Counter Lies

Workers are all liars of course, and thieves;

Whereas computers are infallible

As popes, absolutely reliable.

It should be expected no one believes

Denials, when sums of money are not there

Who’s guilty is beyond doubt. Then the state

Visits predetermined judicial fate

On those the faultless accounting software

Has caught out. Profits must be protected

At all costs, even if that means there’ll be

An occasional legal travesty;

The system works as might be expected.

Compensation can always be deployed

As a mitigation for lives destroyed.

D. A.

Along with exploitation in the pursuit of profit, Capitalism is about competition, except where it colludes in cartels. However, to do down the opposition is always the aim and it seems that French Carrefour, the seventh largest retailer in the world, has hit on an interesting new marketing strategy where ‘virtue signalling’ is liable to have happy results for its shareholders.

Hard pressed consumers will always be looking to save pennies when buying life essentials. The real solution to more expensive commodities and ‘shrinkflation’ is Socialism where quality goods and services will be produced for use not profit, which means they will be free as money will have been abolished along with Capitalism.

It is reported that: ‘French supermarket Carrefour is telling shoppers that it will no longer sell PepsiCo products such as carbonated soda drinks Pepsi and 7up and Lay’s chips products because they’ve become too expensive, Reuters has reported.

According to the outlet, a spokesperson for France’s second biggest grocery has chain confirmed that it will place a note on shelves that have displayed PepsiCo goods which reads “We are no longer selling this brand due to unacceptable price increases.” It is unclear whether PepsiCo products already on Carrefour shelves will be withdrawn, the report added.

In October 2023, PepsiCo warned of “modest” price hikes in the new year amid steady demand. The US snacking and beverage giant has raised prices for seven consecutive quarters, hiking them by double digits in the July-September period last year. The company also reduced package sizes of some of its products claiming the aim was “to meet consumer demand for convenience and portion control.”

Last year, amid high consumer inflation, grocery retailers in several EU countries challenged global food giants over prices. Carrefour started a “shrinkflation” campaign in September, sticking warnings on goods that have shrunk in size but cost more.

Negotiations are underway in France between food manufacturers and retailers, with the latter demanding price cuts, as they say prices for raw materials and energy have recently come down. Food industry representatives argue that production costs remain high and that manufacturers have absorbed significant inflationary shocks.

French supermarket Carrefour launched an unusual campaign this week, putting stickers on products to warn customers of “shrinkflation”. The step, both in stores and on its website, names and shames suppliers that have reduced the weight or volume of their products, while keeping prices unchanged.

Shrinkflation – also known as package downsizing – refers to the practice of reducing the size or quantity of a product, as a means for the manufacturer to cut costs while maintaining sales volumes.

France’s second biggest grocery chain has marked 26 products in its stores with labels reading, “This product has seen its volume or weight fall and the effective price by the supplier rise.”

Lipton Ice Tea, Lindt chocolate and Viennetta ice cream are among the products now being flagged, to put pressure on major consumer goods suppliers such as Nestle, PepsiCo and Unilever.

Carrefour found that the volume of can of Guigoz baby formula manufactured by Nestle has gone from 900 grams to 830 grams, while the weight of the Unilever-made Viennetta ice-cream cake has dropped to 320 grams from 350 grams. A bottle of sugar-free peach-flavoured Lipton Ice Tea, made by PepsiCo, has shrunk to 1.25 litres from 1.5 litres.

“Obviously, the aim in stigmatising these products is to be able to tell manufacturers to rethink their pricing policy,” Stefen Bompais, director of client communications at Carrefour, told Reuters.

Carrefour’s move comes as brands are about to negotiate their arrangements with certain retailers.’

 The Labour Party seems to be relying a lot on being able to conjure up “growth” to honour its rash election promises.

Last week, Darren Jones who is the would-be chief secretary to the Treasury was reported as saying:

“If we are successful in growing the economy in the way that we think we will be, then that creates more investment” (Times, 4 January).

This is a strange argument as business investment is what brings about growth. So any growth that might take place would be as a result, not the cause, of business investment. He’s put the cart before the horse and expects it to pull the horse.

But it’s not only creating new business investment that they say the growth they think they can conjure up will bring about. A speech by their would-be Health Secretary, god-botherer Wes Street, was reported under the headline: “Labour says it would rely on growth to fund pay rises to the NHS” (i paper, 6 January). 

On the same page the same paper reported the clueless Labour Leader himself:

“Sir Keith reiterated his comments on Thursday that economic growth was key to creating wealth and improving living standards.”

But if a Labour government under Starmer is not as lucky as the Blair Labour government was in happening to be in office during a period of growth, and there is no growth at the rate Labour think they can bring about?

Back to Darren Jones:

“If we are not [successful in growing the economy], then the fiscal rules come first and are non-negotiable.”

So. fiscal conservatism, otherwise known as austerity. 

In any event, no government can control growth — that depends on business investment which in turn depends on the prospects for making a profit. Growth may or may not happen when a Labour government is in office but, if it does, it won’t be due to anything that government did. It would have happened anyway, even under a Tory government.

Governments don’t and can’t control capitalism. It’s rather the other way round — it is the operation of capitalism, as it passes through its cycles of boom and slump, that sets severe limits to what they can and cannot do.

Shocker! Not even two weeks into 2024 and SOYMB finds Nigel Farage is almost talking sense.

Now tell ‘em about Capitalism Nige.

You could start by reading SOYMB post ‘Rural Housing and Homelessness Issues.’https://soymb.com/2024/01/rural-housing-and-homelessness-issues.html

‘Nigel Farage has blasted NatWest boss Howard Davies after the £763,000-a-year banker claimed it is not difficult for Britons to get on the housing ladder.

Howard Davies is paid £750,000 a year.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme t Mr Davies told Amol Rajan:

“I don’t think it’s that difficult at the moment.”

The astonished BBC presenter had to ask whether Mr Davies was calling in from overseas, given the current housing crisis in the UK.

The rich NatWest chief patronisingly explained: “You have to save, and that’s the way it always used to be.”

He warned there are “dangers” in making mortgage credit too easy for youngsters to acquire.

The claim sparked instant outrage, with Mr Farage blasting Mr Davies as “a member of the entitled elite with no idea about NatWest’s customers or the real world”’.

Daily Express 5 January 2024

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1852327/Nigel-Farage-Natwest-house-mortgage

Or Nigel you could educate yourself by taking out a subscription to the Socialist Standard. Here’s one to begin with.

From the Socialist Standard, August 2020

What happens when there is no housing market?

‘Decent, functional and even beautiful living accommodation is unarguably one of humanity’s prime needs. It is the one prime need in fact that, more than any other, save food and water, is vitally conducive to harmonious and pleasant living at all. Conversely, the lack of it is almost always a cause of misery, meanness and domestic strife. The question of housing allocation in a socialist society is therefore by no means a novel one, and has been discussed and debated for a very long time. That old Fabian fraud George Bernard Shaw, for example, once said that he was often asked who would live in the big house on the hill in this socialist society of his, and Bernard Shaw’s ever-ready response was ‘The same as now, whoever can afford to live there will’.

We beg to differ. All of what we say below notwithstanding, if there is one certain fact concerning life in a future socialist society that we can predict, it’s that how much money you have will most definitely not be the deciding criterion that determines where you live. There won’t be any money for a start – bits of colourful paper, or, more so these days, numbers on a computer screen, that denote how deserving you are of living decently as a human being.

Shaw’s solution to capitalism’s housing problem, like that of the other 56 pseudo-brands of ‘socialism’, was simply an ill-thought out version of reformed capitalism, inexorably welded to and determined and dictated by the market for houses. In socialism, there won’t be any market for houses. Shaw’s ‘solution’ was, bizarrely, simply predicated on the continuing existence of the very cause of the housing problem in the first place.

But, to be fair to him as much as possible, Shaw’s non-solution of reforming capitalism in such a way as to solve the housing problem, has been practically everybody else’s non-solution too. Long before Shaw was preaching his illogical nonsense, one of the pioneers of socialist ideas, the co-author and life-long friend of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, wrote a short series of articles entitled The Housing Question. Engels was writing in the mid-Victorian period, a time when the ‘success‘ of British capitalism was at its height and yet, a time also, when the housing conditions of the working class were especially miserable, unspeakably wretched and degrading. Needless to say, then as now, all manner of reformist nostrums were proposed by a whole range of political activists; from followers of the French anarchist Proudhon, who advocated that every worker within existing capitalism should have their own little private property dwelling, bought on the ‘never, never’, to representatives of the capitalists themselves, with their ‘factory-provided houses’ abominations. These, needless-to-say, were not only factory-provided, but factory-owned and job dependent, with all of the horrors of job loss and consequent eviction that were entailed. Indeed, in criticising these proposed multi-various reforms, Engels’ work is almost entirely devoted to dealing with the ways and means of how not to solve the housing question.

Not a problem of housing

As a matter of fact, as Engels explained repeatedly, the real issue is not at all a ‘housing’ problem – that is, a shortage of labour power or a dearth of nature-given materials that are necessary to provide everyone in society with housing accommodation commensurate with their needs – but a capitalism problem. Deal with the real issue of capitalism’s general diktat of production for profit, and the housing question, like every other misnamed ‘problem’ in capitalism, will solve itself. It is the only concrete solution to the problem of lack of housing, the inferior quality of housing and the location of housing. If there is any other solution, apart from the common ownership of resources proposed by the Socialist Party, it has never been revealed. All we hear today, from Housing Associations, charities and political parties are mere echoes of the ideas and social quackery that Engels exposed and lambasted as absurd nonsense 150 years ago.

Having stated the general solution to the housing ‘problem’ we are invariably questioned as to how the solution of common ownership will work in practice. Socialist society will undoubtedly require administration at a local level, a regional level and even a world-wide level. How this administration is organised and functions will be a matter for the inhabitants of socialism. What decisions these socialist bodies take, and how they will be implemented and even enforced if necessary, will be entirely up to them. That goes without saying. Although we refrain from crystal ball-gazing, we can, of course, make some general points as to what might happen in regard to housing provision in socialism. There are two things, we would imagine, a socialist society will want to deal with immediately. The first is the homeless problem.

For the first time ever, a problem that has been grappled with constantly in all modern societies, that has been discussed ad nauseam, fought over, lied about, written about endlessly, and thousands of charities and other organisations have done to death for as long as capitalism has existed , will at last be capable of solution. The administrative bodies in a socialist society will know best at the time how to do this.

The second task will be to look at the existing occupied housing stock, its condition and the needs of its occupiers, with a view to rehousing those in the worst of circumstances immediately. Again, decisions will need to be taken by socialism’s representative bodies over how best to implement this aim.

As a party, we have never claimed to be in possession of ready-made solutions for each and every question that the future socialist society will need to take up. Nor would it be sensible or desirable for us to do so. In regard to housing alone, the actual considerations and requirements are seemingly inexhaustible. The production and transportation of bricks, copper piping, slates, sand, cement, glass, wooden batons, joists and fencing, to name but a few of the most obvious that spring to mind, are each a major operation in themselves. Plumbers, electricians, roofers, bricklayers, joiners, glaziers and gardeners, will all need to be coordinated. Further, surveying, land availability, planning, road traffic considerations, amenities provision, public transport, again to name only those that readily spring to mind, give an additional idea of the complexities involved. It is absurd to suggest that we living today should make concrete plans for all this.

Likewise, the number of people involved in existing professions that are tied economically (and are mostly useless, with little or no connection to the actual construction of buildings) to housing in capitalism, that will be unleashed by socialism’s construction for use economy, run into the tens of millions. Our pamphlet From Capitalism to Socialism, lists over 70 of these professions themselves. And that’s only in regard to housing. The number of people engaged in useless jobs in capitalism generally and not connected with housing but who would be available to be deployed in that area where required is astronomical.

We don’t know

How will socialist society allocate Shaw’s big house on the hill? Our answer is, and can only be, we have no blueprint. It will be up to the inhabitants of socialism to decide ‘who gets what’. More importantly, even if such a question is legitimate, it certainly has no significant bearing on the case for socialism that we argue in the present.

However, such questions can be useful in one sense, for they highlight the chief difficulty of prediction: why should we assume that the social norms of today will be exactly those of the future? Certainly, there is no reason to believe that the attitudes of those living in an entirely different type of society will be exactly the same as today. To expect the norms of life in capitalism as it exists now to remain exactly the same as when there are, for example, a billion socialists, is naive enough. To expect a socialist society to be, in the first place, established on the notions and ideas of capitalism, and even more unlikely, remain completely static, is patently absurd and flies in the face of all past human experience.

Is it likely that people in a future socialist society will have the same desires, concerns, views, needs, aspirations or requirements that we find so ‘natural’ and indispensable in capitalism today? No matter how rigid and seemingly set in stone they appear now, it is absolutely certain that our present concerns for property ownership, for big houses, for big cars, for the baubles and trinkets so beloved of capitalism’s apologists, and in a nutshell, a concern for ‘who gets what’, will be simply looked upon with astonishment and incredulity and, eventually, intense curiosity.

Is such a belief in the possibility of such a profound change taking place idealistic or utopian? The history of a mere couple of decades or so tells us no. Not even the imaginative genius of Oscar Wilde could have ever dreamed of such an utterly unimaginable event as two men getting married – to each other! Think about that and consider the extraordinary change in attitude that has taken place in such a short historical time span, so that, apart from a small minority of religious bigots, no one bats an eyelid at what once was, barely yesterday in historical terms, such an inconceivable proposition as to be simply dismissed out of hand by practically every human being on the planet. Yet now it is widespread and the ‘norm’.

But to speculate, perhaps, in the immediate aftermath of the transition from capitalism to socialism, as a start, the inhabitants of socialism will decide, after making adequate provision for the existing occupants, to agree a list of the 500 (1000? 2000? 5000?) biggest and most beautiful private dwelling buildings in a metropolis such as London. Perhaps they will then decide to convert 100 into havens for the mentally ill, 100 into centres for the care and healing of victims of sexual abuse, 100 into centres for the study and treatment of those suffering from seemingly uncontrollable and socially harmful sexual urges, and 100 into recuperation centres for those suffering the effects of being incarcerated under capitalism for crimes against property.

Perhaps also, in an advanced socialist society of 20 years standing, when most or all of these problems have been eradicated, the majority of the very same buildings will, one by one, be simply left to run themselves as examples of by-gone notions of desirable (or even undesirable) architecture, with accommodation upstairs for those who want to preserve and protect them. The point is, we simply cannot predict what will happen.

How will socialist society come into ‘possession’ of these buildings? Again, we don’t know. Is it possible that they will be simply requisitioned for the use of everyone? Absolutely. After all, to describe the matter bluntly, the capitalist revolutions of the past were to privatise the earth and everything in it and on it, to proclaim the rights of private property and to convert it into the ownership of a few.

A socialist revolution will be aimed at taking the property back we have created, taking it out of the hands of a parasitic few and to place it at the disposal of society. That is what a socialist revolution is.

How the inhabitants of a future socialist society will act, what their priorities will be, and what is important and desirable for them, can be safely left to them to decide.

What happens to an insignificant number of ‘more desirable than others’ buildings is only one aspect of the matter, and by far the least important. The question of housing provision in general, both now – as in the lack of it – and the potential that socialism will undoubtedly open up, is far more important.

To make glib, possibly well-intentioned – though usually ultimately utterly futile – proposals to deal with housing problems in capitalism’s restrictive profit-driven market for houses is one thing; to deal with the necessity to provide healthy, decent, and even – a purely subjective opinion, of course, beautiful – living accommodation in socialism’s production for use on the basis of a free access economic system, is quite another.

We would make it abundantly clear again, in any discussion of how a socialist society will deal with the general allocation of housing, that we cannot speak for a future society in regard to what decisions will be necessary in the construction or location or provision or allocation of housing – any more so than we can on the future prospects for harmonicas or hairnets.

Our only concern at present is to drive home the necessity for the one over-riding solution to the problems of capitalism and that is socialism. This will create the only possible basis for solving the so-called housing problem. And this, as we say repeatedly, for the simple reason that it isn’t a problem at all, but merely a consequence of the artificial scarcity in housing created by capitalism’s disgraceful and disgusting inherent drive for profit. Socialism will unleash the tremendous construction capability necessary so that we can begin practical steps towards not only solving issues like homelessness and slum-dwelling, but constructing beautiful housing accommodation – we are, after all, admirers of the ideas of the early Marxist William Morris – so as to meet the self-defined needs of every human being.’

Nigel McCullough

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/08/what-happens-when-there-is-no-housing.html

Indrajit Samarajiva says of Band Aid’s charity anthem “It’s not just that these lyrics haven’t aged well. They were never good at all.”   With which we can agree, unlike his superficial critique: “I mean, this is all wrong. It does snow in Africa, although not a lot.”

In a short article titled Band aids for poverty ( July 2003) we observed:

‘Almost 20 years ago Bob Geldorf organised “Band Aid” concerts in London and Philadelphia to help the starving millions in Ethiopia. So what is happening in that country today? Local musicians are organising similar concerts to aid the starving. “Aid agencies estimate 14 million Ethiopians are at risk of starvation after the worst drought in nearly two decades. The United Nations said Ethiopia needs 1.5 million tonnes of food aid this year.” Herald (26 May) In 1984 Ethiopia was devastated by a famine which killed one million people. In 2003 we have 14 million at risk of starvation. So much for charity, so much for well-intentioned reformers. What we need is a complete transformation of society not an elastoplast on a gaping wound.‘

And today it comes as no surprise to read:

‘Ethiopia’s Tigray region faces a devastating famine, with thousands in desperate need of aid. The aftermath of war and drought leaves residents, especially the elderly, struggling for survival.’

Plus ça change!

A report from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) ‘Unravelling a crisis: the state of rural affordable housing in England’ highlights how affordable housing and homelessness is not just an urban problem under capitalism.

‘A chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing is creating huge social housing waiting lists and forcing people out of the communities they know and love. This worrying crisis is being fed by record house prices, stagnating wages and an increasing number of second homes and short term lets.

The countryside, where levels of homelessness have leapt 40% in just five years, is being drained of skills, economic activity and vital public services.

There is an extreme disparity between rural house prices, which are higher than those in other parts of the country, and rural wages, which are much lower. House prices in the countryside increased at close to twice the rate of those in urban areas in the five years to 2022. While the average cost of a home jumped 29% and is now £419,000, rural earnings increased by just 19% to a total of £25,600.’

A November 2023 CPRE report shows that a lack of affordable housing is putting the survival of rural communities at risk, and provides recommendations for solutions.

The chronic shortage of houses local people can afford to live in has resulted in levels of homelessness rising by 40% in just 5 years. More than 300,000 people are on the waiting list for social rented housing in rural England.

And because people are being forced to leave, the countryside is being drained of skills, economic activity, and vital public services.

Key problems include:

The high price of ‘affordable’ housing, due to planning policy defining ‘affordable’ as anything up to 80% of market value.

The lack of new building to replace social homes lost through the Right to Buy scheme.

The relatively low level of rural wages when compared to ever-increasing house prices.

The rapid rise in the number of second homes and homes available for holiday let.

https://www.cpre.org.uk/news/our-report-housing-crisis-poses-threat-to-survival-of-rural-communities/

‘Levels of homelessness have leapt 40% in the countryside in just five years. This crisis is being fed by record house prices, stagnating wages, huge housing waiting lists and a proliferation of second homes and short-term lets.

Shockingly, CPRE analysis has revealed that a greater proportion of people are sleeping rough in the seven worst affected rural local authorities – Bedford, Boston, North Devon, Cornwall, Boston, Bath and Northeast Somerset, Torridge and Great Yarmouth – than they are in London, Leeds or Norwich. People sleeping rough are defined as those sleeping in the open air, tents, makeshift shelters or buildings not meant for human habitation.

In September 2023, the latest month for which data is available, 48 people per 100,000 were sleeping rough in Boston, England’s worst-affected rural local authority. The figures for Bedford and North Devon, which have the next-highest rates of rough sleeping, were 38 and 29 respectively. This compares with 23 in London, 19 in Norwich and 14 in Leeds.

In England, 12 local authorities designated as largely or predominantly rural had levels of rough sleeping higher than the national average (15 people per 100,000). These were spread across the country, with examples in all regions except the North East, demonstrating the breadth of the problem.’

https://www.cpre.org.uk/news/rough-sleeping-in-countryside-higher-than-some-urban-areas-analysis-shows/

Houses are commodities. The problem is Capitalism, a system predicated upon exploitation and production for profit. The solution to these problems is Socialism where quality goods and services, including housing, will be produced for use not profit.

An article by Janet Surman in the Socialist Standard, June 2019, examines the Urban -Rural imbalance under capitalism.

‘Current global facts and figures on the urban-rural divide reveal disturbing numbers of people in both urban and rural locations living in desperate situations. The capitalist agenda is to profit from whatever scheme is dreamed up and implemented without regard for the externalities which, in this case, are people. There are plans being implemented around the world to remove millions of individuals from millions of acres of productive farmland, to empty the land of people in favour of huge agribusiness projects which can reap significant profits for corporations from mono-crops using vastly reduced labour numbers and, therefore, costs.’ Read more.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2020/03/when-profit-is-all-2019.html

NO. 1433 JANUARY 2024

 https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2024/no-1433-january-2024/

20/20 Vision

Eschewing hindsight and looking forwards

To see such a world in which TV news

Isn’t mainly bombed-out buildings or views

Of squalid camps, crowded alleys and yards

Teeming with desperate refugees. Instead

There will be universal reports

Of abandoned border posts and passports,

And no minefields where travellers fear to tread.

A worldwide commonwealth finally beckoned,

Meeting needs, not profit margins, too few,

Advocates have thought was long overdue:

 Cooperative advantages reckoned.

An impossible vision? When really

The imperative is to see clearly.

D. A.

 On Christmas Eve the Ministry of ‘Defence’ announced that a Royal Navy warship, HMS Trent, would be deployed to Guyana in South America. Sky News described the ship as one used for ‘defence diplomacy’.

What, then, was the diplomacy that required the deployment of a gunboat in support? The one-word answer is ‘oil’. The Harvard International Review (27 September) noted: In 2015, the oil giant Exxon Mobil discovered 11 billion barrels of oil off the coast of the small Latin American country. The discovery promises to change Guyana forever, catapulting the country and its people to new heights of power and wealth. Oil already generates US$1 billion in revenues annually for the government and will produce an estimated US$7.5 billion by 2040. By these forecasts, Guyana—the impoverished, rainforest-covered country of just 800,000 people—will become the fourth largest offshore oil producer in the world.

The discovery was off the coast of a part of Guyana which has been the object of a territorial dispute with its neighbour, Venezuela, since the middle of the 19th century when Guyana was part of the British Empire. In 1899 an international court of arbitration awarded the disputed area to the Britain. It’s an area compromising some 75 percent of present-day Guyana. Venezuela never accepted the decision, alleging that it was rigged, but didn’t insist too much in pursuing its claim until now.On 3 December the Venezuelan government, under Hugo Chávez’s successor, Nicolas Maduro, held a referendum throughout the country about whether or not to reject the 1899 ruling and to incorporate the area as a new province. The result was a huge majority for, but on a low turnout, and the government duly established the new province, on paper.

Venezuela, much as it would like to acquire control of the new oilfield, is unlikely to try to actually annex the disputed area. The referendum had more to do with the presidential elections later this year and as a way of trying to win votes for Maduro by beating the nationalist drum. In any event, it is not the land, mainly tropical forest with a few gold mines, that Venezuela really would really like so much as the territorial waters off the area’s coast where the oil is. Diplomatic talks have begun, with the US and Britain backing Guyana. Hence the dispatch of the Royal Navy warship to carry out its role in ‘defence diplomacy’.

Diplomacy is not a matter of working out what is the fair solution to a dispute between states. An important factor affecting the outcome is the relative strength of the two sides. In relations between states might is right. Venezuela may be stronger than Guyana and so could seize the land it claims. But Guyana is backed by the US and Britain, because these don’t want a state with an nationalist anti-American government to control the new oilfield (they want a friendly state to) or to extend its territory (in fact they have been working to overthrow government there), and Venezuela is in no position to take them on any more than it was to challenge the British Empire in 1899.

From threat to action

In another part of the world another Royal Naval warship, HMS Diamond, is also engaged in ‘defence diplomacy,’ in the Red Sea. In fact it has actually used its weapons. As the Royal Navy’s website boasted on 19 December: Diamond’s actions in the small hours of Saturday morning is the first time a Type 45’s Sea Viper missile has been used in action and the first such shootdown by the Royal Navy since the 1990-91 Gulf War.

What is going on in the Red Sea is an aspect of the question of who controls the Persian Gulf, its oilfields and the trade route out of it. In 1980 President Carter laid down the Carter Doctrine that: ‘Gulf oil reserves were of vital interest to the US and the US would therefore be justified in preventing outside domination of the region by military intervention’. This was invoked against Iraq in 1991 and in 2003. Now the threat is from Iran, with the US relying on Israel to counter this. In fact Israel has already bombed Iran on a number of occasions.

Israel is currently engaged in a war of revenge against the Hamas administration in Gaza. The West supports this because Hamas is an enemy of Israel, its asset in the region, only cynically advising Israel not too kill too many Gazans.

Iran and its allies and proxies see the Gaza war as a chance to weaken Israel as the West’s asset. The pro-Iran government of Yemen has been attacking ships bound for Israel or owned by Israeli capitalists. This has led major shipping companies to re-route their ships round Africa, with serious consequences for international trade.

If you wake at midnight, and hear a horse’s feet,

Don’t go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street;

Them that ask no questions isn’t told a lie.

Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!



Five and twenty ponies,

Trotting through the dark —

Brandy for the Parson,

Baccy for the Clerk;

Laces for a lady, letters for a spy,

And watch the wall, my darling,

While the Gentlemen go by!

‘A Smuggler’s Song’ Rudyard Kipling

The Government’s new job creation scheme is starting to pay dividends. Particularly during the war years in Britain of the nineteen forties, a ‘Spiv’ was someone who could supply difficult to obtain items due to rationing or other government restrictions. This was known as the black market.

Del Boys everywhere are encouraged by the economic conditions created by the Executive Committee which runs the UK on Capitalism’s behalf.

Thanks then are due on behalf of spivs everywhere as the opportunities to expand the black market have risen dramatically.

Now, not just tobacco alcohol and fake ‘designer’ commodities are available to the discerning, and poor, consumer but food also has dramatically increased increased the black market possibilities.

Now it’s not so much, ‘it fell off the back of a lorry, rather, it got nicked from the supermarket or wherever. Capitalism it should be noted is not in favour of this form of private enterprise – profits are sacred don’t you know!

In 2024, going on from 2023, in the sixth or seventh largest economy in the world, everyday affordable living necessities are increasingly needed from alternative sources.

The Guardian reports that; ‘Meat, cheese and confectionery are among the items being stolen in large quantities from shops and lorries in order to be sold to people hit by the cost of living crisis.

With food prices rising, figures in policing, retail and academia said action was needed to stop people exploiting the rising demand for stolen food.

With bated breath the hard pressed population awaits the head god botherer’s dire admonishment that the eighth commandment shall be adhered to even if you and your family have to starve to keep it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/22/britons-increasingly-turning-to-food-black-market-experts-say

The majority’s new year’s resolution for 2024 should be to finally come together and put an end to the exploitative system which is Capitalism. There are many unnecessary jobs which only exist to help perpetuate the system which will be binned under Socialism. Spivving is one of them.

Editorial from the July 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many who are vaguely sympathetic towards Socialism complain that they cannot see what basic difference there is between the S.P.G.B. and the organisations which seek to reform the capitalist system. They think we are exaggerating when we say that there is a fundamental similarity between the admirers of capitalism and the reformists which separates both from the Marxist. A glance at a topical problem, the “black market,” will show that there is no exaggeration in our claim, for both the admirers of capitalism and the reformists believe that it is possible to retain the basis of the capitalist social system and yet to change its operations and the conduct of the human beings who live under it, by means of Acts of Parliament and appeals to goodwill.

When the war began we were told by those who claimed to know that there would be no “profiteering” in this war. Socialists smiled and were disbelieving, knowing that a system built on a foundation of private ownership and profit-making will go on producing its evil results whether in peace or war. We smiled again when the News-Chronicle, nearly two years after the war began, said “the days of, the profiteers in clothing and other necessities of life are numbered” (News-Chronicle, July 25th, 1941). We were not impressed with the story that the capitalist thistle would suddenly produce a crop of social figs because of the appointment of “34 Board of Trade inspectors” who were going to track down the “profiteers.” Nor were we mistaken….

The following extracts are from articles in the Sunday Express (June 14th, 1942) : 

“The racketeers are using the existing shortage of supplies as a suitable occasion to corner stocks of many commodities and re-sell them for big profits. . . . One of the biggest profiteering ramps to-day is the whisky racket. . . . The furniture profiteering ramp to defeat both income tax and maximum controlled prices is worked in this way: A small manufacturing firm sells to the “boss” for absurdly low prices. The furniture is installed in a luxury apartment and resold at prices often 300 per cent. above those paid, and the profits are shared out. Jewellery, furs, silk stockings and underclothing are sold for cash in £1 notes in the West End by racketeers, who do not ask for coupons. Cosmetics and beauty preparations, too, can be bought in any quantity for cash.”

Lastly, there is the Judge sentencing some men charged with frauds in connection with corporation contracts who said : —

“This corruption will either be cut out of commercial life or it will destroy the State.” (“Daily Mail,” June 20th, 1942)

A pretty black picture. But, retorts the reformer, make the penalties more severe, copy Russia and Germany and introduce the death penalty, then it will cease. How little they know of that “human nature” they so often talk about. The history of capitalism has demonstrated beyond refutation that given the opportunity (the ownership of goods for sale and a ready market) and given the motive (big and quick profits) nothing will stop illicit deals in one form or another, from robbery and smuggling to black marketeering, and to the numerous operations that can be conducted just on the borderline of legality. The severity of the penalty may to a degree restrict, but it will never stamp out such deals, for operators will always be found who will discount the risk. Even within the limited sphere of keeping the number of such transactions to a comparatively moderate total, experience has proved that it is not the severity of the penalty but the small chance of escaping detection that is alone effective. Otherwise the intending law breaker always hopes that he will not be caught. This was the lesson of the Factory Acts, of the legal minimum wage of agricultural workers, and of income tax evasion. What alone made any impression was not the size of the penalty imposed on law breakers who were caught but the appointment of sufficient inspectors and the use of other means of convincing the offenders that their chances of escaping discovery were small. Even so, most legislation of such a nature is largely a dead letter. The capitalist basis which provides opportunity and motive still prevails against the puny efforts by law or pious resolution to make a competitive system work for the social good.

So much for those who hope to change by Act of Parliament the conduct of people living under capitalism as its exists to-day. But almost equally foolish are the Labour Party and I.L.P. reformists who believe that they can retain the capitalist or State-capitalist basis, with its rich and poor (but with the degree of inequality lessened), with its production of goods for sale, its property incomes and profit-making, and its whole paraphernalia of money, bonds and banks, and can yet persuade or compel capitalists and workers to desist from conduct which flows naturally from a two-class, private property social system, and go over to conduct appropriate to a social system based on human needs alone.

The present spectacle of the “profiteers” and racketeers and the comparative futility of the efforts to stamp them out should be a warning to all who believe that capitalism can be reformed. Socialists take their stand on the very different principle that only by a fundamental change in the basis of society, from private ownership to the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution will human conduct likewise change. It is to the economic foundation, not to the legal and ethical superstructure of society, that attention needs to be directed.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/07/editorial-human-nature-black-market-and.html