Royal National Lifeboat Institution: ‘Founded in 1824 as the National Institution for the Preservation of Life from Shipwreck, it soon afterwards became the Royal National Institution for the Preservation of Life from Shipwreck under the patronage of King George IV. On 5 October 1854, the institution’s name was changed to its current name (RNLI), and in 1860 was granted a royal charter. ‘Wiki

The Charity Commission’s RNLI report for end of 2022 has 2405 Employee(s), 14 Trustee(s) and 209892 Volunteer(s) involved in the organisation which had an income of almost two hundred and thirty million pounds.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/209603

The MailOnline, 3 March, has a headline story detailing dissatisfaction in the ranks of the RNLI. It’s a little he said, she said, but it could be read as a dispute between workers and bosses.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12803901/RNLI-whistleblowers-bully-lifeboat-bosses-charity-toxic-row-200th-anniversary.html#reader-comments

To those who say that without a financial incentive no one will want to ‘work’ in a Socialist society the evidence overwhelmingly disproves that assertion. Within the capitalist system their are millions of volunteers displaying their altruist nature. Manning lifeboats to save lives at sea is one of the more dangerous volunteer activities yet there are many who are prepared to do so.

From the Socialist Standard, February 1982 Who will do the dangerous work?

‘This is a question often asked when we explain that in socialist society the principle “from each according to his/her abilities, to each according to his/her needs” will apply. In other words, that people will voluntarily contribute in terms of work what they can in order to produce the abundance of wealth to which they will then have free access according to their individual needs (of which they themselves will be the sole judge).

The assumption behind the “dirty work” objection is that if work were voluntary nobody would choose to do the hard, the dangerous, the boring or the messy work because this would be “against human nature”. We don’t want to go here into all the scientific arguments which show that there is nothing in the nature of the animal homo sapiens that would prevent them living in a socialist society; quite the reverse in fact, human beings are animals which have evolved and survived only through their capacity to co-operate. All we will do is draw attention to the fact that the objection is not valid even for all work under capitalism.

Work under capitalism mostly takes the form of employment—that is, work for an employer, under his control and for his profit, and it is therefore not surprising that most people consider “work” to be something unpleasant, to be avoided as much as possible. But when it comes to exercising their mental and physical energies—which is equally “working”—in their own time, as in digging their gardens, pursuing their hobbies and the like, it is a different matter. Because people enjoy this kind of work, many are not even prepared to consider such activities as work, to such an extent has capitalism associated work with work for an employer! Socialism, which will abolish employment, will also abolish this false distinction between “work ” (unpleasant) and “play” (pleasant), People will be able to organise the necessary productive work in such away that everybody will be able to derive satisfaction from doing it. 

But what about the dirty work? Well, as the Penlee lifeboat disaster recently showed, even under capitalism people can be found to undertake work of the most dangerous kind voluntarily. These lifeboatmen were all volunteers to do a job they knew to be socially necessary. Despite the fuss they made of the disaster, the capitalist class were unable to understand this. “£3 for a start, then, £1 an hour—the price of lifeboat courage” headlined the Daily Telegraph (21/12/81) with the suggestion that lifeboatmen were not being paid enough. But, as any of the lifeboatmen could have told them, this was not the point; money (expenses) was not the motive. In fact, one RNLI official was quoted as saying “some do not bother to claim it”.

Then why do they do it, why do they voluntarily undertake such dangerous, dirty work? Why could more than enough volunteers be found from the same village to replace the eight men who died? Because, as we have said, they were aware that there was a socially necessary job to be done. If this can happen under capitalism where the cash nexus has corrupted nearly everything, how can it be imagined that in socialism there will be any problem to find people to undertake any “dirty” jobs that cannot be automated?’

Adam Buick

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/07/who-will-do-dangerous-work-1982.html

Royal National Lifeboat Institution: ‘Founded in 1824 as the National Institution for the Preservation of Life from Shipwreck, it soon afterwards became the Royal National Institution for the Preservation of Life from Shipwreck under the patronage of King George IV. On 5 October 1854, the institution’s name was changed to its current name (RNLI), and in 1860 was granted a royal charter. ‘Wiki

The Charity Commission’s RNLI report for end of 2022 has 2405 Employee(s), 14 Trustee(s) and 209892 Volunteer(s) involved in the organisation which had an income of almost two hundred and thirty million pounds.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/209603

The MailOnline, 3 March, has a headline story detailing dissatisfaction in the ranks of the RNLI. It’s a little he said, she said, but it could be read as a dispute between workers and bosses.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12803901/RNLI-whistleblowers-bully-lifeboat-bosses-charity-toxic-row-200th-anniversary.html#reader-comments

To those who say that without a financial incentive no one will want to ‘work’ in a Socialist society the evidence overwhelmingly disproves that assertion. Within the capitalist system their are millions of volunteers displaying their altruist nature. Manning lifeboats to save lives at sea is one of the more dangerous volunteer activities yet there are many who are prepared to do so.

From the Socialist Standard, February 1982 Who will do the dangerous work?

‘This is a question often asked when we explain that in socialist society the principle “from each according to his/her abilities, to each according to his/her needs” will apply. In other words, that people will voluntarily contribute in terms of work what they can in order to produce the abundance of wealth to which they will then have free access according to their individual needs (of which they themselves will be the sole judge).

The assumption behind the “dirty work” objection is that if work were voluntary nobody would choose to do the hard, the dangerous, the boring or the messy work because this would be “against human nature”. We don’t want to go here into all the scientific arguments which show that there is nothing in the nature of the animal homo sapiens that would prevent them living in a socialist society; quite the reverse in fact, human beings are animals which have evolved and survived only through their capacity to co-operate. All we will do is draw attention to the fact that the objection is not valid even for all work under capitalism.

Work under capitalism mostly takes the form of employment—that is, work for an employer, under his control and for his profit, and it is therefore not surprising that most people consider “work” to be something unpleasant, to be avoided as much as possible. But when it comes to exercising their mental and physical energies—which is equally “working”—in their own time, as in digging their gardens, pursuing their hobbies and the like, it is a different matter. Because people enjoy this kind of work, many are not even prepared to consider such activities as work, to such an extent has capitalism associated work with work for an employer! Socialism, which will abolish employment, will also abolish this false distinction between “work ” (unpleasant) and “play” (pleasant), People will be able to organise the necessary productive work in such away that everybody will be able to derive satisfaction from doing it. 

But what about the dirty work? Well, as the Penlee lifeboat disaster recently showed, even under capitalism people can be found to undertake work of the most dangerous kind voluntarily. These lifeboatmen were all volunteers to do a job they knew to be socially necessary. Despite the fuss they made of the disaster, the capitalist class were unable to understand this. “£3 for a start, then, £1 an hour—the price of lifeboat courage” headlined the Daily Telegraph (21/12/81) with the suggestion that lifeboatmen were not being paid enough. But, as any of the lifeboatmen could have told them, this was not the point; money (expenses) was not the motive. In fact, one RNLI official was quoted as saying “some do not bother to claim it”.

Then why do they do it, why do they voluntarily undertake such dangerous, dirty work? Why could more than enough volunteers be found from the same village to replace the eight men who died? Because, as we have said, they were aware that there was a socially necessary job to be done. If this can happen under capitalism where the cash nexus has corrupted nearly everything, how can it be imagined that in socialism there will be any problem to find people to undertake any “dirty” jobs that cannot be automated?’

Adam Buick

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/07/who-will-do-dangerous-work-1982.html

 So the egocentric opportunist George Galloway is back in parliament. Some say it was a protest against what is going on in Gaza. There may be something in that. Others see it as a rejection of the Westminster parties. One thing it wasn’t was the election of a Socialist MP.

He promised “secure jobs for all in decent conditions with living wages”, “decent, cheap secure housing for all”, “free and comprehensive health care with no waiting lists”, “universal access to a cheap or free fully integrated public transport system”. Like the Labour Party used to (a long time ago). Nice if you could get it but you can’t because the money-wages-profits system that is capitalism cannot be reformed to deliver all that.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

This evening’s meeting (19.30)

*DID YOU SEE THE NEWS?* *(Zoom)*

 https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2024/no-1435-march-2024/

 GEORGE GALLOWAY’S ‘WORKERS PARTY’

Continued from Part One

Like Bernstein, today’s labour and social democratic parties do not champion any meaningful alternative – in fact, they are complicit in the perpetuation of capitalism. As Bernstein’s contemporary, the socialist revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919) contested:

“…people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place of and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal.” Consequently, their goal is “not the realisation of Socialism, but the reform of capitalism.”

This does not mean we should not fight for change within the system – indeed we cannot suspend ourselves nor exist outside of it – but we must acknowledge that meaningful change can only be attained by transcending the capitalist system. Once this has been achieved and socialism established, humanity must then work to continually improve socialism so that it fulfils its basic mission of meeting the needs of all. Here, and only here, is where socialism truly becomes evolutionary.

Socialists can take some comfort from the fact that, notwithstanding the futility of social democratic attempts to reform the system, capitalism is by no means an eternal fact, nor inherent to human nature. Closer examination reveals that it is more accurately understood as a phase in human development. Throughout history, economic systems have undergone significant transformations, and capitalism is just one stage in this ongoing progression.

In ancient societies, such as those of hunter-gatherers, communal living and resource-sharing were prevalent. The concept of private property and individual ownership was not a dominant feature of these societies. As human communities transitioned to settled agriculture, a shift toward more structured forms of social organisation occurred. However, these early agrarian societies did not operate on capitalist principles; instead, they were characterised by feudalistic structures and localised economies. For instance, Luxemburg demonstrated that primitive communism existed in several societies, ranging from the Germanic tribes, the Inca empire, Algeria, India, and Russia. Collective land ownership endured for many centuries and only ceased with the advent of imperialism and capitalist exploitation.

The emergence of capitalism can be traced back to the late medieval and early modern periods in Europe. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment played crucial roles in shaping the intellectual landscape that paved the way for capitalist ideas. During this time, the rise of trade, exploration, and technological advancements created an environment conducive to the development of a market-based economy.

The enclosure movement in England during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries is a notable historical example. Land that was previously communally used for farming was enclosed and privatised, leading to the rise of individual landownership and the creation of a market for agricultural goods. This transition marked a departure from traditional agrarian practices and set the stage for the capitalist system.

The Industrial Revolution further accelerated the evolution toward capitalism. Technological innovations, such as the steam engine and mechanised production, revolutionised the way goods were produced and distributed. This shift from agrarian economies to industrialized ones resulted in the rise of factories, urbanisation, and a new class structure.

The advent of capitalism brought forth key principles, such as private ownership of the means of production, free-market competition, and profit motive. The transition from feudalism to capitalism was not without conflict, as evidenced by the social upheavals and labour movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. These movements sought to address the challenges posed by the industrialisation of society, including issues of worker exploitation and poor working conditions.

There is, therefore, hope that humanity can transcend capitalism. It requires a widespread global consciousness, an acceptance of the truth that the system we currently perpetuate is harsh and damaging to us all, and that reforming that system equates to nothing more than that perpetuation.

While capitalism has undoubtedly played a significant role in shaping modern economies, seeking to reform it or viewing it as a timeless characteristic of human nature disregards the system’s inclination to devour and oversimplifies the complexity of historical and cultural contexts. Indeed, to do so is short-sighted and demonstrates the dangers of forgetting the past. Human societies have demonstrated adaptability and a capacity for diverse economic systems throughout history, and while no thinking socialist can dispute the transformative impact of capitalism; the extent of technological advancement and human dominion over the environment, one would do well to remember that it does not symbolise the culmination of all conceivable endeavours to organise as a species. To rest on the laurels of capitalism is to commit the mistake of previous generations, specifically those who held up religion, imperialism, feudalism, and slavery as essential preconditions for civilisation. We must take what we have learned under capitalism and use it to build a better version of the world – one based on peace, justice, and equality. In short, a Socialist world.

John Elliston

Part One: https://soymb.com/2024/02/capitalism-and-fallacy-of-reform-part.html

Rochdale Cowboys

(Apologies to Mike Harding)

It’s not hard being a cowboy in Rochdale,

Despite what a song once suggested. Just

Look at those canvassing for the trust

Of voters, with policies bound to fail.

Labour have disowned their own candidate

For claiming the murderous Hamas attack

Israel green-lighted, so it could strike back,

Condemning Gaza to its dreadful state.

There’s an exMP who’s making a play

As representative of Old Labour,

Standing against the ‘woke’ present Labour

On behalf of UKIP, Reform UK.

With the Green off colour, the choice is sparse,

Voters might consider ending this farce.

D.A.

Recently, Sir Keir Starmer announced his ambition for a ‘patriotic economy’ through the championing of home ownership and the building of new model towns. Evidently, the Labour leader is attempting to harness the middle ground, by blending Thatcher and Attlee. Many recall the faux revolution of ‘right to buy’ which, forty years on, has spawned a social housing crisis. Throw in the legacy of the 1946 New Towns Act, which sought to construct model towns in the aftermath of the Second World War, and you have yet another social democratic fudge to reform capitalism.

Sir Keir is not alone in seeking to reinvent the wheel. Every Labour leader has bound themselves to the yoke of the system. Ramsay Macdonald all too willingly succumbed to the protracted economic crisis of the interwar years, content at playing establishment bank manager in a period of decline. The Attlee Government, despite the strides made in welfarism, struck the rocks, and yielded to the rules of capitalism, laying the course for twenty-five years of Butskellism. Harold Wilson had us believe that a new Britain could be forged in the white heat of technology, but this fire burned in the hall of capitalism, prostrate by markets and a depreciating pound. James Callaghan surrendered what vestiges of leftism remained, implementing the kind of monetarism Thatcher later claimed as her own. Need anything be said of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – the would-be heirs to the Iron Lady?

No, the British labour movement, like so many social democratic movements the world over, has always been a willing hostage to capitalism, engaging in a futile quest to reform it, rather than introduce socialism. In some respects, they cannot be blamed, for the boom-and-bust integral to the existence of capitalism has attracted many in vainglorious quests to improve it and acquire the eternal elixir of socioeconomic harmony. Many also point to the idea that capitalism has in fact undergone transformations as justification for reform, such as the shift from industrial capitalism to the information age. The rise of technology and globalisation has apparently altered the dynamics of production, trade, and employment. Some have also claimed the attainment of adaptation within capitalism – the Nordic model, exemplified by countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, supposedly combines capitalist elements with a strong welfare state. This model allegedly seeks to prioritise social equality, education, and healthcare, challenging the notion that capitalism must follow a rigid, laissez-faire approach.

However, reformist approaches are an illusion and cannot ameliorate the structural antagonisms which provide the fundamental basis for capitalism. Even in the venerated Nordic economies high inflation and interest rates, youth unemployment and poverty persist. Finland is in recession while the Swedish economy is weakening. Norway, propped up by oil and gas exploitation faces fiscal challenges with high public spending. The message is clear: under capitalism, boom will always lead to bust.

The system requires inequality and the exploitation of workers, else there would be no profit or incentive to accumulate. Over the past hundred years, social democratic efforts to introduce welfarism and redistribution have failed to eradicate this inequality and exploitation. Today, the rich are richer and the poor poorer. The gap has widened, and reformism has served only to pacify the masses so that the top one per cent can acquire more.

Today, the poorest 50 per cent hold only 8 per cent of global wealth, while the richest 10 per cent earn over 50 per cent. The top 1 per cent alone owns 35 per cent of global wealth, takes 19 per cent of income, and emits 17 per cent of global carbon emissions.1 This has occurred despite the founding of welfare states in some countries, free healthcare, state education, social security, and the “redistribution” of capital.

It appears the capitalist system has assimilated social democracy and turned it into a weapon to perpetuate exploitation. Harold Macmillan once said of Britons in the 1950s that they had never had it so good – (hardly an accolade considering decades of economic instability and destructive war). In truth, any semblance of prosperity is nothing more than the offering of more crumbs off the capitalist plate. You may receive sustenance, but the people at the top still get a hearty meal. If anything is true of today it is that the rich have never had it so good.

Alas, social democrats have been hood-winked, in no small way thanks to the social democratic Marxist theorist Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932). In Evolutionary Socialism: A Criticism and Affirmation (1899) Bernstein did not believe in capitalism’s inevitable destruction; he accepted the strength of its capacity to adapt and advocated reform so that humanity could transition from capitalism to social democracy. He contended that as workers attained greater rights, their grievances would diminish, making revolution implausible. In this, he is perhaps accurate. The extension of rights and the offering of the ‘crumbs’ have pacified the masses and encouraged social democrats to continue a long the path of reformism. However, his call for reform contradicts his appraisal of capitalism’s adaptational strength. Everything promulgated within the system is consumed by the system. Nothing changes,

John Elliston

Continued at Part Two

Britain is in the grip of a mental health crisis, research says, with 34% of Gen Z workers reporting depression, anxiety or bipolar disorder, up from 24% in 2000. Life is depressing for exploited workers in capitalism anyway, but the prospects for today’s Zoomers look arguably worse than they were for the Boomer generation, or even early Millennials, with gig economy jobs, huge college debts and unaffordable housing, plus ongoing wars and possible climate disaster.

Predictably there are calls for the government to do something. But governments administer the very system which causes these mental health crises. Doom-laden Gen Z workers need to organise a democratic revolution to overthrow capitalism, more than they need pills and therapy sessions.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/