met people  who would introduce me to ideas that would not only help me to explain what was wrong with society, but also understand what was necessary for things to change. It was immediately obvious to me that simply wanting change was not enough, nor that electing a Labour government would of itself bring about the type of society that I quickly came to dream about.

That type of society I came to identify as socialist which, to be honest, was a bit of a relief because I did not want anything to do with “communism” which I identified with (cue dramatic, eerie music) – Russia. It was a friend in the Labour Party who first identified us (that is, me and him) as part of the left. I was slightly horrified to discover that this was what he thought of me as I had been a loyal Daily Mirror reader and in the 80’s that meant an understanding that Denis Healey was sensible and electable and Tony Benn was mad and dangerous.

But, it was another friend, Derek Newlands, now sadly departed who told me very clearly that there were two sides: workers and bosses and you could only be on one side. His analysis was that when workers stuck together they were unbeatable. And, one day, he lent me a series of books, amongst them a small pamphlet called The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It was written in 1848, but from its opening paragraph “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism.” To its closing rallying call “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” I was captivated. Here, contained in this small booklet was the answer to those questions that I had been asking for years. It is no exaggeration to say that this small pamphlet changed the way I looked at the World.

In the 1980’s Marxism was undoubtedly the theory to engage with. Either people were promoting Marxism or trying to disprove it. Some of the most passionate anti-Marxists were university educated, white collar workers and their dismissal of Marxism was often on the grounds that there was no longer a working class which could lose its chains. In their view social mobility had all but rendered the need for revolution obsolete. Besides if the system was going to change, it was not going to be done by a bunch of dirty, uneducated factory workers. It would surely be achieved by well meaning, well educated, politically literate individuals who would employ reason to gain power and then rule in a benign manner which would raise up the lower classes. But most of their ire was directed at the left, particularly the Marxist left, who they assumed had unrealistic aspirations for violent revolution. Naturally, I sided with the revolutionaries who wanted to change society not just bring in a few reforms.

The real point here though is that Marxism provided an anchor for the left. No politician or political theorist could ignore it. Of course, by the 1980’s there were a huge number of ‘Marxism’s’ to choose from. But, all of them were variants of Marx’s work. The big divide, of course, was where you stood in relation to Russia. In some ways it still is, though in those days there were still people who harboured the illusion that Russia was a socialist paradise (most of them were not Russian you might note).

Today, very few people describe themselves as Marxists. Certainly, in the Labour Party nobody in the party hierarchy would dare call them self a Marxist, and not only because they actually don’t believe a better World is possible, though that does appear to be the case. Although Jeremy Corbyn was labelled a Marxist by both the Tories and media it was Robert Halfron MP who pointed out, in Conservativehome no less, that it was not a useful description. Whilst Corbyn is the closest thing to a Marxist leader of the Labour Party we have seen, even he would not describe himself in such terms. Fidel Castro he is not. It is as if the left are terrified of being associated with Marx, and I have to say that this seems to me a massive error for it is probably only Marx who offers a framework for understanding capitalism, and therefore a means to replace it.

Marx was undoubtedly the pre-eminent socialist theoretician of his time. It is often overlooked in his demonisation by a bourgeoisie that still tremble at the thought that he could prove to be right, that he was a fine scholar who just happened to believe that workers held it in their own hands to change their conditions, whether they realised it or not. That emancipatory thread running through Marx is why left activists, often adrift in a sea of rhetoric, could learn by spending some time acquainting themselves with his writings.

I’m not going to use valuable space in this blog with quotes from Marx, he is definitely worth the time to read if you never have; and worth reacquainting yourself with if you have but not recently. There are some good books about Marx, and some awful one’s, on both sides of the divide. My advice would be to ignore them, read his own words, and make up your own mind.

People, wrongly, assume that Marx’s writing is dense and impenetrable, but whilst there are some difficult concepts in Marx, the basis is actually quite simple. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Whilst Marx was not the first to see the role of classes in history he was the first to regard history as a struggle over resources, including political power, rather than the deeds of great men (these days, largely thanks to a Marxist-Feminist Sheila Rowbotham, great women get a look in too). History is not, as it turns out, about which monarch was on the throne and which great battles they won, in Marx’s view of history there was not just a place for ordinary men and women they actually had a starring role. 

Now, I read this for the first time through the prism of a basic disdain for bosses. So, I was shocked that far from expressing hatred for the ruling class Marx and Engels showered them with praise. They did not have a moralistic hatred of bosses, though they were pretty appalled at some of their practices. But, they regarded capitalism as a progression in human history. Capitalism swept away that which had preceded it – feudalism – and ushered in a new social system that freed the peasants from the yoke of serfdom.

Capitalism was a stage of human development

The point was that capitalism was a necessary step in human development but just as other social systems before it had been replaced, so capitalism would give way to a better form of society where human beings would be free to express themselves as equals. That system they referred to interchangeably as communism or socialism. You can imagine how thrilling it was for the young me to discover that the social system that I could plainly see was responsible for so much human misery was neither natural nor perpetual. Discovering I was a communist came as a bit of a shock too!

What they called the ‘materialist conception of history’, what some call ‘dialectical materialism’, was an analysis of class struggle which gave to competing classes important roles. In short, each radical change was accomplished by the existing ruling class being replaced by a new ruling class. In most of what they called epochs the soon-to-be ruling class could only achieve their aims by building alliances with other classes. But, as soon as they were in power, the ruling class created the illusion that their rule was both inevitable and beyond challenge. Our current ruling class have made a fine art out of convincing other classes that they are the universal class that we should all aspire to. They have literally turned greed into a fine art.

The class system in modern capitalism is unique in history in that movement between classes is not only possible, but allegedly the entire function of the social system. Upward mobility is not just a sociological concept but an aspiration for all of us regardless of our class of origin, with the possible exception of the monarchy who linger like a stain on a rug that everybody knows is there but nobody mentions. There is undoubtedly some movement between classes which allows this great con trick to be widely believed, but the truth is that the class into which you are born is still the best indicator of the class in which you will end up.

Possibly one of the things I found most enlightening in Marxism was its insistence that there were these two great classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat. At this stage in my life I had not attended a single sociology class (I confess that since then not only have I studied sociology, but I’ve also taught it. I am suitably ashamed of this aberration in my character). It seemed that you had to be in one of these camps, but on reading more about what Marx called the proletariat I found that they were not just everybody who worked. Indeed, it is a “mistake” made by some Marxists to say that the proletariat is the working class. The proletariat, as described by Marx, are certainly working class, but simply working for a living does not make you part of the proletariat.

It took me a long time to understand why it was the proletariat rather than the working class per se that stood in opposition to the bourgeoisie and why this opposition was so important for Marx. In Capital, which has a misplaced reputation as turgid, Marx describes the essential component of capitalism as the commodity. Modern day sociologists describe the consumer society as if they have made an important revelation. But, Marx had done all the legwork for them by 1863.

You know, even if you are not a Marxist, that in a capitalist economy everything revolves around commodities, around buying cheap and selling dear. And, if you stop to reflect for even a second you know that commodities don’t enter the World already formed. Something gives them value. That something is first that they have a use, and second that somebody has taken some raw materials and changed them into something useful. It is the act of mixing raw materials with labour power that creates the commodity and therefore the value.

I’ve worked in factories. I’ve mixed my labour power with raw materials. I’ve received my wage, and I’ve seen the owners of those factories get richer and fatter. One thing I have not felt is any sense that those commodities that I have helped produce are mine. Mainly because they are not. They belong to my employer. When I view the product of my labour I may feel pride in a job well done but I don’t feel ownership of my labour. The value I have put into that commodity stares back at me as an alien being. And, if it were not that commodity, it could be another in another factory. Marx describes this process as alienation, which as it turns out, has nothing whatsoever to do with disenchanted youth on street corners on run-down estates.

Spot the proletarian

As I got more involved with the labour movement, both through trade unions and the Labour Party, I came to realise that I was actually meeting very few proletarians. Very few people who had worked in dirty factories producing commodities for somebody else to profit from. Most of the people I met, particularly in the Labour Party, were white collar workers, and whilst they might be empathetic to the working class, they were not proletarians. For some, supporting the proletariat meant supporting their picket lines and providing the intellectual foundation for a movement for change. For others, it means signing the occasional petition, and arguing for reforms which make their lives more comfortable. It certainly does not include the notion that it is only the proletariat that stand in direct opposition to the bourgeoisie.

Such language – proletariat, bourgeoisie, even revolution – seems strangely antiquated where the best we can hope for is a parliamentary majority for a party many of whom will gladly follow Ian Austin and John Mann on to the Tory benches in the House of Lords, if things don’t work out for them. The support for a party that repeatedly sells us down the river is a sure sign that we have not only lost our bearings but that we no longer have an anchor at all. We drift from campaign to campaign, from election to election with no over-arching vision. With no detailed theories of why things are as they are or any theory of radical change. The only vision is a few temporary reforms that make the lives of the worse off slightly more bearable. And, currently the “workers party” does not even seem convinced that they should argue for reform. A look at the PLP will tell you why. You are more likely to find a barrister than a barista on Labour’s benches.

To be clear here I am not arguing that we should all leave the Labour Party. Nor, that we should either set up or join a so-called revolutionary party. Revolutions don’t happen because of revolutionary parties but more often despite them. But, we are a long way from a revolution. Or maybe we’re not. Revolutions can clearly be seen in hindsight but are usually not visible to most people until they occur. And, that includes those who think of themselves as revolutionaries.

If there is any vision at all on the left currently it is a far cry from a vision in which the proletariat would take control and institute a society which would inscribe on its banner “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. Anybody who calls themselves a socialist should engage with Marxism. They are entitled to disagree with it. From what I know of Marx he certainly would have. They are also entitled to disagree with my interpretation of it. But without some guiding theory what are we doing? It is plainly obvious that it is not enough to simply create a moral argument against capitalism. As Marx rightly said “The philosophers only interpret the World, the point is to change it.” We need a strong understanding of the underlying mechanisms of capitalism in order to confront it.

Marx did not give a starring role in the revolutionary struggle to the proletariat because of any romantic notions of working class solidarity. Nor because the proletariat would form reading groups, read the Manifesto and Capital and put those ideas into action. The proletariat’s role in overthrowing capitalism is not the result of their superior revolutionary consciousness but simply their material place in regard to the bourgeoisie. So-called “middle class” people who are socialists might not like it, but if they want socialism they have to play the supporting role to the proletariat in their struggles which if Marx was right will be the struggle that ends class rule for good.

What to read if you want to know more about Marx:

The Manifesto Of The Communist Party

Wages, Labour and Capital

The German Ideology

Capital Volume One (but only if you have a spare weekend)

* All available here *

While you’re here: if you like what you’ve just read why not use the subscribe button on the top right to get notified of future posts.

Support Chris Williamson and other Labour members against EHRC smears. Donate here

Nominate Jeremy Corbyn as MP of the year here