|
Socialism in the 21st Century |
Home
| News | The
socialist
Join the Socialist
Party | Donate | Buy
this book
Socialism in the 21st Century
Chapter Three
Could things be different?
[Previous] [Next]
In the Houses of Parliament serious debate is a
distant memory. On every crucial issue the three main parties are in
almost complete agreement. With a few exceptions MPs accept the policies
of neo-liberalism as an article of faith.
Their belief in the necessity of privatisation
and cuts to the public sector show just how far they are removed from the
lives of ordinary people, who are overwhelmingly in favour of a turn away
from the policies of the last 20 years. But the lack of a mass socialist
alternative to the endless stream of sameness that pours from parliament,
leaves millions knowing what they are against but as yet unsure of whether
an alternative is possible.
In an article in The Guardian entitled Coalition
of Dreamers, journalist Polly Toynbee ridiculed the socialist challenge
for the 2001 general election. Describing Socialist Party councillor Dave
Nellist as a "sincere and decent man - but more vicar than
politician", she commented on the programme he had put forward:
"Their policies? Take a blank piece of paper, think blue sky and
green fields and dream of a world that is a better place than this,
unfallen angels in an Eden of goodness where all manner of things shall be
well. Every adult and child will be lifted out of poverty, benefits will
be restored to 16-year-olds, pensioners will not be means tested so all
get the minimum income guarantee, rail and buses renationalised… and a
whole lot more besides."
Toynbee, as a right-wing Labour Party member,
unsurprisingly writes off socialist policies as utopian. But why can't
these modest demands be achieved? Modern capitalism has created riches
beyond the wildest dreams of our grandparents and great-grandparents, with
the potential for far more. Yet we are constantly being told that we have
no choice but to accept the erosion of our quality of life, increased
poverty, worsening public services and longer working hours.
But why? Humankind has developed science and
technique to a level that was unimaginable to previous generations. While
still very limited, our understanding of everything from the stars above
us to the secrets of our own bodies and minds is unparalleled. Humanity is
capable of space exploration, has mapped the human genome, can modify
genes and clone animals, yet we cannot feed the world on the basis of
capitalism.
For most of human history it has not been
possible to satisfy even the most basic human needs. Now, as a result of
the labour and ingenuity of working people, the potential exists to
eliminate want forever. The barrier to achieving this is the capitalist
system itself. Based as it is on the private ownership of the productive
forces (factories, offices, science and technique), capitalism creates
immense inequality and deprivation when the potential exists for providing
the material components of a decent life for all.
There is no lack of wealth in Britain. In one
year, from 1996-97, Britain’s richest 500 people increased their wealth
by £16.3 billion. That means that when New Labour was swept to power the
collective fortune of those 500 added up to about £87 billion. That was
£14 billion more than the combined annual expenditure on child benefit
for seven million children, disability payments for 6.5 million people,
and eleven million pensions.
The reason that the lives of working people
have continued to worsen under Blair is simple - New Labour accepts every
dictat of the ‘free market’ with just as much enthusiasm as the Tories
did before. From birth to death our lives are hampered and distorted by
the capitalists’ drive for profit.
Childcare
There are 6,000 nurseries in Britain. Only 240 of
them are run on a ‘not for profit’ basis. On average the cost of
pre-school childcare for two children is £6,000 per year, more than the
average family spends on housing. Childcare in Britain is the least
regulated, hardest to obtain and most expensive of any country in the
European Union. Lack of decent childcare means that increasing numbers of
parents, in particular women, do not have the choice of going out to
work.
Others are forced to rely on unqualified child
carers. New Labour’s solution has been to introduce the Working Families
Tax Credit (WFTC) and some parents are able to struggle through with this.
In total, the government spends around £5 million a year on helping pay
for childcare via the WFTC. This provides a minimal level of help but much
more is needed.
New Labour has recently promised more money for nurseries,
but these will not be publicly owned. Instead of handing money over to
private nurseries, it would make far more sense to spend the money
building and directly funding free, publicly-owned nurseries, after-school
and holiday clubs, with fully qualified, decently paid staff.
Schools
After five years of underinvestment New Labour is
now promising £7 billion extra for schools. This is welcome but it will
not solve the problems. Spending on education will still fall below the 7%
of national income that even Mandelson has admitted is really needed. And
the £7 billion will not be used to improve the general standard of
education.
On the contrary, it is being linked to the complete destruction
of comprehensive education and the wholesale reintroduction of selective
schools. Comprehensive education, based on the development of all-round
skills, was an attempt to partially overcome the greed and anarchy of the
market which, of course, favours the children of the rich. Despite the
limitations of the comprehensive system, its abolition will be a severe
step backwards.
New Labour is replacing what remains of it with a
system where ‘successful’ schools will be rewarded with more money.
Meanwhile, the schools at the bottom of the league tables, in the areas of
greatest poverty, will get no extra funds and could even be threatened
with closure.
New Labour is inviting big-business companies, like McDonald’s,
Shell and Schweppes, to make profits from our schools. If New Labour’s
plans are fully realised, tens of thousands of working-class young people
will be condemned to second-class sink schools that 'teach' students how
to work in burger bars or petrol stations.
The £7 billion New Labour has promised could be
used differently. It would be enough to pay for the training of the 27,000
extra teachers needed just to return class sizes to the level they were at
ten years ago. Instead, New Labour is concentrating on increasing the
numbers of very low-paid, unqualified classroom assistants who are being
expected to do the work of qualified teachers.
The government is actively
discouraging people from entering teaching. New Labour’s education
minister, Estelle Morris, even declared that teachers are
"potty" for wanting to work a 35-hour week – hardly an
incentive for going on a teacher training course!
Higher education
New Labour came to power proclaiming that its
priority was "education, education, education". It 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 simply cannot afford a university
education. Those who struggle through have to work long hours to fund
their studies and still end up with the millstone of thousands of pounds
worth of debt around their necks.
Total applications for university fell by 2% in
1999/2000, with the reductions coming overwhelmingly from the poorest
sections of society. Mature students have also been hard hit. In the same
period, applications from men over 25 years old fell by 6.5%.
The introduction of fees is the top of a slippery
slope. The Russell Group, made up of the vice-chancellors of the 19 'most
prestigious' universities, wants to add its own 'top-up' fees to the
current tuition fees. If they get their way, universities like Oxford and
Cambridge will charge £16,000 a year – moving towards the levels of
fees charged by their US equivalents, Harvard and Yale.
Education should be a right for all, not just for
a privileged few. Under capitalism this has never truly been the case, but
reforms that were won in the past – such as the student grant – vastly
improved the opportunities of working-class students. We are now moving
back towards the days when 'high quality' education was only for the
elite.
The cost of abolishing tuition fees,
reintroducing a full grant for all students comparable to its 1979 level
(around £4,200, before 21 years of cuts began), along with the
reintroduction of the right to claim benefits outside of term-time, would
be about £3 billion a year. To put the figure of £3 billion into context
it is equal to the profits of BP for the last six months of 2000 alone!
Housing
In 2000 there were over 410,000 people recognised
as homeless in England. Millions of people are forced to live in
substandard, overcrowded, private rented housing – a return to the
extreme exploitation and extortion of the Rachmanite landlords of the
1950s-60s.
Council housing, which was built to provide an alternative to
the hovels of Rachman and his ilk, is being systematically privatised.
Once transferred out of council control, tenants lose their secured
tenancy agreements for less protected, 'assured' tenancies. On average,
rents immediately go up by £10 a week.
There is a desperate need for a large increase in
the amount of affordable, pleasant and good quality social housing. Yet
New Labour has not reversed Tory policy. Instead, it has stepped up the
council house sell-offs. Government spending on housing has fallen
dramatically.
In 1998 prices, the government in the 1970s spent an average
of £10.2 billion a year on housing. In the 1990s that had fallen to £7.2
billion. From 1999 to 2001 only 400 council houses were built in the whole
of Britain! This compares to 28,000 other types of ‘social’ housing,
almost always run by commercially orientated housing associations where
rents are more expensive.
What social housing does exist is increasingly
expensive. While Prince Michael of Kent has been able to find a bargain
five-bedroom home in Kensington Palace for a mere £69 a week, the rest of
us would have difficulty finding a bed-sit for that amount. In the last
ten years council and other social landlords’ rents have virtually
doubled, while private-sector rents have increased by 90%.
Lord Best, director of the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, summed up the situation:
"House building is the worst
since the early 1920s. The key to easing homelessness is actually simple.
Build more affordable homes."
Merely lifting the ‘ring-fencing’
restrictions – the Tory policy which prevented local authorities from
spending the money from council house sales on social housing – would
provide an extra £6.5 billion. Even using the 25% that New Labour has
legally released from ring-fencing would be enough to provide at least
100,000 new or refurbished homes, although that would only be a fraction
of what is needed and possible. After all, from 1949–54 an average of
230,000 council houses were built each year.
A repetition of this would be a significant step
towards solving today’s housing crisis. And as a by-product, housing
benefit costs would be slashed. In the last ten years housing benefit
payments have doubled to £11.2 billion per year. Most of this money is
stuffed straight into the pockets of private landlords in return for
expensive and often substandard accommodation.
Of course, a socialist government would have to
take the protection of the environment into account when building housing.
At the moment the big construction companies build purely for profit with
little concern for the environment, the standard or affordability of the
housing.
A mass house-building programme would mean careful planning to
ensure the protection of green spaces. In many cases, it would be possible
to build on fully decontaminated brownfield sites (abandoned land formerly
used for industrial purposes). Moreover, pleasant and safe homes for all
forms part of a decent environment.
Manufacturing jobs
As factories and steel plants have closed or had
their workforces cut to the bone, all the government has done is to stand
aside and wring its hands. In the past, even Tory governments intervened
in the economy occasionally. Tory prime minister, Ted Heath, for example,
nationalised Rolls Royce in the early 1970s. Clearly, the Tories were
acting in the interests of big business, propping up industries before
selling them back to the fat cats at rock bottom prices.
New Labour, however, is so opposed to public
ownership that it is unwilling even to do that. The failure of Railtrack,
as a result of its catastrophic mismanagement of the rail system, forced
the government to step in and reluctantly partially renationalise the
railways, yet it is continuing with plans to privatise London Underground.
In order to get big business to invest, a guaranteed annual profit of 15%
is being promised, even if the service deteriorates. New Labour is totally
opposed to any government intervention in industry. This means it is
prepared to stand and fiddle while the remnants of British manufacturing
burns.
Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money
are being spent picking up the pieces in Dagenham, Birmingham, Wales and
all the other places where factories have closed or jobs have been
slashed. The cost comes from the loss of tax and National Insurance
income, the increase in benefit claimants, and the unquantifiable social
costs such as the extra strain on the health and welfare system.
Rather than spend that money dealing with the
aftermath of cuts and closure, it would be far better to invest it in
keeping the industry concerned alive and, if necessary, developing new,
more socially-useful production. For example, there is no need for all car
plants to continue with their current production. Workers should be asked
what the best use of their skills would be.
Options might include environmentally friendly
cars, buses or trams. In the mid-1970s, workers at Lucas Aerospace, the
weapons manufacturer, produced an alternative plan of production. They
worked out that their production lines could easily be altered to produce
kidney machines, electronic wheelchairs and a number of other products far
more useful to humanity than weaponry.
But such huge public investment should not be yet
another subsidy to private companies’ profits. Government intervention
and public investment should be matched by public ownership and control.
It would then be possible for workers in individual plants, together with
representatives of workers throughout industry, could draw up a new plan
of production to better meet the transport needs of the whole of society.
Pensions
New Labour insulted pensioners in 1999 with a
pathetic 75p increase in the pension. Since then the government has
adamantly refused to restore the link between pensions and earnings.
Pensioners should receive an immediate 50% increase, and this should be
extended to all state benefits.
The link between pensions and earnings should be
restored. These measures would cost around £15 billion a year. In
addition, pensioners, having contributed to society all their lives,
should be entitled to free housing, heating, telephone and travel. This
could be easily paid for.
There is currently an £8 billion surplus in the
National Insurance fund. Reversing the changes made by the Tories to the
National Insurance paid by companies would raise another £5 billion a
year. This, together with reallocating New Labour’s proposed £3.5
billion increase in defence spending, would raise enough money.
A constant battle
These examples prove the lie in ‘Prudence’
Brown’s messianic belief that New Labour has no choice but to prostrate
itself before the ‘free market’, and therefore accept the increasing
gap between the rich and the poor.
This is demonstrated in the starkest terms in a
report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which calculated the effects of a
modest redistribution of wealth and income which could return the
situation to where it was in 1983. That was four years into Thatcher's
reign, hardly an egalitarian society.
Nonetheless, it would prevent about 7,500 deaths
a year among the under-65s. In addition, the report stated that ending
long-term unemployment would prevent another 2,500 premature deaths
annually, and that achieving the government's supposed target of
eliminating child poverty within a generation would save the lives of
1,400 children under the age of 15 every year.
Such modest improvements could be achieved
relatively simply but capitalism is incapable of implementing them fully
or lastingly. Under this system we have to battle constantly for every
single improvement in our lives. Capitalism means that as soon as we let
our guard down the bosses try and take every concession back. Because
capitalism is based on the drive for profit – and profit is, in reality,
the unpaid labour of the working class – every improvement in our living
standards, every wage increase and improvement in the welfare state
results in lower profits for the capitalists.
That is why the ruling class would have us
believe that it is utopian romanticism to dare to imagine that we can
achieve even the basic proposals of the Rowntree Foundation. Real equality
will only ever be achieved on the basis of abolishing capitalism. Until we
succeed in doing that we will face a ceaseless and unrelenting struggle to
defend our standards of living.
Alice in Wonderland
From a ‘rational’ point of view capitalism is
a crazy way of running the world. Even though unemployment is relatively
low at the moment in Britain (although this will change as recession hits
the economy), there are still vast tracts of mass unemployment. The
reality is far bleaker than the official figures suggest. In the North of
England, Wales and Scotland, the destruction of manufacturing means that
jobs are hard to come by.
Even in the South, in the inner cities up to a
third of young black people are unemployed. The real number of people
looking for work or on government training schemes is probably closer to
three million than to one million. (And even in areas where unemployment
is currently low, it has been replaced by a massive increase in part-time,
temporary work.)
Every unemployed person ‘costs’ around
£10,000 a year in benefits paid and taxes lost. The Cambridge Journal of
Economics shows that one million jobs could be created for £17 billion.
This means that, at current taxation levels, an extra £10 million could
be raised or saved! Economists also calculate that each employed person
annually contributes, on average, around £22,000 to the economy.
Therefore, each unemployed person, given a real job, could produce
£22,000 worth of production - potentially around £60 billion.
At the same time as we have unemployment, four
million workers in Britain work an average of 48 hours a week. This is the
lunacy of capitalism. By introducing a 35-hour week with no loss of pay -
in other words, sharing out the work - it would be possible to
dramatically reduce the number of unemployed whilst simultaneously
improving the quality of life for working people.
If this were combined with a massive increase in
public services it would be possible to eliminate unemployment. This would
allow us to develop a vastly better public transport system, build public
housing, and hire more teachers, nursery staff and health workers.
But for the capitalist class profit comes before
anything else. So the development of new technology does not mean, as it
could, a shorter week for all, but rather longer, backbreaking hours for
some and unemployment for the rest.
Continued...
Socialism in the 21st Century | Home
| News | The
socialist
Join the Socialist
Party | Donate | Buy
this book
|