If you wish to have some understanding of what is happening and how the 99 percent are suffering in Gaza, Israel, Sudan, Ukraine…who should you call? 

In his interview with Rishi Sunak on 2 November Elon Musk mused that the widespread application of AI would usher in an “age of abundance where any goods and services that you want, you can have.” People would only need work for “personal satisfaction” (https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/11/03/elon-musk-and-rishi-sunak-discuss-disruptive-force-of-ai-at-uk-summit).

Clearly, this wouldn’t be capitalism. It couldn’t be as it would mean the end of working for wages and producing goods and services to be sold. This was understood by, of all people, the loudmouth Jeremy Clarkson. In a surprisingly perspicacious passage in his column in the Sun the following day, he wrote:

“The fact is, then, that if machines are doing all the jobs, there will be no economy. You won’t be able to buy anything because you won’t be earning anything. And there’s no point going to the government for help because that won’t have any money either. Because machines don’t pay taxes.They just spend all day making stuff. That no one can afford to buy.This means we will need a whole new economy. A whole new system where there’s no such thing as money. And that is the biggest worry of them all because no one has a clue what that might be.” (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24626772/jeremy-clarkson-ai-humans-jobs/)

The last bit is not true. Socialists have long understood that the answer would be a society where productive resources including machines would be commonly owned and democratically controlled and used to produce wealth to directly satisfy people’s needs instead of, as now, to be sold on a market with a view to profit. In such a society there would indeed be no such thing as money.

Clarkson may not have known it but he was describing what has been called ‘fully automated luxury communism’. But we don’t have to wait for ‘full’ automation to bring about a society of common ownership, democratic control and production directly for use. The productive forces are already sufficiently developed for this. Making the change is a now only a question of political will.

As a matter of fact years ago Marx had anticipated the points made by  Musk. Writing in the late 1850s he speculated what would happen if the application of science and machinery to production led to such a high level of productivity that not only the value added by direct human labour to each unit produced was reduced to an insignificant proportion but so was  that transferred to them from the fixed capital:

‘As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. (…) With that, production based on exchange value breaks down, and the direct, material production process is stripped of the form of penury and antithesis. The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.’ (‘Contradiction between the foundation of bourgeois production (value as measure) and its development. Machines etc.’, Grundrisse, chapter 14)

In other words, goods and services would be so cheap  — each unit would contain so little labour — that the huge amount of them that could be produced could not be priced but would have to be given away or provided free. 

Marx did not expect this point to be reached — he expected that the working class would have put an end to capitalism long before — but he realised that, if it were to be, it would mean the end of capitalism. Production for sale would no longer make any sense.The only way that the members of society could benefit from the immensely productive means of production would be if these ceased to be capital as wealth used to exploit wage-labour for surplus value. In other words, socialism, or as he called it communism.

FACT 

On October 31, the Colorado Times Recorder highlighted a locally-made video interview with District 51 School Board candidate Barbara Evanson in which Evanson says that if schools teach what is scientifically known about the origins of the universe, then they should also have to teach creationism alongside that information so kids can decide on their own what’s true.   Creationism is the religious belief that God created the universe. It is a wholly religious construct with no scientific proof behind it.

AGAINST ALL CAPITALIST WARS!

THE UNDERLYING CAUSE OF THE ISRAEL— GAZA WAR IS NOT UNDYING ENMITY BETWEEN TWO GROUPS – JEWS AND ARABS – BUT A FIGHT BETWEEN DIFFERENT CAPITALIST FACTIONS THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE HORRORS UNLEASHED ON INNOCENT PEOPLE BY HAMAS NOR FOR ISRAEL’S SAVAGE RETALIATION

Some say that the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East would not have happened if the State of Israel had never been founded. But it was and it exists. And the same kind of thing could be said about countless conflict situations in the world today. So we must look at the situation as it is and, if we do, we find that, as in other such conflicts, the underlying cause is not undying enmity between two groups –Jews and Arabs – but a fight between different capitalist factions, via their respective governments, over land, resources and strategic routes. 

In Gaza, the Hamas organisation, who are both anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic, came to power via elections in 2007 with the stated aim ‘to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine’. But those elections were the end of any form of democracy there and, in their time in office, Hamas has crushed multiple protests against them by rivals, keeps a tight and oppressive rein on any kind of opposition and does not hesitate to kill any opponents. During that time the people of Gaza have been plunged increasingly into poverty with, for example, 40% unemployment, with their leaders enriching themselves assisted by backers from other Arab countries and enjoying multi-million-dollar land deals, luxury villas and black market fuel from Egypt.

 The continuing oppression by Israel (a country by the way where 22% of its own households live in poverty) has also of course been a significant factor, as its government has sought to facilitate the enrichment of its own capitalist class by grabbing land and keeping a tight lid on protest. Now the lid has come off – and in the most horrific way. 

There is no excuse for the horrors unleashed on innocent people by Hamas nor for Israel’s savage retaliation, killing thousands, depriving a land of food, water and power and threatening to flatten its infrastructure regardless of what may happen to the inhabitants in the short and long term.

 Of course Israel’s government will support its own capitalist class to the hilt – after all that is its role. And it is all part of a play-book, which we see played out time and time again as governments representing their capitalist classes fail to resolve conflicts by diplomacy and resort to horrifying violence. 

We can only repeat the same thing we have always said when this has happened – that workers (in this case Arab and Israeli ones) have no interest in fighting one another but have a common interest in uniting with other workers to abolish capitalism and establish socialism.

Object: The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

 ‘Karl Marx utilized Hegel’s philosophy as the foundation of The Communist Manifesto and Das Capital. On those philosophical underpinnings were formed the Communism of the Bolsheviks, the Socialism of Benito Mussolini and the Fascism of Adolf Hitler. Ideal State theory demands the sacrifice of individual rights that are then absorbed into the higher rights of the “Ideal State.”’

DID YOU SEE THE NEWS? (ZOOM)

Kenya was a British colony from 1888 to 1962.

The king and queen of Britain are enjoying a holiday known as a royal tour in Kenya. Spoiler alert; no apologies for Britain’s previous exploitation of that country were made.

Does SOYMB include readers who are royalists, i.e. those who, in the twenty first century, support the UK capitalist state, and are happy to be known as ‘subjects’? If so,

In a footnote to Capital, Volume One, Marx wrote; ‘One man is king only because other men stand in the relation of subjects to him. They, on the contrary, imagine that they are subjects because he is king.’

The Kenyans, like many other people forcibly colonised, became British ‘subjects’ whether they wanted to be or not.

The August 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard contained a book review pertaining to Kenya.

Not Yet Uhuru, by Oginga Odinga.

‘The people of Kenya have had the misfortune, reserved for colonial peoples, of experiencing two sorts of capitalism. One at second hand through colonial occupation, and the other, a more modern version, exploitation by capitalists of local origin and by the economic interests of the ‘advanced’ countries.

Today, control of the resources of Kenya is in the hands of large international firms and of the Kenya government. The local would-be capitalists and bureaucrats have certainly derived much benefit from independence, but the vast majority of the people of Kenya, who were at one time led to expect a post-independence egalitarian Utopia, have been disappointed.

In this autobiography we learn well how the “benefits” of capitalism were first introduced to Kenya. There is an interesting survey of early land-appropriation by the British authorities and of the break-up of the tribal system through forced wage- labour. Odinga is particularly good in his account of the Mau Mau uprising and the reasons for it. Once the rebellion presented a real threat to British authority in Kenya, and thus to British economic interests, ruthless measures were taken. All civil liberties were suppressed—an African could be arrested in the street at any time. All Kikuyu (the main tribe concerned in the rebellion) were forced either to collaborate with the authorities or to join the Mau Mau bands as a result of persecution. British capitalism wanted to hold on to Kenya so as to have an assured and cheap supply of raw materials and a market monopoly.

Today, some four-and-a-half years after independence, things have not changed much. The people of Kenya are now exploited not only by businessmen with white skins, but also by civil servants and politicians who have somehow succeeded in securing company directorships and land. Little free expression of opposition to the government is allowed. The only consolation that the people may draw is perhaps in seeing men with skin the same colour as theirs replacing white colonists at the wheels of large motor-cars manufactured in West Germany.

Odinga is allowed, probably by virtue of his popularity (he was at one time Vice-President of the republic and Kenyatta’s right-hand man) to lead a tiny opposition of nine in parliament. His party is, however, allowed few extra-parliamentary ‘privileges’ such as the holding of public meetings or recruiting campaigns.

This autobiography, as well as being a good document of British colonial history, is worthwhile reading because part at least of Odinga’s conclusion is acceptable. Odinga himself left high state office for the political wilderness because he saw that national independence does not in itself end servitude for the mass of the people. He also recognises the oligarchic character of the present Kenyan government. To solve these problems, however, he presents a creed which he calls “African Socialism”. The use of the word “Socialism” in independent Africa is very common but worth little. It is used, for instance, by both government and opposition in Kenya. The general purpose of this is clear: to give obviously oligarchic governments a façade of popular support and concern for justice and equality.

Odinga’s “African Socialism” would take the form of “a Kenya government backed by popular enthusiasm and national mobilisation”. We suggest to the people of Kenya, and indeed to the people of the world, that the only way they will solve their problems will be by overthrowing capitalism which deprives and degrades them. This can only be done, not on a national scale, but by an internationally united working class who reject all leaders and governments.

Not Yet Uhuru (freedom) is the personal and political testament of a sincere, but unfortunately misguided, political figure. It is well worth reading for the insights which it offers into the lot of the people of Kenya.’

Amit Pandy

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/08/capitalism-in-kenya-1968.html

Justification

A world of bellicose tribulations

Spawns advocates prepared to justify

Why it’s right and proper others must die

In order to preserve the nation.

Barbarians just beyond the borders

Are prepared to kill our sons and daughters.

And so, a self-defensive slaughter

Of their children is perfectly in order.

It’s with heavy hearts and heavy bombing

That the moral high ground is defended

And violence might finally be ended

Once the violent can be sure what’s coming.

Any who protest or call for a halt

Are in the enemy’s camp, by default.

D. A.

 Was Nigeria the victim of a 419 fraud, or advance fee fraud?

We’re shocked, shocked we tell you to find that an African country appears to may have been the victim of a scam. Our faith in capitalist enterprises seeming not to be models of virtue, rectitude and probity in their dealings with capitalist states has been deeply shaken. To take advantage of a government like that goes far beyond the pale.

For new readers to SOYMB, let it be noted that the above is sarcasm. Capitalism as a whole is a cut-throat social system that would leave seventeenth and eighteenth pirates gasping at its audacity.

‘ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — A London judge on Monday overturned an arbitration award that would have required Nigeria to pay $11 billion over a failed gas project, finding the contract was obtained through fraud.

The High Court ruling by Justice Robin Knowles reverses the award to the British Virgin Islands-based Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. over the 2010 gas deal. The payment would have dealt a massive blow to Nigeria’s ailing economy.

The judge said although he did not accept all of Nigeria’s allegations discrediting P&ID and the contract, “the awards (of the contract) were obtained by fraud … and the way in which they were procured was contrary to public policy.”

Knowles said three things showed the case as an “irregularity”: P&ID providing evidence it knew was false in a witness statement, the company’s bribery or corrupt payment to a Nigerian civil servant and the company’s ”improper retention” of Nigeria’s legal document which it received during arbitration.

P&ID in 2017 secured the compensation award, which originally was $6.6 billion but is now estimated to be $11 billion with accrued interest. The company’s main claim in the arbitration was for loss of profit for the 20 years the agreement covers.

The contract signed with Nigeria’s government in 2010 was for the company to build a gas processing plant in the south eastern port city of Calabar. The project collapsed not long after it was signed, and P&ID took the Nigerian government to arbitration, alleging a breach of contract.

Nigerian officials said the contract was signed under questionable circumstances while late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was critically ill and Goodluck Jonathan, his deputy, was acting president. Officials accused P&ID of bribery and corruption in securing the contract and during arbitration, which the company denied.

https://qz.com/a-british-court-ruling-frees-nigeria-from-paying-11-bi-1850949923