It is reported that, ‘UK workers may face lower wage increases in 2024 as employers are mulling cutting pay rises amid persisting economic woes, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has found.

The drop in wage growth comes as many UK employers are cutting back on hiring plans due to slowing growth.

The average future expected pay rise in the UK dropped to 4% in the final quarter of 2023, after holding at 5% for some time, marking the first fall since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. The median expected increase across the private sector showed the same expected decline from 5% to 4%, whereas the expected decrease in the public sector was steeper, from 5% to 3%.

“This feels like a key moment in the UK labour market,” said CIPD senior labor market economist Jon Boys. “The public and private sector gap in pay expectations is widening again, at a time of mounting pressures on public services,” he noted.

Lower pay rises would deal a blow to Britons’ purchasing power and curtail disposable income at a time when living costs are rising, prompting many to re-evaluate their budgets and expenses, experts warned.

“We’ve seen a sustained period of high wage growth in response to a tight labor market, and high inflation pushing up the cost-of-living. Pay growth has helped individuals but it leaves employers with a higher wage bill to cover,” Boys explained.

The survey, which was conducted in January involved over 2,000 employers. About a third of employers plan to increase their headcount over the next three months, while 10% anticipate reductions.’

In related. ‘The British economy fell into recession in the final quarter of 2023, according to official figures released on 13 February

GDP dropped by 0.3% in the fourth quarter following a 0.1% decline in the previous quarter, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has said. A technical recession is typically defined as two successive quarters of contracting output.

All three main sectors of the economy – services, production, and construction – posted declines in the fourth quarter, according to the ONS.

For the whole of 2023, the economy is estimated to have increased by 0.1%, which the ONS described as “the weakest annual change in real GDP since the financial crisis in 2009,” excluding the pandemic year of 2020. In 2022, growth stood at 4.3%.

According to the government, high inflation has been the single biggest barrier to growth. Although price growth in the country has come down from the 11% peak recorded in 2022 and stood at 4% as of January, it’s still double the Bank of England’s 2% target.

If you think things are bad in jolly old England, ‘Annual inflation in Argentina hit a three-decade high of 254% in January even as the rate slowed slightly in monthly terms, according to official data.

Newly installed President Javier Milei has subjected the country to ‘shock therapy’ reforms aimed at stabilizing the ailing economy, including devaluing the nation’s currency by 50% against the US dollar and hiking the key interest rate to 133%.

“If one takes the number alone, isolated, it is horrifying. And indeed, it is, but you have to look at where we were and what the trend was,” Milei said in comments about the inflation data during a public appearance on the television station La Nacion Mas. The president estimated that inflation would come under control within two years.

Meanwhile, monthly inflation in the country stood at 20.6% in January, down from the 25.5% registered for December. Annual inflation in December was 211%. According to the report, transport prices in Argentina soared 26.3%, while the cost of goods and services skyrocketed 44.4% in January.

According to Milei, Argentina’s “economic activity would have fallen much more” had he not implemented the new policies. “We are focusing on taking care of the most vulnerable class,” the president argued. A self-described anarcho-capitalist, Milei, who took office in December 2023, has warned it will take time for the results of his program to be seen and that things could get worse before they get better. Latin America’s third-biggest economy has been beset by a severe economic crisis after decades of financial mismanagement.’

How long till the blind shall see, ‘Poverty levels in Argentina hit a multiple-year high in January following the drastic economic reforms carried out by newly installed President Javier Milei, the Social Debt Observatory of the Catholic University of Argentina (UCA) said in its latest report.

According to the data, the share of people in poverty in the country surged to 57.4% last month, the highest since 2004, and up from 44.7% in the third quarter of 2023, prior to Milei taking office.

In what he called ‘shock therapy’ reforms, the new Argentinian leader has introduced a slew of measures aimed at stabilizing Argentina’s struggling economy, including devaluing the peso by 50% against the US dollar and hiking the key interest rate to 133%. The measures have led to a surge in consumer prices. According to official data released earlier this month, annual inflation in Argentina hit a three-decade high of 254% in January. This, in turn, caused household incomes to collapse and greatly diminished consumer purchasing power, exacerbating poverty levels.

The report noted that the greatest increase in poverty levels was observed among middle-class households that were not beneficiaries of social programs, as well as among low-skilled workers. According to the data, the percentage of Argentinians considered “destitute” surged to 15% in January, up from 9.6% in the third quarter of last year.

The head of the UCA’s Social Debt Observatory, Agustin Salvia, told La Nacion news outlet that he doesn’t expect poverty levels to grow much further, but warned that the situation will likely get worse before it gets better.

“In February and March the situation will tend to worsen, but poverty will find a ceiling of around 60%. There is an expectation that it will tend to improve in two or three months,” he predicted.

Milei reacted to the UCA report in a social media post on Saturday, pledging that more reforms would ease the crisis in the country.

“The true inheritance of the caste model: 6 out of every 10 Argentines are poor. The destruction of the last hundred years is unparalleled in Western history. Politicians have to understand that people voted for change and that we are going to give our lives to bring it about,” he wrote.’

On the other dide of the globe, ‘Australia’s unemployment rate has risen to its highest level since early 2022, hitting 4.1% in January, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported.

The figure is slightly above the consensus expectation of 4%, an uptick from December’s reported 3.9%. The economy added 11,100 full-time jobs and shed 10,600 part-time jobs last month, according to the data.

The report added to concerns of slack in the country’s labour market in the face of a slowing economy and subdued consumer demand. Economists warn that unemployment could further deteriorate later in the year.

Commenting on the report, ABS head Bjorn Jarvis noted a changing seasonal dynamic in the labour market around when people start working after the summer holiday period in January. “While there were more unemployed people in January, there were also more unemployed people who were expecting to start a job in the next four weeks,” Jarvis said.

Meanwhile, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said during a press conference on Thursday that the latest figures indicate that the labour market continues to soften in expected ways. “This is also the inevitable consequence of higher interest rates and persistent inflation and global economic uncertainty, because of the pressures that people are under, the pressures our economy is under, and indeed the global economy as well – those are largely the reasons for the tick up in the unemployment rate that we are seeing today,” concluded Chalmers.’

In lighter news, not really, this is about just one example of an individual’s experience of capitalism: Headline in MailOnline, ‘The letter cleaning boss sent to single mother on £13-an-hour when he fired her for eating a leftover £1.50 tuna sandwich she had found in City law firm meeting room.’ The Ecuadorian cleaner is taking legal action. Judge for yourself whether it’s just another example of what ex- Prime Minister Edward Heath once called the unacceptable face of capitalism.

There are many vulnerable workers within capitalism and there may or may not issue a call from one of the capitalist supporting Parties to improve or increase legislation to prevent this sort of thing but the only real solution is for the abolition of capitalism altogether and its replacement by by a non-profit based social system that values everyone for their contribution to society without the capitalist threat of having their livelihood (no money, no eat) removed on spurious grounds.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13099985/The-hard-hearted-letter-cleaning-boss-sent-single-mother-13-hour-fired-eating-left-tuna-sandwich-meeting-room.html

High Society was a 1956 American musical romantic comedy film starring stars of the time, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly. Grace Kelly was an actress who married a Prince. Well Prince of the two square kilometres of the Principality of Monaco famous for a Formula One race, casinos and a tax haven for the rich.

The film is about a spoilt heiress and millionaires on their uppers. Sinatra and his girlfriend sing Who wants to be a millionaire? where they list all the millionaire lifestyle material possessions they eschew in favour of a loving relationship. Seems as those plenty of the ‘rich and famous’ (sic) do want private planes, super-yachts and country estates though.

The October Socialist Standard of seventy years ago noted the increasing number of millionaires in post-war Britain.

‘The number of very wealthy people in Britain, including millionaires, is well below what it was before the war but it appears to be picking up again now. This, at least, is the conclusion of Mr. Marshall Pugh writing in the Sunday Chronicle (5/9/54). He has provided himself—at a cost of ten guineas—with a published list giving an estimate of the present number of millionaires and he finds it to be 50. A list similarly compiled in 1946 gave only 28. Mr. Pugh concludes that “Britain is slowly recovering from her post-par shortage of millionaires.” He doubts if the list is complete and adds a few likely names. This doubt about the exact number is not surprising because there is no record of millionaires published by the Inland Revenue authorities, though they must certainly have a good idea how many there are.

There is, however, official information in Inland Revenue Reports about the numbers of people in various ranges of income. In 1938-9 there were 99 people, each with an income (before being taxed) of over £100,000 a year. By 1950-51 the number had fallen to 38; and the number of persons who had more than £6,000 left to spend, after paying tax, had fallen from 6,600 in 1938-9 to about 500 in 1950-51. The fall in the number and size of very big incomes is exactly what was to be expected. Contrary to the muddled view held by those who have never understood what capitalism is and how it works capitalism’s wars are paid for by the only class that can pay—the capitalists. The destruction of capitalist property and loss of overseas investments fell on the British capitalists, but now that war-time destruction has been made good accumulation is going ahead once more and we may expect to see a change some way towards the pre-war pattern again.

This will surprise those who have swallowed the nonsense about poverty having been abolished under the so-called Welfare State. Apart from an unusually long period with unemployment at a very low figure nothing has happened since the war to change materially the structure of capitalism. Neither the Labour Government’s social reforms nor its Nationalisation schemes have touched the permanent capitalist inequalities of income and capital. It is still true, as it was in 1918, when the Labour Party plugged it in its election address that about 90 per cent, of the accumulated wealth of the country is owned by a 10th of the population. Yet we have the fatuous organ of Mr. Bevan, Tribune, in its issue for 2 July, 1954, publishing some figures about “the flagrant contrast between poverty and wealth in Britain,” and calling them “discoveries!” Tribune’s comment is that these “appalling facts” “will shock those who believe that the welfare state has eliminated poverty in Britain—or that there is no case for a drastic redistribution of wealth.”

Of course outstanding among those who deceived the workers into believing that the welfare state would abolish or had abolished poverty are the people who run Tribune.

And now that Tribune—about a century and a half late—has discovered that under capitalism there is flagrant contrast between poverty and wealth in Britain, their remedy is to seek redistribution of wealth. Socialists, of course, are not seeking anything of the kind. Trying to seek redistribution of wealth under capitalism merely perpetuates the notion that capitalism would be all right if there were fewer millionaires and more capitalists with investments of a moderate size. But this, assuming for the sake of argument that it could be achieved, would not at all remove the evils of capitalism. It is a matter of no concern at all to the cow whether she is milked to make profit for a farmer, a co-operative society or a millionaire dairy combine. The worker, if he understood his own interest, would perceive that capitalism is a system that functions by milking him for the benefit of the capitalist class and it is not his worry if some capitals swallow up others and produce millionaires. Their multiplication or their elimination will make no difference to him. It is not the redistribution of the property of the capitalists that will solve the workers’ problems but the abolition of capitalism.

Tribune, however, knows of other “solutions” of the poverty problem for in September a contributor, Mr. Ian Mikardo, went to Hungary and made the discovery that “there’s very little real poverty in Red Hungary.” But there must be a catch in that word “real” for he also discovered that the Hungarian workers’ living standards “are about 30 per cent. below ours, even when one allows for a very much higher ‘social wage’ than we have in Great Britain.” (Tribune 17th September 1954.)

It is all rather confusing. The poverty in Britain, says the Tribune is appalling in spite of the “welfare state and in Hungary living standards are 30 per cent. lower than in Britain in spite of having an even better welfare state (“social wage”); but nevertheless they are not “really” poor.

In the meantime here is a comforting thought about millionaires and the way they spend their money, from Noel Barber’s column in the Daily Mail (11 Sept., 1954).

“Being—like all millionaires—a true lover of the arts. Onassis, the uncrowned king, Monte Carlo recently commissioned the French artist Verges to do four big murals for the spacious saloon of his big new yacht.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/12/editorial-news-about-millionaires-1954.html

An up to date report foresees an upsurge in millionaires within the BRICS grouping over the next ten years. Not if the world decides to abolish capitalism and implement Socialism it won’t matey. What benefit this would be to the global majority working class isn’t stated. The world needs even power power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a ruling class like a kick in the head. Another Sinatra song reference.

‘The number of new millionaires in the BRICS countries will see a surge by 2034, contributing to the biggest increase in wealth across any group of nations, according to a recent report by Henley & Partners.

The BRICS group of emerging economies, which previously comprised Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, underwent a major expansion after Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates joined in January of this year. Saudi Arabia, which has also been officially invited, is also set to become a member.

According to the report, the total investable wealth currently held by individuals in the BRICS countries amounts to $45 trillion, while the number of millionaires is expected to surge by 85% over the next decade. There are currently 1.6 million individuals with investable assets of over $1 million in the group, including 4,716 with more than $100 million and 549 billionaires.

In comparison, the figure for investable assets in the G7, comprising Canada, France, Japan, Italy, the US, UK, and EU, was $110 trillion as of December 2023, according to data provided to CNBC by Andrew Amolis, an analyst at New World Wealth. The number of millionaires is expected to increase by 45% over the next decade.

“[BRICS is] challenging the world order and establishing itself as a powerful rival to the G7 and other international institutions,” Henley & Partners’ Managing Partner and Head of Southeast Asia, Dominic Volek, said during a webcast presentation of the report.

Meanwhile, Amolis told CNBC that “the 85% forecast for BRICS will be the highest wealth growth of any bloc or region globally.”

According to the report, India is leading the charge in terms of growth of investable assets, with an estimated 110% jump in wealth per capita by 2033. The UAE is poised for 95% growth, while the figures for China and Ethiopia are expected to rise by 85% and 75%, respectively.

BRICS is now a highly influential player in the global economy, offering attractive new opportunities for investors, entrepreneurs, and talented high-net-worth individuals, the CEO of Henley & Partners, Juerg Steffen, stated.

Meanwhile, leading personal finance and investment expert Jeff Opdyke said that nations once considered ‘developing’ or ‘emerging’ or the pejorative ‘third world’ are now dynamic economies that are changing the global order. “Economically, non-Western nations – with BRICS at the vanguard – are pushing the globe into a new reality: An emerging economic, social, and monetary status quo that is upending what the world has accepted as normal for nearly eight decades,” Opdyke stated, as quoted in the report.’

F

 ‘For more than seven decades, a secretive and highly influential organization has been bringing together the heads of Europe’s largest banks twice a year at luxury hotels and royal palaces across the continent to discuss global policymaking among other issues, according to a report by the Financial Times.

The article highlighted that the existence of the Institut International d’Etudes Bancaires (IIEB) is barely known outside its membership while the group has no website and its meeting agendas are not made public. Members are reportedly discouraged from sharing details of the discussions. “This is not like Davos, where anyone can buy their way in,” one long time member told FT on condition of anonymity. “This really is exclusive,” he added.

Some members have been complaining about lack of transparency within the group, which was set up to encourage closer ties among banks at a time of geopolitical tensions and challenges to financial stability across Europe. “We were members for decades when the organization served a purpose to bring European banks closer together,” Par Boman, the chair of Swedish bank Handelsbanken, told the FT. “But after the financial crisis we felt its extravagance and lack of transparency did not fit our values.”

According to the report, the IIEB was established in Paris in 1950 by the heads of four lenders from across the continent – Crédit Industriel et Commercial, Union Bank of Switzerland, Société Générale de Belgique and Amsterdamsche Bank. The aim was to hold regular high-level discussions on developments in the banking sector, as well as the economy and monetary system.

The topics under discussion reportedly reflected the concerns of European bankers at certain periods of time. In the 1950s, for example, it was the formation of subsidiaries in former colonies, while by the 1960s, the attention had turned to the global role of the US dollar, the problems with the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates and the threat of American takeovers of European banks. Towards the end of the century, the IIEB discussions were more concerned with the impact of the euro, the growing derivatives market, and M&A deals between big banks, the FT wrote.’

“As Europe’s lenders come under pressure to improve their lackluster valuations – having fallen far behind their US rivals on profitability in recent years – and with the continent bracing for a long-heralded wave of cross-border dealmaking, the IIEB is entering one of its most important periods since it was set up in the aftermath of the second world war,” the paper wrote.

According to the FT, besides being a forum where Europe’s top financiers can exchange ideas, the IIEB serves as an elite social club where, over three days, the bankers’ spouses can enjoy gala dinners, private tours of historic landmarks and high-end shopping trips.

The report noted there has been almost no media coverage of the IIEB’s activities during its more than seven decades of existence despite the importance of the topics under discussion’

Bankers’ bonuses: who’s to blame for the greed?

Bob Diamond, Barclays bank’s chief executive, and one of Europe’s highest-paid bosses, last month faced a grilling from the Treasury Select Committee, a cross-party body appointed by the House of Commons. Those expecting a replay of previous confrontations between MPs and bankers – in February 2009, for example, when the bankers said they were ‘profoundly sorry’ for their role in the financial crisis – were to be disappointed.

Diamond was unrepentant. In answer to questions from MPs, he said it was about time that unfair public criticism ‘moved on’ so bankers could stop apologising and get back to business as usual. MPs wanted to know if Diamond was going to show ‘restraint’ on bonuses this year (no), refuse his own bonus (probably not), act more responsibly and increase lending to business (impossible to do both), accept personal liability for the failing of institutions (no) and if he was ‘grateful’ to ‘the taxpayer’, ie, the state, for bailing out the financial system and keeping him and his whole industry in business (grudgingly, and after much evasion, yes. In other words, reading between the lines, no).

Diamond’s performance added fuel to the fire of the ongoing bankers’ bonus controversy. Ministers in the present government, while campaigning for power, said they were determined to do something about the arrogance and excessive wealth of the bankers. And to be fair, they are doing something. In fact, as Will Hutton puts it in The Observer (16 January), compared with Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, business secretary Vince Cable and chancellor George Osborne are ‘fire-breathing radicals’, clamping down on tax avoidance, taxing bank profits, setting targets for bank lending, regulating hedge funds and contemplating more banking reform and regulation. But so far, they are being relatively timid about bankers’ bonuses. Why? Now that they have taken power, they, in common with all governments, accept the reality of capital accumulation and their role in it. And that means not doing anything that will frighten the financiers too much.

Capitalists united – and divided

That remains true even in the face of an increasingly numerous opposition. After all, as Hutton says, the issue of bankers’ bonuses is uniting everyone in outrage – ‘from captains of industry bewildered how top bankers can earn so much more than they do to the newly unemployed who wonder what they have done to deserve poverty and hardship while the moneymen pocket millions’. That the state bailouts have poured into the pockets of private individuals, and the poorest and most vulnerable will be left to pay the price in terms of job losses, benefit cuts, and reduced levels of social services and so on, we have already stated (see Socialist Standard, passim). But how come we are also seeing criticism from captains of industry and government ministers and the business press and so on? Not so long ago, bankers could rely on them being ‘intensely relaxed’ about such matters. Why now so increasingly angry and vocal?

Partly it is a fear of social unrest and breakdown. It also reflects divisions within the capitalist class. As a class, the capitalists are united by the need to promote the conditions necessary for investment and business activity. For that, they need, for example, a supply of compliant and affordable labour, a state willing and able to provide socially necessary infrastructure, a financial system to facilitate the processes of capital accumulation, a vibrant consumer market, and so on. On issues such as these, capitalists stand united. But the capitalist also finds himself in competition with his comrades. Capitalists have differing needs and interests depending on exactly how they get their hands on the spoils of exploitation – whether as landlord, financier, industrialist, retailer or state official, for example. In the usual course of things, this is just the stuff of competition, of ‘business as usual’, the undertow of everyday life. But when crisis hits, everything breaks to the surface. As Marx puts it (in Capital, Volume 3, Chapter 15):

‘So long as things go well, competition effects an operating fraternity of the capitalist class […] so that each shares in the common loot in proportion to the size of his respective investment. But as soon as it is no longer a question of sharing profits, but of sharing losses, everyone tries to reduce his own share to a minimum and to shove it off upon another. The class, as such, must inevitably lose. How much the individual capitalist must bear of the loss, ie, to what extent he must share in it at all, is decided by strength and cunning, and competition then becomes a fight among hostile brothers. The antagonism between each individual capitalist’s interests and those of the capitalist class as a whole, then comes to the surface…’

Who wins out in this struggle is not simply a reflection of factional power, as the Marxist academic David Harvey points out (The Limits To Capital, Chapter 7). The existence of surplus value (profit) in money form is ‘the most adequate form of capital’, which means that ‘the moneyed interest enriches itself at the cost of the industrial interest in the course of [a] crisis’ (Marx). This, then, helps us understand the row about bankers’ bonuses. It’s a row about which class, or which fraction of a class, is going to be landed with the costs of the crisis. We see, therefore, that Marxian theory is not esoteric mumbo-jumbo or outdated rubbish, as often claimed, but a powerful explanation for what is actually going on in the real world. If you understand Marxian theory, bankers’ multi-billion-pound bonuses and the row surrounding them no longer look so much like an insane aberration, but a logical consequence of social and economic structure. Bankers are enriching themselves at the expense of industry and workers? Well, OK, that’s what we would expect to happen…

What is to be done?

The question is what is to be done about it. As Harvey says, however the class struggle eventually plays out, however the losses of the crisis are finally distributed between factions of the capitalist class, and between the working and capitalist classes, and whatever the power struggle that ensues, the necessary result will be the destruction of value (closure of workplaces, the laying off of workers, destruction of surpluses, defaulting on debt, cutting of state services, and so on) so that a new round of capitalist accumulation can begin. This is totally irrational and insane from the point of view of human needs, but inevitable and logical from the point of view of capital accumulation.

The film-maker Charles Ferguson, whose investigative documentary Inside Job exposes the delusions and deeds of the bankers during the course of the crisis, says that, ‘Those responsible [for the crisis] blame the system. Or they blame the bubble caused by irresponsible borrowers. Some of them blame low interest rates. In a grim way, it’s actually amusing to watch them blame anyone except themselves’ (Evening Standard, 17 January). The film-maker’s contempt for those who line their pockets and profit from social disaster is justified. But actually, in a sense, it’s the bankers who have got it right. It is the system that is to blame. And we should indeed ‘move on’ – from blaming capitalists who are as much at the mercy of the system as the rest of us, to an understanding of the world we live in and how it works. Politically, that means moving from a demand for ‘regime change’ to one for ‘system change’.

Stuart Watkins

From the February 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2021/02/an-unrepentant-banker-2011.html

From The Guardian 14 February.

‘UK shop workers are facing 1,300 incidents of violence and abuse a day and a battle to control “brazen” acts of shoplifting, as pressure mounts on ministers to intervene to protect retail employees. ‘

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/14/violence-and-abuse-against-uk-retail-staff-rises-to-1300-incidents-a-day

It notes, ‘The rise in retail crime has coincided with a period of rampant price inflation, with the cost of everyday goods from eggs to baby formula increasing over the past two years at a rate not seen since records began in the 1970s, leaving many families struggling to make ends meet.’

The ‘solutions’ on offer, the Chief Executive of the British Retail Consortium called for more arrests. “Despite retailers investing huge sums in crime prevention, violence and abuse against retail workers is climbing. Criminals are being given a free pass to steal goods and to abuse and assault retail colleagues. No one should have to go to work fearing for their safety.”

Absolutely correct. No one should put their health or their life on the line to ‘protect’ capitalist profits.

There are calls for the ‘offence of assaulting, threatening, or abusing a retail worker.’

‘The Co-op, which has more than 2,000 stores across the UK, said it was installing 200 secure till kiosks, locked cabinets for bottles of spirits and AI technology to monitor self-checkouts in its supermarkets after a 44% surge in retail crime last year. It has also doubled the amount it spends on security guards.’

Why is the real problem not being addressed? Capitalism. With the transition to Socialism, a social system where quality goods and services will be produced for use not free and the necessity to sell your labour power in order to earn money to live so that you can work to earn money to live ad infinitum a very large number of capitalistic socially useless jobs will become redundant. Immediate ‘occupations’ that spring to mind are financial, military, sales, marketing, adverting, insurance, taxation, security and retail check out ‘ There won’t be shoplifting because everything will be free access. And yes, there will be plenty of people happy to ensure smooth distribution and stocking up because working for the common good is its own reward.

From the Socialist Standard November 2023

‘One reason why we continue to work comparatively long hours, despite the labour-saving potential of modern technology, is the proliferation of many paid jobs that essentially contribute nothing whatsoever to our material well-being. They are, nevertheless, required simply to keep the money-based market economy ticking over on its own terms.

David Graeber in his 2018 book, Bullshit Jobs defines these loosely as jobs that, if you were to scrap them completely tomorrow, it would hardly make any discernible difference to the real world or to our standard of living. He noted in an interview that there is a certain delicious irony in the fact that while a Soviet-style system has often been held up by mainstream economists as grossly inefficient because of all those make-believe jobs it created to maintain the pretence of full employment, in a so-called free-market economy that is supposed to root out such inefficiencies, exactly the same thing has been happening.

In that book, Graeber invents a rather amusing and colourful lexicon of terms to describe the different categories of jobs he has in mind. These jobs are everywhere and multiplying like wayward bacterial spores in a Petri dish. There are ‘flunkies’, paid to hang around, like doormen or receptionists, simply to make their superiors feel important; ‘goons’ to harm or deceive others for some nefarious commercial interest like the ubiquitous lobbyists or telemarketers; ‘duct tapers’ to temporarily fix jobs that would be better, and more efficiently, fixed permanently; ‘box tickers’ that go through the motions of doing paperwork that appears important but is decidedly not; and, last but not least, ‘taskmasters’ who are either completely superfluous in the guise of superiors telling you what needs to be done when you already know what needs to be done or are otherwise known as ‘bullshit generators’ whose job it is to create yet more bullshit jobs and so keep themselves employed in their own bullshit jobs.

A great many of these bullshit jobs fall within the services or tertiary sector. This sector now comprises the great bulk of the workforce at least in the more economically developed countries and as stated, its growth has been linked to the concept of deindustrialisation. Some workers in the services sector – like nurses or teachers – of course, perform socially useful tasks but many others clearly do not.

The ‘tertiarisation’ of the economy strongly associated with the growth of such socially useless industries as commerce, finance and retailing is an expression of the evolving (and expanding) systemic needs of capitalism itself. However, tertiarisation in itself does not capture the full extent of capitalism´s structural waste since many apparently useful jobs in the secondary or manufacturing sector (and, by extension, the primary sector) have to do with providing products or physical infrastructure that are then used for socially useless purposes within the services sector itself.

These jobs don’t actually make us ‘better off’ in real terms. They don’t result in more socially useful wealth being produced and distributed around. However, the fact that more and more of us are doing them means that more and more of us are, in effect, dependent on economic transfers from the steadily shrinking part of the economy concerned with producing socially useful wealth to maintain what might be called our ‘real standard of living’.

Money is the mechanism by which these economic transfers are effected, but money is also the reason why they are needed in the first place. Bank employees shuffling around bits of paper called money (although these days this is largely digitalised) can’t live on the stuff. They have to exchange it for ‘real’ stuff – like pairs of shoes, takeaway pizzas, or a Toyota to drive to work.

This is equally true whether you possess a wad of cash or an electronic wallet of bitcoins. In both instances what we are talking about is just a symbolic claim to wealth, not wealth itself. Indeed, for all the current hullabaloo over the latter – the cryptocurrency of choice of money launderers and shady operators everywhere – society as a whole is not one jot better off. On the contrary, according to data supplied by the University of Cambridge and the International Energy Agency, bitcoin ‘mining’ consumes around the same amount of energy annually as the Netherlands did in 2019 (tinyurl.com/3yk9w3zw).

What an astounding waste of energy! And to achieve precisely what? Nothing except to boost some individuals’ symbolic claim to wealth at the expense of others. For that is all that it can ever logically amount to when you think about it. In themselves, bitcoins – or fiat money, for that matter – are completely worthless. How long would Robinson Crusoe survive on his island if that was all he had to live on?

Actually, the ‘Robinson Crusoe’ acid test is not a bad starting point for determining what we mean by a real ‘human need’ as opposed to a fake. We don’t ‘need’ money. What we need in this society is only (some of) the things money can buy – though a lot of other things our money can also buy we don’t really need at all either – what the counter-cultural philosopher Herbert Marcuse called ’false needs’ in his 1964 book, One Dimensional Man. These are systematically and subconsciously instilled in us as a way of better integrating us into a capitalist ‘consumer society’ that is then able to more efficiently repress and control us by manufacturing our consent, manipulating our inner desires, and generally soliciting our compliance with its core values.

Of course, banking or cryptocurrency transactions and the like are only a tiny visible tip of a veritable iceberg of structural waste that we are talking about. With fewer and fewer people involved in producing shoes, pizzas and cars and more and more people engaged in ‘socially useless’ (but capitalistically indispensable) work within the economy, it is not surprising that society’s overall workload has not diminished but increased. More and more people are employed today than ever before but, at the same time, more and more of these are engaged in work that contributes absolutely nothing to our material well-being. Consequently, from the standpoint of meeting our needs, we are in effect, as a society, having to run faster and faster just to stand still. That is, to maintain our real “standard of living”.

Indeed, this is the core argument that runs through Ken Smith’s thought-provoking book, Free is Cheaper (1988). According to him, capitalism or the ‘market economy’, from small beginnings at the end of the Middle Ages, has come to dominate life in every corner of the world. However, it has brought with it increasingly unacceptable costs:

‘The crime industry, war preparation, bureaucracy, the ”sales effort”, these and other non-productive activities absorb the efforts of nine-tenths of the working population and are growing faster than productivity itself’.

On the basis of evidence supplied by commentators such as Thorold Rogers (Six Centuries of Work and Wages, 1884) and Sir William Beveridge et al (Prices and Wages in England from the Twelfth to the Nineteenth Century, 1939), Smith came up with some quite startling conclusions. For instance: ‘it takes longer today for a carpenter or a bricklayer to earn the price of a pound of meat or a house brick than it did five centuries ago’. What accounts for this, he argued, is the ever-increasing on-costs – or transactional costs – imposed by the market system itself.

Smith arrived at a figure of 90 percent of the working population being engaged in one or other form of socially useless activity (from the standpoint of meeting human needs) by carrying out a fairly comprehensive sectoral analysis of the British economy as it was back then in the 1980s. A roughly similar figure has been reached by other commentators such as Buckminster Fuller.

That figure of 90 percent is probably on the high side. Most people who have looked into the matter would put the figure at, conservatively speaking, roughly half the working population or perhaps a bit more.

Much depends, of course, on how stringently you want to define ‘socially useless activity’. A luxury good, for instance, might be considered ‘socially useless’. Yet it is undeniable that ‘consuming’ it can afford us pleasure. The problem arises when the production of luxury goods reaches a scale that jeopardises the satisfaction of our more mundane and pressing basic needs by diverting resources and labour away from the latter to the former. So the question of opportunity costs – how much of a given resource should you devote to producing this particular product at the expense of producing more of some other product – needs to be factored into the equation. Additionally, there is the question of how you define a luxury good. Some goods that were once considered a luxury – like a car or a refrigerator – have over time come to be considered a necessity.

Nevertheless, the basic thrust of Smith’s argument is unquestionably on the right track. Even setting aside the example of the production of luxury goods, there is a very large number of occupations that can be unequivocally and categorically classed as ‘socially useless’ and, therefore, wasteful of society’s human and material resources. In fact, the full extent of capitalism’s ‘structural waste’ is truly massive, all-pervading, and steadily growing. However, it will remain completely invisible to the naked eye, so to speak, as long as the viewer adopts a standpoint that simply takes this money-based capitalist system for granted.

To really appreciate the enormity of this iceberg of structural waste, you have, as it were, to step outside of that standpoint, or way of looking at the world, and adopt instead, a standpoint external to the system itself. You have to imaginatively presuppose a hypothetical society in which money itself, as an institution, has completely ceased to exist.

Needless to say, in such a society a great many of the jobs bound up with the existence of money today – or what that existence entails –would likewise cease to exist. They would simply serve no purpose.’

Robin Cox

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/11/capitalisms-structural-waste-2023.html

The Socialist Party of Great Britain and its Companion Parties within the World Socialist Movement has always aimed for the transition from Capitalism to Socialism to occur through the democratic process and not through violent revolution.

It is considered that are seventy two countries in the world which qualify as democracies.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries

The Republic of Senegal is a West African country of eighteen million people.

It is numbered within the classification of heavily indebted poor countries.

The World Poverty Clock has seven per cent of Senegal living in extreme poverty. In Democratic Indexes Senegal ranks as the fourth most democratic country in Africa. ‘Senegal s one of the few African states that has never experienced a coup d’état or exceptionally harsh authoritarianism. There are seventy two political Parties there.’ Wiki

Senegal is currently undergoing violent protests because the President has postponed elections due to take place by ten months.

Senegal’s Parliament has supported the President. At present it is not known what the eventual outcome

‘On Saturday (FSb. 10) at least two people were confirmed dead after protests were held across Senegal, Friday (Feb. 09).

Demonstrators were not allowed to gather, and groups were dispersed by security forces.

The victims confirmed so far, two men in their twenties, were killed in Saint-Louis and in Dakar according to local media reports.

The victim in Saint-Louis was a student. He was killed on a school campus following demonstrations in the northern city, according to a statement from the public prosecutor.

Anger has mounted since President Sall last week postponed presidential elections scheduled this month.

The delay came hours before official campaigning was due to begin.

Parliament backed a delay until December and voted to keep Sall in power until his successor takes office, which is unlikely to be before early 2025.

Sall’s second term was due to end April 2nd.

The president said he postponed the vote because of a dispute between parliament and the Constitutional Council over aspiring candidates who were not allowed to stand.

In an interview Friday (Feb. 09), he said he wants to rapidly organize a national dialogue that will pave the way for a peaceful electoral process.

Opposition lawmakers have filed an appeal at the Constitutional court while presidential candidates appealed to the Supreme Court.

A new round of protests is planned for Tuesday (Feb. 13).

Senegalese in the diaspora have also taken to the streets. In France where a large community of Senegalese lives, crowds gathered Saturday (Feb. 10) in major cities including Paris, Bordeaux (South west) and Nice (south).’

https://www.africanews.com/2024/02/11/election-protests-turn-deadly-in-senegal/

‘In his first interview since announcing the postponement of the presidential election, Senegal’s Macky Sall argues his decision to intervene was necessary to prevent worse electoral chaos.

He spoke Friday (Feb. 09) as nationwide protests shook the country.

“I am for an inclusive, transparent and peaceful process that allows me to pass on the baton smoothly and in peace. That is the most important thing for our country today. You are right that West Africa is currently in a extremely difficult time, it’s not at such a time when I am about to end my term that I will reinvent myself in a new career as a dictator or non-democrat,” Sall told the Associated Press.

“That’s a picture they are painting, but it doesn’t correspond to my profile or my personality and that doesn’t correspond to reality. The reality is that if there hadn’t been this crescendo of successive crises, despite the breaches, we wouldn’t have gone in this direction”.

Last May, Sall held a national dialogue aimed at reducing political tensions after unprecedented riots.

However, rights groups continued to accuse authorities of repressing the media, civil society and the opposition.

Senegal’s president now believes a new dialogue can solve the crisis the country grapples with.

“The dialogue for me can start anytime from next week, but I think there are prerequisites if we want to have success. First among these prerequisites is to establish trust between the actors, bring peace and enter a dialogue,” Senegal’s president said.

“So within one or two weeks maximum if the actors accept and I see a lot of interest from more and more actors who are okay with the idea of dialogue, that means we can get there quickly.”

Opposition lawmakers have filed an appeal at the Constitutional court.

The decree voted by Parliament to postne the election is also contested by candidates in the presidentialelection.

Out of 20, 14 appealed to the Supreme Court.

Senegalese faith in democracy has significantly declined under Sall, according to an independent survey by a research network.’

https://www.africanews.com/2024/02/10/i-am-seeking-for-nothing-except-to-leave-a-country-in-peace-sall-says-as-protests-erupt/

The news that Amazon displays more expensive items rather than the cheaper ones when customers look on their site for particular products can hardly be a surprise in a capitalist system. That ninety eight per cent of customers trusted Amazon to offer the best deals strikes Socialists as a concerning statistic. Capitalism is about making profit, and then more profit by whatever means it can. Capitalists discovered many ways of increasing the surplus value it generated from the working class it exploits and it continues to do wherever it can and can get away with. Note in the report that Amazon cries, why pick on us, this is standard practice, everyone does it. Trusting capitalist enterprises is as foolish as trusting politicians. Caveat emptor applies to the present social system too. Is there a solution to such practices? Of course, and the sooner the abolition of capitalism occurs the sooner this exploitative system will no longer have the opportunity to rip us all off in all kinds of devious ways.

‘Online retail giant Amazon has been sued in a proposed US class action for allegedly violating consumer protection laws, Reuters reported.

According to the report citing a complaint filed in a federal court in Seattle, Amazon was illegally steering customers to more expensive products by using an algorithm which determines what to display in the retailer’s ‘Buy Box’ when buyers searched for products. The suit claims that the algorithm often picked higher-priced items to display to customers instead of cheaper ones.

The complaint also stated that buyers were likely to heed Amazon’s suggestions 98% of the time, trusting the retailer to offer the best deals. According to documents cited by the news outlet, however, the algorithm was created specifically to benefit the retail giant by suggesting sellers that are part of its ‘Fulfillment By Amazon’ program and pay the marketplace extra fees for its services.

“While ostensibly identifying the selection that consumers would make if they considered all the available offers, Amazon’s Buy Box algorithm deceptively favours Amazon’s own profits over consumer well-being,” the lawsuit stated. The practice allegedly violates a Washington state law against deceptive trade practices.

Amazon has so far declined to comment on the case, the latest in a slew of private and government actions regarding the retailer’s business practices. Two separate class actions that also focused on violations against consumers claimed that Amazon charged buyers for returned purchases and failed to meet delivery times.

In September 2023, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company for allegedly abusing its market dominance by forcing sellers to use its warehouses and delivery services, thus inflating prices for products.

Amazon asked a federal judge to dismiss the case in December, arguing that its business practices are standard in the retail industry, and calling the lawsuit an “effort to hobble one of America’s most consumer-focused businesses.”’

History is interesting despite what Tucker Carlson might think. In August 1939 the then Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany signed a ten year non-aggression pact which also delineated specific spheres of influence. On 1 September 1939 Germany invaded Poland. On 17 September 1939 Soviet Russia invaded eastern Poland.

On 22 June 1941 Germany launched operation Barbarossa and invaded Soviet Russia.

The USA set up The OWI (Office of War Information) and put in charge of “advising Hollywood about the means to support the war effort”. A set of guidelines were formulated in a “Manual for the Motion Picture Industry” such as:

In a comprehensive third chapter of the handbook, called “Who are our allies”, “Tinsel Town” is advised to learn more about their former enemy, the Soviet Union: We must fight the unity lies about Russia (..), emphasize the might and heroism, the victory of the Russians. In a most surprising manner we find out that ‘we Americans reject communism, but we do not reject our Russian ally’ (United States, 1942).’ https://dissidentvoice.org/2022/07/americas-1940s-pro-soviet-films-social-realist-cinema-in-the-usa/ In 1964 Bob Dylan’s song. With God On Our Side contained the verse, ‘I’ve learned to hate the Russians, All through my whole life, If another war comes, It’s them we must fight, To hate and to fear them, To run and to hide, And accept it all bravely, With God on my side.’

In a piece in the Socialist Standard of May 1989 it was pointed out that ‘It all depends what they want us to think.’

‘News At Ten (6 April) urged us to welcome our new-found friend, Mikhail Gorbachev. He is a communist, you see. A communist with whom Mrs. Thatcher is very pleased to do business. A communist who is proud to invite the Queen to come over and tread on a few of his subjects. The cult of Gorby is very big right now. It was the Newspeak writers on The Sun who christened him Gorby. Over in Washington the CIA tried to put a damper on the visit by leaking the information about Russian sales of fighter planes to Libya. All part of the propaganda war. This is the dogmatic assault upon us today: when our rulers want us to believe that Russia is “the Evil Empire” and we must prepare to die destroying it, then the newsreaders will tell us what a despicable police state the dictator Gorbachev presides over (as he does); when commerce and international militarism require closer relations between the two old superpowers — so that perhaps they can prepare to make war on the new, up and coming superpowers — then Gorby is our man and pictures of Raisa being shown the Tower of London are the order of the day. It all depends what they want us to think. To accept what the servants of capitalist propaganda tell us is to fall into the trap which leads to the kind of world Orwell was writing about. That millions have fallen into the trap cannot be denied, but it is not too late to climb out. In an essay written in 1940, called Inside The Whale, Orwell made a comment which is worth keeping in front of you while watching News At Ten: “To say ‘I accept’ in an age like our own is to say that you accept concentration camps, rubber truncheons, Hitler, Stalin, bombs, aeroplanes, tinned food, machine-guns, putsches, purges, slogans, Bedaux belts, gas-masks, submarines, spies, provocateurs, press censorship, secret prisons, aspirins, Hollywood films and political murders.”

Steve Coleman

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/10/between-lines-orwell-gorbachev-and-news.html

The protagonist, George Bowling, in George Orwell’s 1939 novel, Coming Up For Air, described the ‘little boxes’ that workers lived in’

‘You know how these streets fester all over the inner-outer suburbs. Long, long rows of little semi-detached houses as much alike as council houses and generally uglier. The stucco front, the creosoted gate, the privet hedge, the green front door. At perhaps one house in fifty some anti-social type who’ll probably end in the workhouse has painted his front door blue instead of green.’ [Expressing individuality? Perhaps he was a Socialist!]

He was prescient about the Thatcher social engineering of the eighties that believed that buying your council house and owning a few shares in the privatised utility industries would ensure that everyone became Conservatives.

‘Merely because of the illusion that we own our houses and have what’s called ‘a stake in the country’, we poor saps in the Hesperides, and in all such places, are turned into Crum’s devoted slaves for ever. We’re all respectable householders—that’s to say Tories, yes-men, and bumsuckers. We’re all bought, and what’s more we’re bought with our own money. Every one of those poor downtrodden bastards, sweating his guts out to pay twice the proper price for a brick doll’s house that’s called Belle Vue because there’s no view and the bell doesn’t ring—every one of those poor suckers would die on the field of battle to save his country from Bolshevism.’

Coming Up For Air George Orwell 1939

Despite not as yet accepting the need to abolish the iniquitous capitalist system times do change and hopefully there are very few, if any, poor suckers any more who would be prepared to go out and die in the interests of capitalism.

An interview between an American journalist and the present President of Russia is causing a bit of a storm in a teacup at present. Does it have any lasting significance for the global working class who continue to be exploited by that system? No. ’Leaders’ come and go although some do hang around longer than others. Many seem to see being in charge of a capitalist state, or state capitalist state, as a family business to be passed down to their sons or daughters. To steal and paraphrase from The Life of Brian, what have leaders ever done for us? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, part of the World Socialist Movement, has, since its inception in 1904 never had ‘leaders’. After all, the majority working class run capitalism on behalf of its ruling class so why shouldn’t we be capable of organising society to run for the benefit of all? So why do we continue to put people into a position of power over us where the only benefit is one where they ‘ exist, have always existed, will always exist, for one purpose only: to line their own pockets and empty yours?’

From the April 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘The Greek phrase “an-archon” or “no leader” gave us the word “anarchy”. Yet “anarchy” to most people is another name for chaos, or disorder. The assumption is that without leaders, there can be no civilisation. Our contention is the opposite. Leaders, and the followers who create them, are holding us back from any real global civilisation.

Think what some of these leaders have accomplished for humanity. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Margaret Thatcher, Mao Tse Tung, Saddam Hussein–it would be perverse indeed to claim that such leaders have benefited the human species, and yet stubbornly the leadership cult persists. Anyone can write a long list of “bad leaders”. But try writing a list of “good leaders” and see how far you get.



The world is obsessed by leaders and leadership. Corruption charge may follow sex scandal in the halls of power, and it doesn’t seem to matter how many political, religious or other leaders are exposed as liars and frauds, nothing seems to dent the idea of leadership as a practical and reliable method of organising human affairs. The evidence may say differently, the individuals in real life may be as bent as a rubber shilling but the principle of leadership is still considered perfectly valid. Is this because we believe that some (mostly) men are just superhuman, or because we are over-rating the few and under-rating the many?



The comic-strip character “Superman” has to save the human race so often he must get really bored with it. In most adventure stories, books and films, and in true heroic form, one or other man usually saves us all. With this plot, write your own blockbuster. We have a “hero” fixation, perhaps shaped in a modern form by Nietzchean ideas of perfectibility, but born originally in the vacuum left by the death of old gods and antiquated religions, and justified by a rather freudian view of history as the sequential biographies of great leaders and lords. All this continues to inform our art, our imagination and our politics. If only we had the right people in charge, everything would be better.



Or would it? In nature, any species which relied so heavily on certain “heroic” individuals to save it just wouldn’t last a single sweaty afternoon. Human beings are far too inventive and adaptable to leave themselves in such a fix, and in order to persuade ourselves that we need leaders we somehow have to forget this fact, and keep on forgetting it.



Humans are remarkable. Our very diversity as a species is the key to our success, if that is the word, in dominating all other species. We have the most complex brain ever evolved in nature and by trading ideas through the medium of our collective diversity (that is to say, society) we have multiplied our latent ingenuity by many orders of magnitude. In a geological second or two we have climbed down from the trees, given ourselves a name, learned to produce food in abundance, and sent our spacecraft to explore our planetary system.



That’s not bad going for an unpromising and rather weedy bald, deaf ape with bad eyesight and no sense of smell. Nobody would have put money on us back in the Pliocene.



We now we dominate the globe. And are we looking after it properly? Obviously not. The rest of the animal species are at our mercy, and we are making them extinct. Are we content? No, we’re not. Can we stop destroying everything around us? No, we can’t. What’s wrong with us?



Post-scarcity era

It’s because we can’t let go of the past. Yes, we’ve had to fight all the way to survive. Yes, we’ve had slavery of one sort or another and, yes, we’ve been dominated by priests, kings and presidents for all our written history. We’re in a new era now, the post-scarcity era, and we don’t need to fight anymore, but we haven’t woken up to the fact. We still think we have to dominate everything, including each other. Our social systems, our behaviour, the cast of our ideas are all predicated on the inevitability of competition for wealth and favour, on the need for leaders and followers. We are still hypnotised by the historic glare of power and domination, lulled and gulled by the soft insistent tones of our leaders that they and their ilk are as inevitable as the stars in the sky, that leadership, the power of it, and the competition for it, are as natural as birth, sex and death. That’s the way the world is, people say, even Darwin said so.



But he didn’t say so. There is nothing in the human brain that inclines it to subservience. Nor is there a “must-dominate” gland. Attempts by so-called Social Darwinists to justify our terrible oppression of ourselves as natural and correct have long been discredited, while efforts by some modern sociobiologists to do essentially the same have also been severely attacked. To imagine, as did the Social Darwinists, that evolution is entirely a process of merciless competition is to take no account of the alternative and co-operative tactics nature also employs, while to suggest, as do some sociobiologists, that our genes may dictate our behaviour and therefore our culture (including leadership culture), is merely to sit down very heavily on one end of that old see-saw, the Nature-Nurture argument, and hope the riders at the end fall off.



But although there is nothing “natural” about our social condition, there is nothing unnatural about it either. Where evolution calls forth one or another set of behaviour patterns in other species, we have the ability, and indeed, the obligation, to make our own conscious changes. We have changed in the past often enough as circumstances demanded. In the new post-scarcity era, we can and must adapt again, this time in the interest of the whole planet.



Each of us can be our own leader. The greatest command is that over oneself. Our capitalist world, controlled by a few rich people and their minions, has done its level best to school out of us the very things which make us such a great species in the first place–initiative, experimentation, imagination, diversity. But society can’t reduce us, because it is attempting a self-inflicted wound. The rich need us to be smart to run their wealth-collection system for them, but they try to keep us in our place by browbeating us and treating us like children. It won’t work for ever, even if it seems to be working at the moment.



The leaders we are asked to support, and sometimes choose between, are a myth, created and maintained by–leaders. They are poor examples of honesty, integrity, even of humanity. They are not interested in truth, justice, or any of the grand notions they spout about. They exist, have always existed, will always exist, for one purpose only: to line their own pockets and empty yours. They are parasites on the social body, unwanted, unnecessary and destructive. To follow leaders is to hand over your heart on a platter, with knife and fork attached. It is an admission of defeat, acceptance that you are inadequate, in and of yourself. It is an act of submission and indeed an act of cowardice unworthy of the human animal.



To refuse to follow leaders is a liberating step, one which the working class has yet to take. When we realise that the post-scarcity world can be run very efficiently and healthily by democratic co-operation, that our own lives would be vastly better without states, governments, police, and all the trappings of leadership, we will collectively be in a position to make that step. And then we will see a revolution unprecedented in history.



The Socialist Party has no leaders in fact or theory. Socialism wouldn’t operate that way and neither do we. All decisions are made by common vote, all administration is above-board and open to inspection, and all work is voluntary. None of us is perfect, and that’s why democracy works better than leadership. Mistakes by one person are not disasters for the many. Private interests don’t count. Power doesn’t exist. Socialists are their own leaders, and they follow nobody but themselves.



Socialism–common ownership in a leaderless global democracy–could not work with people unwilling or unable to think for themselves, to take responsibility, or to co-operate, but fortunately it doesn’t have to. Human beings are better than that. We can think, and we can co-operate, and we don’t need the bigots of the Right to tell us we’re worthless, nor do we need rescuing by some “heroic” and entirely untrustworthy vanguard of the Left.



In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Polonius advises Laertes: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.” Socialists, having to truck with the money system in any case, would instead offer the following injunction: “Neither a follower, nor a leader be.” So the next time you are asked to vote for a leader, do yourself a big favour. Don’t.

Paddy Shannon

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2009/12/never-follower-be.html

From the Socialist Standard February 1964 comes this piece from the World Socialist Party of the United States. Samson was a Hebrew mythological character of immense physical strength who was eventually captured by the Philistines, many of whom he had previously killed. They blinded him and put him to work on a treadmill. Nicky Krusher and Blastro are references to Nikita Krushev and Fidel Castro. Krushev, First Sectrary of the Russian ‘Communist’ Party, and Castro leader of Cuba following an armed revolution. At the time, both states were considered to be ‘communist’ because that’s what they purported to be but not at any point by the World socialist movement which always explained that they were in fact state capitalists. The piece shows how the working class, Samson, has the strength to overturn its/his bosses/tormentors but is being persuaded not to do so. ‘(Scene: After Samson’s capture and blinding. Samson pauses on his treadmill, rattles his chains, and mumbles something about the class struggle. A runty, quick-eyed fellow stands at some distance from him, smiling jovially and fingering a barbed whip. As he begins to speak, his mien and gestures resemble those of a carnival pitchman.)

Samson, your groans are dated; what do you mean, class struggle? There’s no class struggle. Look how far I have elevated you above the abject, miserable state you were in a century ago, when I first blinded you and put you in chains. You think you have it bad now; why, without me you could never have it so good. Apparently you’ve forgotten when you trod the mill eighteen hours a day, barefoot over sharp rocks, with spikes on the inside of your collar. Apparently you’ve forgotten the bite of the lash on your back, it’s been so long since I’ve had to lay it on. Remember the bread you used to eat then? Full of alum and chalk? Remember the goads and tortures on your flesh when you raged and wouldn’t tread the mill? And look at you now, lapped in luxury; the sharp stones gone, fur on the inside of your collar instead of spikes, sandals to keep your soles from getting calloused—why, I haven’t whipped you for years. Next thing I know you’ll be wanting mink gloves and gold toothpicks. What don’t I do for you? Look at me, all kindness and benevolence. Instead of a lash I hang sweet-smelling carrots in front of your nose. Don’t you prefer them, or would you rather have the lash back?

Samson my boy, you’ve grown sleek and strong since I switched you to meat and potatoes, and you do so much more work! Do you not also have frequent rest periods, and are you not now only obliged to tread eight hours (maybe ten or twelve if we count overtime and moonlighting) instead of the former eighteen? Haven’t I given you the freedom to change your manacles every four years? Haven’t I given you the freedom to criticize the workmanship of your collar any time you want? Haven’t I given you the freedom to eat your meals on time? Haven’t I given you the freedom to worship whichever of my overseers you choose? You look so healthy since I’ve been treating you better, you may last me another hundred years. You’re a fine specimen, Samson; I couldn’t have gotten a, better commodity if I’d scrounged the labour market forever.

I throw you scraps from my plate every Christmas and let you frolic with the female slave on the other treadmills. I give you scholarships and time off so you can study treadmills and learn how to make your work easier, and all 1 ask in return is that you also make it go faster. And you don’t appreciate any of it. You just rattle your chains and growl, and stop your treadmill to ask for more scraps. Now really Samson, how do you expect me to get my grain ground when you act that way? Have a little kindness. What do you want to do, make a slave out of me?

Nicky Krusher and Blastro use the lash on their hands. It could happen here, you know.

We could get along so well if you would only stop this growling and keep your hair cut. What’s this malarkey about your being propertyless? Don’t I give you food, sandals, and hides to wrap yourself in on cold days? Don’t I supply the treadmills? Don’t you own your own chains? And what do you mean I don’t earn my living? I worked hard enough to catch you and blind you. didn’t I? It’s a day’s work just to keep you plodding around, let alone the accounts I have to keep of what you produce for me. So you think you don’t need me. huh? I’d like to know who’d keep you working for me, who’d hang up the carrots in front of your face, who’d lay on the whip when you needed it, if it wasn’t for me?

If only you would drop this class struggle thing, we could be so happy together—you making the goodies and I consuming them. I would always keep fresh carrots in front of you and throw you all my extra scraps, and if you worked hard enough I’d even sell you a gold ring for your nose. 1 tell you what, I’ll make a deal with you, a contract: a fresh bone every Christmas if you stop being angry and get to work. Straight business proposition. How about it? Don’t we have a lot of common interests?

(Samson rattles his chains and looks at his hands. What does he see? Will he ever see again? There is a good chance, if he wants to. Everything hinges on his morale, you know.)’

Stan Blake

(World Socialist Party of the United States)

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1964/1960s/no-714-february-1964/short-story-one-act-monologue-samson-and-philisti/

Alan William John West is an ex Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office who worked for ex Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

West is also an ex First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff. Gordon Brown made West a Peer. West is establishment through and through. He might warrant the description of a British apparatchik.

Under the by line of ‘Lord West’ he has written a piece for a red-top newspaper, The Sun. It’s titled, ‘If war is imminent we need to spend money NOW before it’s too late – the five things we desperately need to do.’ It begs the interesting question, why publish a piece like this in the Soaraway Sun?

Among all the Boys Own appeal to patriotism [see Samuel Johnson on that subject] , and vacuous remarks like, ‘Nothing makes you prouder than serving your country, [has West never read some of the First World War poets?] and ‘Never underestimate the courage of this nation’ [And never understimate the ability of Capitalism to persuade enough of the working class to go off and fight for the interests of the ruling class.] Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, it isn’t and it never will be.

Arms manufacturers and their acolytes are already turning record profits from the conflicts presently going on in the world. Is this the equivalent of Yosser Hughes ‘gizza job’ but now it’s giz us more money so we can make more profits from all the death and destruction we an inflict? War is good for business!

West says, after bemoaning the state of military forces says, ‘If war is imminent we need to spend the money now. Our European partners are finally waking up to the need to dramatically increase their defence spending, with Poland and Germany taking action. We need Russian president Vladimir Putin to get the message that he can’t invade any more countries like he has Ukraine. By spending money beefing up our defence now, we can prevent a far more costly world war later. No dictator wants to invade a country capable of defeating them on the battlefield.

The most important contribution being made by Britain at the moment is helping to keep world trade flowing. [Bingo! That’s the important thing.}

Houthi rebels are firing deadly missiles at unarmed merchant sailors and it is our brave servicemen and women in the Red Sea standing up to them. HMS Richmond, HMS Diamond, HMS Lancaster and a squadron of three mine-hunting vessels and support ship RFA Cardigan Bay are part of Operation Prosperity Guardian that aims to protect container ships passing through this key trade route. No one should be in any doubt that the Houthis are well-armed with Iranian drones, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles which put innocent merchant seamen and our sailors in peril.

The morale of those on board our naval force in the Red Sea is high. They are incredibly well trained and highly motivated, adding to global security. The same can be said for the pilots flying the Typhoon jets from Cyprus which have carried out raids to deplete Houthi capabilities.

A quirk of MOD rules means that as a former head of my service I am automatically on the “active list”. It is not likely that the Royal Navy would ever need to call on my services in times of war, but if they did, I would immediately take up my post, even at the age of 75. {Think you’d be in a very tiny minority there Admiral.]

In World War Two Sir Walter Cowan famously shot at Nazi tanks in North Africa with his pistol at the age of 73. What is letting this country down is not our servicemen and women, it is the politicians leading them. We desperately need more ships, to replenish our supplies, increase military manpower, [i.e. persuade more members of the working class to go and fight capitalism’s wars for it.] ensure up-to-date maintenance and modernise our equipment. If that is done, we may avoid war. Should the unthinkable occur, then if we don’t give our military the tools they need, we can’t expect them to get the job done.’

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25740607/lord-west-spend-money-army-war-imminent/

THE SOCIALIST PARTY AGAINST ALL CAPITALIST WARS.