[colinbaker62]

The Independent newspaper of Thursday 20th September 2007, carried a double page article on pages 16-7 entitled 'The Search For Racial Equality' in which the journalist, Andy McSmith, considered the final sixty-page report of the soon-to-be subsumed Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The CRE came into existence more than thirty years ago in Britain, and essentially, was an institutional consequence of the very concrete racial tensions and inequalities in existence at the time. McSmith in his article, was both critical and optimistic in his analysis of the said report. For instance, he notes that ethnic minorities in twenty-first century Britain are still likely to suffer various forms of inequality and exclusion with regard to issues such as education, housing and employment. On the other hand, he drew attention in his article to a section of the report which claims; "Only a few decades ago, it was acceptable to put up a sign in a boarding house saying 'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs'. We don't see those signs anymore" (CRE Report, 2007, online, p. 1). Racial inequality, exclusion and isolation, of course, are still as prevalent throughout British society today, as they were thirty-plus years ago, when the CRE was formed. In this essay, I argue that the CRE has generally failed in its purported mission to address such issues, and in no small part, because as a body, it has basically failed to correlate its particular policies with the underlying general realities of British society. Its stated aims for addressing various racial tensions throughout Britain are undoubtedly noble ones, but aims nonetheless, that are largely divorced from the reality of British socio-economic life. Having read the afore-mentioned sixty-page CRE report, I get no sense whatsoever, that people here in the UK, are all toiling to varying degrees under concrete conditions of dominant capitalist relations, with all this implies for the success or otherwise, of one or other socially applied policy.

However, before I address in more detail some of these particular issues relating to the CRE in this context, it is necessary here I think, to explain the general theory underpinning my critical approach of such an institution. What then, does it mean to talk of correlating policy with social conditions? And why should this matter? Consider the existence of a plant for a moment. A particular plant is constituted from its various internal biological processes, which collectively serve to direct and condition its growth and overall development. However, these internal causes or conditions if you will, endlessly interact with external causes or conditions, not least with aspects of the wider environment, such as moisture, heat, light, the soil in which the plant is growing and so forth. Moreover, a botanist would have to consider such correlative factors in his or her analysis and quest for an overall understanding of such a living organism. To develop an adequate understanding of any natural phenomenon, (its properties and potential for change and development), it is always necessary to strive, and in a concrete manner, to cognise and correlate its external and internal causes.

So too in society then, social phenomena are constituted from their essential internal processes, and just like natural phenomena, these internal social causes or conditions, serve to influence the entire general character of the social process in question, influencing its basic potential for, and direction of development. For example, the fundamental social processes from which contemporary British society is essentially constituted, and to which it owes its general character, mental attitude and particular course of historical development, are those relating to capitalist production, distribution, exchange and consumption. External causes from this perspective, are those social processes that serve to act in some way, upon these various internal social conditions. Wider cultural, economic and political relations between capitalist Britain and one or more countries in the international arena would constitute such an interaction of external and internal causes. So too, for example, would the conscious application of one or other policy, and by whatever body, to a particular dimension of Britain's social affairs. Thus, if we wish to consciously affect change in society, and if we wish to consciously direct particular social processes in a desired direction, for example through the application of one or other policy, then just like our botanist friend, we must always seek to understand the internal social processes upon which our policies (external causes) will act, and upon which, the ultimate success of such policy application will depend. Without such knowledge, we are in the realms of speculation, guess work, or pure luck. The spoken military intentions and subsequent policy applications of various western political leaders, juxtaposed with the generally failed concrete outcome of such military activities in Iraq of late, provide a most vivid example as to the importance of this general principle of correlation when it comes to human affairs. The chaos and carnage we are currently witnessing in Iraq, is I think, in no small part a consequence of the failure to correlate external social causes (foreign policy) with that of internal causes (the myriad particular social processes that currently serve to constitute Iraqi society).

With the above general theoretical framework in place, we are now ready to consider the various successes and failures of the CRE here in Britain over the past few decades, in the context of capitalist relations of production. And the CRE has achieved modest successes! For example, in 2005 in the realm of education, the CRE initiated a debate relating to the concrete experiences, both good and bad, of black pupils in British schools. Similarly on this theme of education, the CRE has, in recent years, openly questioned planned cuts to the funding of English language courses for many migrants arriving in Britain. Similarly, in the dimension of employment, the CRE has done much work in its institutional efforts to promote racial equality in the workplace. An employment code of practice for example, has actually enjoyed legal status in Britain as of April 2006, thus enabling courts, if needs must, to oblige employers to meet the racial code of practice as set out in the said document. Likewise, with regards to criminal justice, the CRE has had a major input into the constructive criticism of policing, not least drawing attention to the low take-up of officers from one or other ethnic minority. And yes, no sign is permitted anywhere in Britain anymore, stating that black people are unwelcome at this or that guest house, hotel and such like. All these kinds of developments are, of course, most welcome.

Yet numerous other data included in the very same CRE report suggests that racial tension, inequality and exclusion are very much alive and well to varying degrees in contemporary British society. For example, on the topic of young people, the report states; "young people from ethnic minority groups are more likely to suffer from mental health problems, and...[b]lack and mixed race children are proportionately more likely to be found within the social care system and appear to stay in the system for longer than white children" (p.4). Similarly, concerning education, the report claims that; "black children...and those of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin consistently fall below the average at all key stages". It continues; "Black pupils are permanently excluded at over twice (and specifically those of Caribbean origin about three times) the rate of white pupils" (p. 11). And on the issue of employment, the report suggests; "we do not yet have a truly level playing field when it comes to work: over the last twenty years, there has been a consistent gap between rates of employment for ethnic minorities (60%) and the overall employment rate of over 75%. The employment rate is even lower for Britons of Bangladeshi (44%) or Pakistani origin (45%) and for black Britons of African descent (57%)" (p. 18). It is not at all difficult to discover countless other illustrations in the CRE report, that essentially imply that Britain is as divided as ever, with regards to issues of racial inequality, exclusion and isolation. The existence in politics of the British National Party says as much.

So why should this be, and after thirty years of trying? My own view is that the CRE has ultimately failed to correlate its numerous policies (external causes) with the underlying concrete reality of British life generally, and socio-economic life in particular (internal causes). In short, it has spent the past thirty years, I believe, primarily dealing with one or other effect of living under conditions of advanced industrial capitalism, while doing very little, or else nothing at all, to tackle the underlying concrete causes at work in such a social system. An underlying form of human existence (as we shall shortly see) that in the last analysis, obliges people by degrees, to exploit, compete with, trample over, and generally use their fellow being. A social system that is bound to produce, sustain and to continue producing and sustaining various mental attitudes of inferiority juxtaposed with those of superiority in the minds of many of those affected by such conditions of existence. Racial tension, in this regard, is but one manifestation of this objective reality. To ignore such concrete socio-economic reality, is to court inevitable failure when it comes to policy application. The CRE has, at best, compelled the various governments of Britain over the past thirty years to mitigate the worst effects of capitalist society when it comes to issues of racial inequality and exclusion, and that is all. It becomes necessary at this point then, to briefly explore the nature of capitalism itself; not the how and why relating to its historical origins and development, but rather, its very essence.

Above all in this regard, it is important to realise that capitalism is premised on the exploitation of one or more human beings, by one or more fellow human beings, involves the endless pursuit of profits, and is legally premised on the basis of private property ownership. The capitalist class as a whole owns the means to produce (factories, raw materials, modes of transport, land etc) and re-produce the material and cultural requirements of the particular society in question. Conversely, the majority of employees, for their part, are essentially property-less in this regard. Thus, the latter have to work for a wage or salary while the former retains and legally owns the resulting products; the resulting wealth creation of other people's labour. Such an interpretation, has been for many decades now, (and understandably so) vehemently resisted by those in positions of economic, cultural and political privilege. Such people merely offer superficial explanations to account for the relationship of employee to employer. They uncritically accept private property as a given, then proceed to assert that an employee sells his or her labour for a given number of hours each day, and is rewarded accordingly, with a fair price.

However, such an explanation makes little sense, not least because value itself, depends on labour. Thus to enquire as to the price of labour, as all capitalists do, is a bit like asking 'what is the heaviness of weight?' In reply to the question; 'what is the value of eight hours work?' the capitalist replies; 'eight hours labour', and vice versa, which of course results in tautological reasoning. The true value of labour, is the capacity that a human being puts at a given employer's disposal as the former's primary means of survival. It is a person's labour-power that has a price tag in capitalist society, not labour per se. This labour-power is a commodity, just like a pound of cheese, just like a pair of trousers, just like a car, just like a house, in fact just like anything and everything under conditions of capitalism. Capitalism involves the endless production, distribution, exchange and consumption of commodities.

The price of such labour-power is arrived at, by generally working out how much it costs society at large, to keep such working people alive under the particular conditions in existence at a given time in history. How much does it cost to feed, house, clothe and train the people concerned? How much does it cost to meet the people's particular cultural requirements at a given time and place in history? These are the kinds of questions that serve to ultimately determine the price of labour-power in a given capitalist culture. The very fact that a cost-of-living index exists (or the equivalent thereof) in all advanced capitalist societies, implies that labour-power is necessarily for sale as a commodity.

A particular employer's wage bill from this perspective is termed variable capital. It is variable because the employee is capable of producing more value than he or she is actually paid in wages or salary. This additional wealth is, in turn, termed surplus value. In other words, (and this is especially true under conditions of advanced capitalistic social production in huge factories and the like) an employee produces more than enough to survive as a person, plus much more besides. Profit is simply the difference then, between what an employee is paid, and the additional wealth, the surplus value he or she produces when expending such labour-power for an employer. (If we are concerned with the provision of services of course, as opposed to the production of new values in manufacturing, then we must concern ourselves with the process of what someone does, as opposed to what someone makes). Royal Dutch Shell furnishes us with a typical example of profits derived through the exploitation of people during the production process. In its 2005 accounts, Dutch Shell records a profit-per-employee figure of: £211,129.63 (PayWizard, 2005, online). Or to put it another way, each Dutch Shell employee in 2005, on average, earned more than enough to live on themselves (on average, £41,759-35p each) plus roughly a fifth of a million pounds each above and beyond this, which the company kept simply because it was able to, under such legally enshrined relations of capitalistic production.

If then, exploitation and the unequal ownership of private property rests at the heart of capitalist society, what does this mean in practical and ideological terms for the society in question? It means that people in such a society find themselves embroiled in unavoidable class antagonisms (cultural, economic, political) depending on where they stand as individuals and groups in relation to the ownership, part-ownership or non-ownership of the means of production. It means for the most part, that such people uncritically think, feel and act in accordance with such objective property relations, and this means thinking, feeling and acting in accordance with one's own material interests. Thus, and as a direct consequence of the unequal and uneven distribution of the resulting social product, such people become hopelessly competitive, aggressive when needs must, and concerned first and foremost with their own survival as an economic being. In the western hemisphere alone, we now have the technical capabilities to meet the needs of the world's people, yet we content ourselves day after day, in fighting and competing with one another, in the most part, for our modest scrap of social wealth.

As for issues of race in particular, capitalist relations unavoidably give rise to particular concepts, whereby certain privileged people (culturally, economically, politically) form ideas in which they either explicitly claim, or else imply, that certain humans are inferior to them. Behind all racial overtones, and without exception, we will find powerful interests of one or other kind at work. There is, of course, no such thing as an inferior or superior race in a natural sense. There is no credible evidence whatsoever to suggest this is the case. Instead, certain powerful groups invent such categories of thought under definite material conditions of existence with the primary aim of justifying their own privileged status. Colonization, and the subsequent exploitation of the various people concerned, is a classic example of this kind of thought finding practical expression. As Dr. Lewis (1962, p. 111) argues;

"The distorted view (of racial superiority)
with its powerful emotional overtones, is
only part of a more general problem of
social discrimination, involving class
distinctions, and always associated with
the need to buttress a position of privilege"

The fact that Britain is a capitalist country, founded on socio-economic relations of exploitation then, with all this implies with regards to particular policy formation and subsequent application, has it would seem, been all but lost on the CRE. Thus, its various policies, and certainly those of late, aimed as they have been and are at improving various dimensions of race relations in British society, have largely failed, and in my view will continue to fail to produce any fundamental effects for the better with regards to the racial minorities such policies are intended to help. When the CRE claims in its most recent report for example, that "We believe that the workplace is potentially a great place in which to promote wider interaction and integration between people of different ethnic groups" (p. 24), and given what has been said above, such an aspiration surely reveals itself as a false abstraction (albeit unintended), given that the workplace is, at root, a place of exploitation and thus, a place of inherent inequality. Can equality, along with disinterested interaction and integration in the workplace ever occur among and between people (regardless of whether they have cultural differences or not) under such exploitative circumstances? Of course not. Similarly, when the CRE's report argues; "To achieve an integrated Britain, we need to achieve equality for all sections of society, interaction between all sections of society and participation by all sections of society". (p. 2) this again is surely a false abstraction, given the reality of capitalist Britain. How on earth is it going to be possible to attain equality for all sections of society when competition is to the fore, and when exploitation and private property ownership rules over all that people do?

This general failure to correlate particular policy to material conditions is acutely revealed by the fact that the CRE pins many of its hopes for progressive change, on the legislative and administrative role of the British state. The CRE fails to realise that the contemporary capitalist state exists, primarily, as an institution to defend, foster and develop minority capitalist interests in wider society. It does not exist as an impartial, disinterested institution, functioning to promote fairness and equality among and between human beings as some people, or institutions may believe. It is not concerned merely with the administration of things, but instead, with the forceful governing of antagonistic groups of people. As Cornforth (1956, p. 76) puts it; "The state is not the whole society, but a special organisation within society, armed with power to repress and coerce, which serves the function of preserving and safeguarding the given social order". Certainly, the British state has in the past, is today, and will in the future, act to mitigate many of the worst social effects produced by the British capitalist system. but little else.

On the topic of migration for example, when the CRE recommends to the Home Office that "government should set up programmes to help socially excluded migrants find work" (p. 44), such a recommendation is unlikely ever to be initiated by the state in a concrete sense, and to the benefit of the migrant or migrants concerned. For as was noted above, though it merits repeating, the primary force driving Britain forward, (and sometimes sideways or even sometimes backwards) but always with the full blessing of the state as it currently exists, is the business community's endless quest for profit, based as it is on the exploitation of working people (migrant or otherwise). It is not a mere lack of will on government's part that is to blame for the phenomenon of unemployed migrants (or unemployment generally), but the nature of capitalist society itself. British business will certainly employ much 'cheap' migrant labour when needs must, and always with the primary aim of maximising profits. Conversely, when the commodity market is relatively depressed, millions (migrants or otherwise) are left to flounder in an ocean of unemployment. The government for its part, helps business achieve profits, or else defend such profit margins in many ways, for example by legislating to enshrine in law a pitifully low minimum wage, or perhaps by turning an institutional blind eye to the activities of many employers when such employers pay wages to migrants well below the level of the minimum wage as one crude, but nonetheless effective way of increasing their respective profit margins.

The Trade Union Congress (2005, online) for example, writes on the matter of migrant wages here in Britain; "Low wages are...an important problem and many migrants may work for far below the minimum wage. For example interviews conducted...found a Ukrainian woman collected glasses in a pub for £1 an hour, and a Ukrainian man was paid £1.50 an hour as a 'carrier' in a factory. We interviewed an Indian construction worker [who] earned £20 for a nine-hour day. Moreover there are press reports of migrants picking cabbages in Littlehampton for £20 a day, coriander in Norfolk for £10.35 a day, or daffodils near Plymouth for £1 an hour". Similarly, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2006, online) found that; "most [UK] employers who admitted to 'bending the rules' by employing migrants working outside the legal limits of their immigration status, did not show much concern about government enforcement measures against such employment practices". In other words, the government is basically ignoring such labour practices as one effective means of assisting these particular businesses in maximising their profits. The same report also informs us that "[migrants'] earnings were relatively low compared with the national average...Across all sectors, migrants were working longer basic hours and longer total hours than average for their occupation. For those in hospitality and au pairs, overtime was not always paid. Less than half of those in hospitality and agriculture, and only 15 per cent of employees in construction, received paid holidays. Less than a third...received paid sick leave". When the CRE appeals to the Home Office to do more to help unemployed and socially excluded migrants then, it is essentially ignoring the state's central role in maintaining the very system that gives rise to such migrant exclusion, exploitation and unemployment in the first place.

The CRE also makes appeals to the Department for Education. On the particular topic of higher education, the CRE report argues; "despite an increase in the number of ethnic minority students entering higher education, students from particular ethnic minority groups still comprise a disproportionately small percentage of those in the sector. The government is committed to raising the numbers of 18–30 year-olds in higher education to 50%, but significant progress needs to be made to ensure fair access [to all ethnic minority groups]" (p. 15).

If nothing else, this recommendation too, totally overlooks concrete reality. Not least the fact that the government in which the CRE places its hopes appreciates the idea of inclusive higher education so much, that it has over the past decade, scrapped many grants and introduced tuition fees for most higher education courses throughout the country. As Sell (2006, p. 14) reminds us; "New Labour came to power [in 1997]...then abolished all student grants and introduced tuition fees. Now, one in six students drop out of college as a result of poverty. Increasingly, the children of working-class families [whether black, white or pink with green spots] simply cannot afford a university education". The CRE, it would seem, is appealing to the Department for Education to tackle the obvious exclusion of ethnic minorities when it comes to the particular issue of higher education in Britain, while simultaneously ignoring many of the concrete facts before its very eyes. Facts, like the political introduction of tuition fees, which now enthuse inequality and exclusion across our universities, and not merely with regard to ethnic minorities.

Health is another division of the British government that the CRE directly appeals to in its efforts to objectively address various racial inequalities with regard to matters of UK health provision. And once again, in this domain of socio-political life, we find ample evidence to suggest that the state exists not to champion reason, or to foster disinterested activity, but to nurture and assist businesses in their efforts to make profit and more profit. On p. 30 of the CRE's report, it argues; "the CEHR [the Commission for Equality and Human Rights] should work with the Department of Health to address underlying inequalities in health, [along with] access to healthcare services and the differences in the way that people of different ethnic backgrounds experience those services".

PFI says that such a recommendation is unlikely to be realised in practice. PFI (Private Finance Initiative) is a government-induced scheme here in Britain, in which private finance is stumped up for cash-starved public projects, chiefly because the state endlessly claims it is short of cash, (unless it wants to wage a foreign war of course). Then, the state leases back the buildings and such like from the business or businesses concerned, purportedly on behalf of society at large, and often at extortionate prices over several decades. Everyone is a winner it would seem. But no! Private capitalist finance is only interested in profits, not the well-being of society at large, or any ethnic minority group in particular. Thus will it cherry-pick the most profitable PFI schemes regardless of the consequences of inequalities, exclusion and so forth concerning people's general health care here in Britain.

Discussing the capitalistic pitfalls of PFI in British healthcare, Monbiot (2007, online) draws attention to a relatively recent example in Coventry, England. He writes; "In Coventry...it [the local health authority] had been planning to refurbish its two hospitals at a cost of £30m. But its analysts realised that business would not be interested. The scheme was too small and there was no scope for the financial innovation, which could produce serious profits. As a confidential report by the local health authority showed in 1998, the health service re-designed its scheme to make it more attractive to private capital. Instead of refurbishing the two existing hospitals, it would ask private business to knock them down and build a new one - the University Hospital. This would cost not £30m but £174m. The health experts who wrote the confidential report predicted than in order to find this money, the hospital trust would have to cut both beds and services. They have just been proved right". He continues; "Did I say £174m? I beg your pardon. By January 2002, the price had risen to £290m. A month later it reached £311m. By the end of that year it had grown to £330m. In 2003, it was estimated at £370m. In March 2007...[it]...was £410m. This year the hospital trust must find £56m, in the form of repayments and service fees, to hand to the private consortium. The annual cost will rise in line with the retail price index for 30 years". In virtually all departments of government, the British state is bending over backwards to accommodate PFI and to make the terms as business-friendly as is politically possible.

Remaining with this theme of government, the CRE also makes appeals in its report to the Parliamentary system itself, urging greater representation. On this issue of so-called democracy, the CRE writes; "of the 214 people currently elected to the London Assembly, Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, only two belong to an ethnic minority, and only 4.1% of local councillors come from an ethnic minority background. [And] the situation is no better in Westminster: At the current rate of progress, we will not elect a House of Common that accurately reflects Britain’s [ethnic] population until 2080" (p. 45).

Once more, the CRE it would seem, does not correlate policy aspiration with underlying reality. For instance, from a general point of view, it is worth asking the obvious question; 'What is democracy?' Since all forms of democracy under conditions of capitalism assume the form of the government of antagonistic groups of people (as opposed to the administration of things) we are entitled to ask, are we not; 'Democracy for whom? The exploiters or the exploited?' From a particular standpoint, where is the democracy in an elected House that almost effortlessly commits the country to war in the Middle East in 2003, in the face of massive domestic opposition?

The CRE then, is on the verge of being institutionally subsumed. It has existed as an independent institution in its own right now for a little over thirty years. It is one of several such institutions in Britain, whose declared aim has been to make Britain a more racially equal and less exclusive society. Ultimately, it, and they, have largely failed and in no small part as a direct consequence of not correlating particular policy to the material reality of the situation. Unless and until those formulating policy take into account that such policy must operate through concrete relations of capitalism, with all this implies, then such failures, I believe, will continue.

REFERENCES:

Cornforth, M. (1956) Historical Materialism, Volume II Lawrence and Wishart, London.


Commission for Racial Equality (2007) A lot done, a lot to do. Our vision for an integrated Britain, [Accessed online, September, 2007] Available at: http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/a_lo..._lot_to_do.pdf


Independent Newspaper, Thursday, September 20th, 2007.


Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2006) Central and East European migrants in low wage employment in the UK [Accessed online, September, 2007] Available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/find...olicy/0226.asp


Lewis, J. (1962) Man and Evolution, Lawrence and Wishart, London.


Monbiot, G. (2007) The Fat Cats Protection League, [Accessed online, September, 2007] Available at: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007...ection-league/


PayWizard (2005) [Accessed online, September, 2007] Available at: http://paywizard.worksmart.org.uk/co...hp?id=04366849


Sell, H. (2006) Socialism in the 21st Century, Russell Press, Nottingham.


Trades Union Congress (2005) Forced Labour and Migration to the UK, [Accessed online, September, 2007] Available at: http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/...m#_Toc95187830

[xtremelady]

For me was hard reading, yet very rewarding and to my mind insightful. This does not just relate to minorities, but all living in a capitalist society – except the rich perhaps. The sad thing is many ppl choose to ignore this for the potential gains, benefits the system also brings. Or perhaps we have little choice but to accept – after all what are the alternatives? Perhaps we have no more equality then the land owners and serfs of old – we are just given the illusion this is so, to keep us productive and docile...be hard to control the population of surfs otherwise – now wouldn’t it?
Capitalism offers the promise of great rewards – so does the lottery, but like the lottery not everyone can be a winner. The material rewards however cannot be denied, and family, social ties are often sacrificed in the pursuit of.

But is it capitalism that is to blame or human nature? I question this also.

Until ppl become disenchanted with the system and dies a natural death as it must {because I doubt they will manage to control all the adverse effects that are occurring indefinitely} there is little hope of change. But change to what? – I can diss the current system – yet cannot find an alternative to it either. I do see little subtle changes that can be made however; for the better and perhaps change has to start off from the little things first – then build momentum.

In the area of racial inequality – is it the problem it used to be in the past? I am the last to say it does not exist in the UK – just the attitudes of ppl to other ppl’s are beginning to change. I have seen this within the last generation or so – education being the main factor.

The other point I would like to express is that the majority of ppl I know absolutely despise that immigrants are willing to accept lower pay for doing the same job. {Not with the immigrants themselves I might add} A friend of mine is a trucker – paid well over and above the minimum wage, yet had to take a pay cut because immigrants were willing to do the job for the minimum wage. Who wins? The person whose profit is increased as a result. Okay not exactly forced labour, but unfair none the less because shouldn’t all be offered the same wages for the same job? I think there will be an accounting of this soon – because woe betide the government who ignores the discontentment of its ppl too long!

I worked for a few companies in my time and in some it was actually specified in my contract, that I wasn’t to discuss pay rate with other workers – or words to this effect lol.

[colinbaker62]

Hello xtremelady and thank you for reading and commenting.

I like very much, your analogy when you compare capitalism to the lottery. To a degree, this kind of comparison is very useful, for there are undoubtedly, winners and losers. You also make a valid point (one that is often overlooked) that capitalist property relations have facilitated great material gains for the human species, not least in scientific knowledge along with the socialisation of production. In this regard, arguably the nineteenth century was capitalism's century, certainly when it comes to Western Europe generally.

In the first paragraph of your reply, you pose a key question when considering the supplanting or otherwise of capitalist relations, asking; "what are the alternatives?". This is, of course, a contentious issue but if I were to answer such a question, I would reply 'social property relations'. Why? It is undeniable nowadays, that capitalistic production is thoroughly social in nature, thanks above all else to mass gains in scientific knowledge, technological developments, human skills, and the subsequent application of such knowledge, technology and skills to various aspects of people's lives, above all through the act of social production. Across the developed capitalistic world, we now have the capacity to produce daily, more than enough to house, clothe and feed the entire population not only in the West, but in the entire world.

Yet we do not do this. Instead, a minority of humans (property-owning capitalists) continue to legally lay claim to the resulting social product as a direct consequence of law-enshrined property relations. Production is social and on a global scale, while appropriation of the resulting social product is a private affair. Under such circumstances, millions upon millions of people work not for themselves in general, but instead for a minority of property owning capitalists. This is the essence of the problem for me, and unless and until such a contradiction is addressed, the inevitable material, and ideological consequences will keep asserting themselves. A good example of this is the point you make in your penultimate paragraph about people you know, harbouring resentment of sorts against immigrants. Such feelings, in my view, are unavoidable in a capitalistic world of uneven and unequal development and a world moreover, in which for some, cheap immigrant labour is a welcome phenomenon that is best encouraged.

It is true as you say that the material gains for many living under conditions of capitalist relations have, in relative terms, been great in many regards when compared to generations past, but even these kinds of gains have assumed an uneven and unequal manifestation. It is now clear to all who wish to see it, that capitalism as a social system, cannot fundamentally address the issue of starvation in developing nations, or Third World debt, or (when it comes to capitalist countries themselves) desperately low wages, or poverty, or unemployment, or economic crises. Can capitalism ever generate full employment while retaining a profit incentive? Can capitalism control once and for all, inflation? Can concentrated economic power (monopolies) ever be controlled in a disinterested manner and for the good of all humanity? Can capitalist states ever refrain from the exploitation of weaker peoples not only within their own borders, but also in other less developed states? One thing is now for certain, capitalism per se, can no longer blame its failings on a lack of resources, scientific knowledge or human skills. These we possess in abundance.

I think you make an interesting point also, when you suggest that little will alter unless and until enough people 'become disenchanted' with a given social system. I fully agree with this statement. It is now necessary more than ever before to introduce Marxist scientific theory into the minds of millions of people as the initial step in any concrete social transition. Without theory, people flounder in the dark. Conversely, without practical activity, theory is never tested in the real world, the only world of which we have any objective knowledge. As you say, small steps first. Without such guiding scientific theory however, people will remain ideologically jailed within the mindset of capitalism and subsequently will continue to think, feel and act in accordance with capitalist property relations.

To return to the overall point of the essay, unless we grasp the nettle and begin challenging this unequal and uneven ownership of productive capacity and the resulting social product, such exploitative societies will inevitably continue to give rise to racial tensions. Just cast an eye to contemporary Israel where neo-nazism of all things is taking root.




Colin

[Evrviglnt]

Originally Posted by colinbaker62

To return to the overall point of the essay, unless we grasp the nettle and begin challenging this unequal and uneven ownership of productive capacity and the resulting social product, such exploitative societies will inevitably continue to give rise to racial tensions. Just cast an eye to contemporary Israel where neo-nazism of all things is taking root.

Colin

History has proven that there are few systems as unequal and uneven as socialism. Colin will insist true socialism has never existed, which only means that he would rather blame untamed human nature for poisoning a pristine theory than admitting that all systems must take into account human nature, and if the system cannot rise above it, it is a failure. Lenin and Stalin murdered tens of millions of their own countrymen in an attempt to change the nature of man so that man would submit to new masters. It still failed. Ironically, that is why so many socialists consider it the system of the future - because so far in the present and the past it has meant widespread misery, enslavement and murder.

Capitalism works because it offers opportunity and rewards ingenuity and productivity. Are there abuses? Certainly - in all systems there are abuses, but overall it has raised the standard of living for billions. Colin decries business owners - and the idea that a majority work for the minority. Don't fall for the ruse - in his system this would not change, but for the fact that the socialist elite would be giving the orders and living like kings while the proletariat would be forced into little boxes and forced to work "for the state."

Capitalism allows movement between classes, that's why the revolution that Marx predicted never happened here in America. The obsessive fixation on materialism by socialists, and their encouragement of envy to inspire a classless society often reveal them to be caricatures themselves of the shriveled form they claim is wrought by a rapacious capitalist system. Socialism and Communism survive in the world of theory because inconveniences can be dismissed (an expectation that upon reprogramming human nature, citizens would be made pliable enough to follow designs from the top. For all the high fallutin' gibberish we're expected to wade through here - It is a top down system run by bureaucrats who are better suited to build Potemkin villages than prosperous economies.

And most important, Xtremelady - Socialism has nothing to do with freedom.

And that quip about neo-nazism taking root in Israel? Arresting a gang of juveniles chanting Nazi platitudes does not a movement make - and one wonders how a man so educated as you could make such an assumption. Not a big fan of Israel?

This is not to say that Colin means ill - although forwarding a system that has caused so much misery might be construed that way. He is genuinely convinced that socialism is the key to a brighter future. To that end, I wish him good health, but not good luck in his endevours. We should all be looking for ways to deliver man from the bondage of a usurping government, not the other way around.

[Maud]

All I can say is here here, evrviglnt.

[colinbaker62]

Hear no cobblers !
See no cobblers !
Speak no cobblers !

[xtremelady]

Hi Colin, as stated above I do not see any better system, this includes socialism. Now socialism incorporates more than one ideology and most popular theories involve either being state owned businesses or greater taxation. The over view of problems I perceive with everything being state owned is
A] the policing of organisations {what I mean by this is even in this day and age the government do not operate in an honest way, statistics are doctored, information such as Iraq having weapons, is obscured, promises are made and broken} would you want to give a sole institution this amount of control?
B} the government does not seem able to effectively manage its present responsibilities of health care, policing and education.
C] The system would not create a solution to the housing problem in the UK – the main problem is lack of land and too many ppl and no alternative system will change this fact.
D] Discontentment over how housing is distributed, considering the range of executive and terraced housing available.
E] Would cause a loss of opportunity in positions / organisations which would be made obsolete as a result.
F] Doubtful if such would make any more of a dent in world poverty than what is currently been done to eliminate this problem. [I make this statement on the premise that the current reports state now 1 in 8 ppl of working age are migrants. Over the last decade due to this there are now many more ppl paying taxes into the system – yet have we seen any visible changes to reflect this or has services worsened due to increased population?] From this I would state any excess monies would be invested in own ppls – because for equality to exist as you desire, all would be entitled to the same standard of living and goods. Whether this is done or not the resulting discontentment would be the same.


On the second – greater taxes to businesses would see them migrating from the UK [we are already seeing this] and such would be terrible for our economy.


Maybe its ppls outlooks, attitudes and priorities that require change [and on this premise such would not matter whether we choose a capitalist or socialism system] – where the system remains a tool and not a religion to give our lives to. Thinking that by changing to socialism our entire world problems will be magically erased makes me sceptical and ironically i believe is not practical.

I would say if not for the factor of human nature, either system would work equally well as a tool to promoting equality and a good standard of living for all. When I speak of change I refer mainly to a realisation running through the population’s consciousness that promotes a change in outlook and values – until this happens there can be no change. I do believe ppl will become disillusioned with capitalism and thus create a better system – I also think this will occur on capitalist rather than socialism foundations - being a number or statistic will eventually drive ppl to understanding mans basic need to be an individual. Lack of resources will play a huge factor here – true we produce enough food to feed the world – true we produce enough medicine – but what about wood/building materials / copper for wiring to produce electricity/ energy consumption/metals used to produce white goods/environmental issues which relate to all these things?


With Africa for example – could our government help them out of poverty? Yes and we wouldn’t need socialism to do it either – investment in business, education and ppl paid a fair wage for work by western companies would go a long way to creating self-sufficiency there. I would say it suits the western world for Africa to remain in poverty, to be reliant on aid and handouts. Truth is, this would be the case regardless of capitalism or socialism – because it serves our interests to do this. Africa is so rich in resources – resources we have built our economies on – now what would happen if they began to turn these into products rather than export the raw materials? I rather think such would affect our economies. [Even in a socialist society} Yet until ppl begin to understand this and call for our government to really give them the opportunity and empowerment to make themselves self sufficient rather than seeing food aid as the solution – which ultimately just creates reliance as a result, little will change. Not that I am suggesting aid be stopped especially in times of crises – just that it makes more sense to take measures to allow Africa to be able to support itself.


All I can say is if governments are self serving in our current system – can you imagine how much more this would be so with socialism, which offers greater opportunity for a self serving government?


I will ask, given all my own thoughts above how you perceive socialism will eliminate the following things?

desperately low wages, or poverty, or unemployment, or economic crises.

[Evrviglnt]

Originally Posted by xtremelady

All I can say is if governments are self serving in our current system – can you imagine how much more this would be so with socialism, which offers greater opportunity for a self serving government?


I will ask, given all my own thoughts above how you perceive socialism will eliminate the following things?

Oh man, you're asking for it...

[xtremelady]

Oh man, you're asking for it...

yeah I kinda expect I am {laugh at myself}