The Victorians

The Victorians could not bring themselves to use that “pregnant” word

So with discreet whispering a description from a well tried list leaving no doubt as to a girls condition

In trouble

Up the stick

Up the spout

In the pudding club

In a certain condition

Fallen- Slipped

Tripped

Unfortunate,

Lost

Broken kneed /winged

Legged

Ruined

Strayed

Sinned

That Maiden so cruelly violated

A Serving Wench

The father would either have to marry the girl or get what was coming to him.

The Whip or the Shotgun !

But also the sniggers and winks !

"The Sins of the father do descend upon the children"

"Why brand they us with base ?

Who in the lusty stealth of nature take

More composition and fierce quality

Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed

Go to creating a whole tribe of fops"

King Lear I.ii

Victorian Era

Victorian Era's Introduction

·Introduction:

   The Victorian era was a period full of changes; the most important was the reign of Queen Victoria, who

ascended the throne in 1837 and ruled the British Empire, restoring stability to the crown.

Her reign is considered one of the most prosperous in her time, which eventually became the symbol of a

period that took its name, "the Victorian Era".

  Napoleonic Wars finished in 1815, and meanwhile France and the Revolution changed Europe; Great Britain

became the main power of the World. 

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Britain would remain as the leading world power, far above

any other.

Britain controlled so many areas around the world that the sun always shone in one of them.

  Victoria reigned this large and expansive kingdom during sixty-three years.

She was only eighteen years old when she was crowned.

Victoria protected the cosmopolitan interests that predominate the epoch and cultivated international

relationships between various dynastic families of Europe.

  The British pound became the currency par excellence in world markets; the British fleet was the maximum

authority in overseas; factories and the innumerable railroad tracks were the example to follow for all the other

powers that imitated the British Industrial Revolution.

  The change in the way of production (before with peasants and craftsmen and now with workmen) soon

revolutionized the society and the economy of the world.

Meanwhile the development of the railway and other industries promoted the new way of production; Queen

Victoria governed her realm courageously influencing the entire world.

  Her reign, became a symbol of the consolidation of the British Empire, was witness of the rise of the middle-

class and characterized by a morality deeply conservative.

With Queen’s Victoria reign, England carried out a process of electoral and social reforms.

·Literature:

  The writers had to adapt to the reforms of the time.

The Romanticism continued being the main theme of the Victorian’s Era novels but some writers focused on

the development of English democracy and the industrial progress, education and the situation of the work-class.

  The three more important poets based on Romanticism. However Alfred Tennyson began with Romanticism,

soon he was interested in religious issues like faith (In memoriam).

His style was like Robert Browning’s style.

The third poet, Matthew Arnold, had a very important work as a literary critic.

 The novel became the most important style in the Victorian epoch.

The realism, in other words, the observation of individual problems and social relations, was the tendency to

follow, as we can check it in Pride and Prejudice of Jane Austen. 

Dickens wrote about contemporary life, like Oliver Twist or David Copperfield that demonstrate an amazing

ability to give live to characters. His works were dedicated to the less favoured. Thackeray had a

great subtlety in the characterization, as we can see in Vanity Fair.

·Society:

  In the Victorian Era, the bourgeois belief in discipline, in savings, in such a way those good manners were

essential requirements for the development of a civilized lifestyle.

  The family was the fundamental base.

The father was the leader, the woman was wife and mother without the same rights that men had, and women

were forced to take care of the house and of the children. Was inappropriate for a woman to study at university.

In the upper-class women were considered more like angels than humans and they should be cared of any

temptation.

  Factories were considered real prisons in that time.

They usually worked fourteen hours in very bad conditions, in dark and unhealthy places.

Children under ten years were employees who since the year of five did not earn anything, only food and

accommodations.

They were beaten not to fall asleep.

In groups from fifty to a hundred they were sold to companies where they will stay at least seven years.

  ·The upper-class maintained a life of luxury and wealth while the condition of workers did not improved.

The upper-class consisted of the King and the Queen, Aristocrats, Nobles, Dukes, and other wealthy families

working in the Victorian courts.
 
   ·The middle-class was more in number.

The Victorian time was properous for the middle-class.

A very important change that influenced the improving living conditions of the middle-class was that the

women of this section started working outside their houses, accompained by their children.

   ·The working-class was very large in number.

There is no doubt that the working-class was the worst affected class in the Victorian period.

Immigration was a problem for the working-class workers.

Because of so much immigration the opportunities of work went down.

For some families, the living conditions were so bad, that they required their children to work in order to bring

home some extra money to survive.

The death of their father meant that there was no income to the family and they eventually were forced to live

on streets or some public housing.

There were some families that lived in only one room just for having a ceiling over their heads.

The conditions were so brutal that in some cases, children were forced to work away from their parents. 
  


  Apart from this, criminality and prostitution made the Victorian society lose prestige

CHAPTER VIII: THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION

SECTION 4:THE LEVELLERS

(A ‘level’ playing field?)

FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF CHARLES, THE LEVELLERS HAD FORCED CHANGE. CROMWELL HAD BEEN COMPELLED TO GIVE THE LEFT AND THE PEOPLE CONCESSIONS THEY HAD NEVER PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED.

IN 1648, ‘THE AGREEMENT OF THE PEOPLE’, IN ITS FINAL FORM, IN EFFECT BECAME LAW. WHAT IS REMARKABLE IS THAT IT STOOD THE TEST OF TIME, RIGHT THROUGH TO THE CHARTISTS, TWO CENTURIES LATER, WHO MIRRORED ITS DEMANDS.

1. ELECTIONS, EVERY TWO YEARS CHOSEN FREELY BY ALL MEN OVER 21, EXCEPT THOSE RECEIVING WAGES.

IMMEDIATELY, THE READER WILL UNDERSTAND THAT LILBURNE’S MOVEMENT WAS ONE FOR THE LOWER MIDDLE CLASSES AND SMALL INDEPENDENT MEN, NOT THE MASSES.

THE ‘AGREEMENT’ WAS IN FACT LESS UNDEMOCRATIC THAN IT SEEMED. THE WAGE EARNING CLASSES, HALF THE POPULATION, HAD NOT YET BEGUN TO BE A POLITICAL FORCE AND WERE STILL CONSIDERED SERVANTS BY THE RICH.

THEIR EXCLUSION WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT EMPLOYERS FROM HAVING UNDUE INFLUENCE. (CHEATING IN ANY OTHER WORDS.)

THE LEVELLERS WERE CORRECT IN THIS ANALYSIS.

2) COMPLETE RELGIOUS TOLERATION AND DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF THE ARMY. THE ABOLITION OF TITHES, AND ALL OTHER TAXES, EXCEPT A TAX ON PROPERTY.

THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS ‘AGREEMENT’ WAS THE HIGH POINT OF THE REVOLUTION AND BECAME THE DEMANDS OF THE CHARTISTS IN THE 19^th CENTURY. THEY LOOKED BACK ON THE PEASANT COMMUNISM OF THE MIDDLE AGES FOR INSPIRATION.

HOWEVER, THE LEVELLERS WAS A MOVEMENT OF A DOOMED CLASS. THE YEOMEN FARMERS WERE ALREADY BEING CRUSHED BETWEEN LARGE SCALE CAPITALIST FARMING AND THE WAGE EARNING MASSES. IT CARRIED FORWARD SOCIAL CHANGE BRIEFLY.

1. AND THE PARLIAMENTARY INDENPENDENTS INTENDED TO ALLOW THE ‘AGREEMENT’ TO REMAIN ON PAPER ONLY, AND A COUNCIL OF STATE WAS FORMED TO REPLACE THE MONARCH.

THE LEVELLERS WITHDREW IN DISGUST.

LILBURNE, OVERTON AND OTHERS WERE ARRESTED. RIOTS BROKE OUT. 10,000 SIGNATURES WERE COLLECTED. A PETITION WAS SUBMITTED DEMANDING THE RELEASE OF ALL. INCREDIBILY, A SECOND PETITION WAS SIGNED AND PRESENTED ENTIRELY BY WOMEN.

THE ARMY REACTED, AND MANY OF THE DISGRUNTLED WERE SENT TO IRELAND. OTHERS MUTINEED. ROBERT LOCKYER WAS COURT MARSHALLED AND SHOT. HIS FUNERAL WAS THE GREATEST DEMONSTRATION EVER SEEN. THE COFFIN WAS BEDECKED IN LEVELLERS’ COLOURS – SEA GREEN.

FROM THE TOWER, LILBURNE WROTE:

“THAT IT IS BOTH TREASON AND MURDER FOR ANY GENERAL OR COUNCIL OF WAR TO EXECUTE ANY SOLDIER IN TIME OF PEACE BY MARTIAL LAW.”

THERE WAS A LARGE SCALE MUTINY. FOUR REGIMENTS ROSE, REFUSED ORDERS AND MARCHED NORTH TO MEET WITH THE OXFORD RISING AT BURFORD.

CROMWELL SENT TROOPS IN PURSUIT. THEY COVERED 90 MILES IN TWO DAYS AND AMBUSHED THE MUTINEERS, WHILE ASLEEP, WHO SCATTERED OR SURRENDERED.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE LEVELLERS REVEALED CROMWELL AS A PROTECTOR OF PROPERTY, A FRIEND OF ORDER AND A MAN WITH DOUBLE STANDARDS, WHO THEN JOINED THE PRESBYTERIANS, HIS PREVIOUS ENEMY, AND CELEBRATED WITH CITY MERCHANTS.

IN AUGUST, LILBURN WAS TRIED ON A CHARGE OF TREASON, BUT HE WAS A SUBERB AGITATOR AND ORATOR, WHO WAS ALSO COMPLETELY FEARLESS AND ASSURED OF JUSTICE. HE BROWBEAT THE JUDGES, AND THE JURY RETURNED A ‘NOT GUILTY’ VERDICT. IN 1652, HE WAS BANISHED BY ‘SPECIAL ACT’ BUT WAS FOR A SECOND TIME WAS AQUITTED AND RETURNED TO REJOICING CROWDS.

DISILLUSIONED, HE BECAME A PACIFIST QUAKER AND BELIEVED IN A NAÏVE UTOPIAN COMMUNISM.

OVERTON ALONE, ONE OF THE FIRST ENGLISH FREE THINKERS, CARRIED ON THE STRUGGLE TO THE END, BEING IMPRISONED IN 1659 AND AGAIN AFTER THE ‘REFORMATION’ OF THE MONARCHY IN 1663.

THE DIGGERS WERE A SMALL GROUP WHO PREACHED AND PRACTICED A PRIMITIVE COMMUNISM, BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE LAND BELONGED TO THE WHOLE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.

THIS CLAIM WAS SUPPORTED BY AN INTERESTING HISTORICAL ARGUMENT THAT REFERRED TO WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR:

“TURNED THE ENGLISH OUT OF THEIR BIRTH RIGHTS; AND COMPELLED THEM FOR NECESSITY TO BE SERVANTS TO HIM AND HIS NORMAN SOLDIERS… THAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS A RECONQUEST OF ENGLAND BY THE ENGLISH PEOPLE.”

IN THE THEOLOGICAL LANGUAGE OF THE TIME, WINSTANLEY URGED THAT THIS POLITICAL RECONQUEST NEEDED A SOCIAL REVOLUTION TO COMPLETE IT; OTHERWISE, THE ESSENTIAL QUALITY OF THE MONARCHY REMAINED.

’THE LAW OF FREEDOM IN A PLATFORM’ STATES:

 
“FOR YOU MUST EITHER ESTABLISH COMMONWEALTH’S FREEDOM IN POWER MAKING PROVISION FOR EVERYONE’S PEACE, WHICH IS RIGHTEOUSNESS, OR ELSE FOR ONE KING TO REIGN OR FOR MANY TO REIGN BY KINGLY PROMOTION, AND IF EITHER ONE KING'S PRINCIPLES, MUCH MURMURING, GRUDGES, TROUBLE AND QUARRELS MAY AND WILL ARISE AMONG THE OPPRESSED PEOPLES ON EVERY GAINED OPPORTUNITY.”

CROMWELL'S ALLEGED COMMENT ON SUCH REASONING:

“WHAT IS THE PURPORT OF THE LEVELLING PRINCIPLE BUT TO MAKE THE TENANT AS LIBERAL IN FORTUNE AS THE LANDLORD. I WAS BY BIRTH A GENTLEMAN. YOU MUST CUT THESE PEOPLE TO PIECES, OR THEY WILL CUT YOU TO PIECES”

SO MUCH FOR CROMWELL’S FLIRTATION WITH THE LEFT.

THE DIGGERS TRIED TO SET UP COMMUNITIES IN 1649 BUT WERE EJECTED FROM COMMON LAND. THEY WERE THE BACKWARD TURNING FACE OF THE LEVELLERS MOVEMENT. THEIR PACIFISM WAS A CAUSE OF HESTITATION AND INACTIVITY IN A MOMENT OF CRISIS.

SUPPRESSION OF THE LEVELLERS LEFT CROMWELL WITH POWER OVER THE TWO OPPOSING PARTIES. IT WAS A VICTORY FOR THE CENTRE BUT COSTLY, AS IT WEAKENED THE MASSES WHO HAD BROUGHT IT ABOUT.

THERE WERE SOLID GAINS IN WAGES AND CONDITIONS. PRICES REMAINED STABLE DUE TO IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL TECHNIQUES.

SO FAR AS THE ARMY WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS DEALT A DEATH BLOW WHEN CROMWELL TOOK IT TO IRELAND, WHERE MANY MUTINEERS PERISHED OR SETTLED.

THE WAR IN IRELAND WAS EFFECTIVE FOR CROMWELL SINCE IT REMOVED ONE SET OF OPPONENTS AND GAVE HIM THE MEANS TO CONCILIATE THE OTHER, WHO PROFITED BY HUGE CONFISCATIONS OF LAND, WHICH FOLLOWED THE DEFEAT OF THE ROYALISTS IN IRELAND.

Resurrecting Rainsborough

How well do you know your radical history?

(The Radical invites you to also look at www.peopleinhistory.co.uk)

by Les Kennedy - 29th March 2013, 8.30 BST

Capitalism's big con:

Understanding Marxist economics

by Peter Watson

THE PICTURE is the same wherever you look: part-time, low-paid jobs and DIY stores where there were once

factories, people scrambling to keep their heads above water.

This is Britain of the 21st century.

Although the ruling class claims that economics is too complicated for ordinary people to understand, it is

important for Marxists.

It explains the production and share out of society's wealth.

Today, things that people need aren't being made, or if they are, we can't afford them.

For millions, a decent home would be a good start.

But there’s very little building going on. The choices for ordinary people are high mortgage repayments, below-

standard council housing or surrendering into the ‘loving hands’ of a get-rich quick landlord.

And, when we demand more wages we're told they can't be afforded, we have to wait until the economy is stronger.

Government policy can affect the economy.

But capitalist governments cannot get rid of the basic problems we face, exploitation, unemployment, mass

poverty and periodic economic crises.

That is why socialists, while fighting for the best possible deal under capitalism, also fight to overthrow capitalism

and replace it with socialism.

An understanding of what makes capitalism tick is important if we're going to get rid of it.

What is capitalism?

CAPITALISM IS based on the private ownership of production - the firms, workplaces and finance system.

Capitalists make a living on this ownership by getting profit on their investments, instead of selling their labour

power like the working class.

There may be some parts of the economy under public ownership, but the privately run big companies are the

most important part.

Private ownership did not start with capitalism.

Slave society and feudalism were also based on private ownership.

Ordinary people were exploited then as well.

Slaves worked for only food and shelter; serfs in feudal times worked part of the week for the landowner or gave a

part of their crops to them (or both).

The way workers are exploited under capitalism is different.

The serf usually owned or had rights to land. Most food and other necessities were made by the serfs themselves.

Workers today cannot grow their own food or make most of their own clothes.

They are forced to work for the boss to make ends meet. (1)

Today we have the so-called "consumer society".

That means we must buy and sell to live. All parts of life become

a commodity, something to be bought and sold, whether it is a TV, the latest music or our ability to work - that is

why Marx called capitalism "generalised commodity production".

This is the idea of the "market system" where everything is for sale.

Right-wingers call it the "free market".

But there's nothing free about the market when you're low-paid.

Neither can there be freedom when the world is divided out and stitched up by giant companies.

Workers create the wealth

JUST A glance at the income and lifestyles of the top bosses and the wealthy, or a glimpse of the large and

sometimes beautiful buildings in our cities, brings one conclusion.

Britain is not a poor country.

But who created that wealth?

Who built the skyscrapers and palaces, the motorways and railways?

The source of all wealth in capitalist society comes from the labour of the working class, the vast majority of

people who live by selling their labour power (2) (also see definition at end).

Working-class people do not have investments like the capitalists.

We can only make ends meet by selling our

ability to work for wages.

Some workers may own a few shares, but they will still have to go out to work to earn a living.

Unemployed and part-time workers are still members of the working class - it is the fault of the system that they

are denied the right to work.

It is labour that gives commodities value in the Marxist sense of the word (3).

Nature provides the resources, the air, water, minerals and food that we need to live.

But we can't use most of nature's resources directly - they need to be worked on to make them useful.

Rain for

example only takes on a value when it is processed to become drinkable.

We make the money

WANDERING ROUND the supermarket can be a frustrating business, especially when you can't find where

Tesco has hidden its bread.

There are a vast variety of prices for goods on the shelves.

Why are all the prices different?

Capitalist economists say it is all down to "supply and demand".

If I have a thousand ice creams to sell and only one person wants to buy one, they are going to be very cheap

(and very messy!).

If I have one ice cream and a thousand people want one, it will be sold for a fortune.

No-one can deny this occurs as far as it goes.

But it all evens itself out.

If there are a thousand people wanting an ice cream some more ice cream vans are going to get wind of it and

try and get in on the act.

The factor that makes one thing more expensive than another is not down to supply and demand in the long run.

It is down to the length of labour time taken in its production.

This is the core of the Labour Theory of Value that Marx helped to develop.

Supply and demand may explain why a BMW sells at one time for £25,000 and at another for £20,000.

But it cannot explain why a Rolls-Royce always sells for much more than an ice cream.

A Rolls-Royce will always sell for more than an ice cream because vastly more labour time is spent in making it.

To give an example of how the labour theory of value works:

It may take four hours to make a table and just two to make a chair.

To this labour time is added the labour time taken in producing the wood, screws and tools used up in making the

table and chair.

In the example below this makes the table twice the cost of the chair.

LABOUR TIME RAW MATERIALS etc = TOTAL TIME

TABLE 4 hours + 4 hours = 8 hours

CHAIR 2 hours + 2 hours = 4 hours

What has this got to do with prices? Money seems to rule our lives.

There's never enough of it. But at root it is the working class that makes the money.

Money is the measure of the value of something we buy. Instead of "the number of labour minutes" spent making

the tin of beans there's a price tag: money is the expression of value in the real world.

Obviously it's totally impractical for everyone to exchange goods with one another through barter: capitalist

society needs a universal expression of exchange value.

And that's why we have money.

But in the real world the amount of money in circulation in a particular country can get totally out of alignment with

the value of the goods and services being produced, leading to major problems for the capitalist.

In the modern economy there is speculation and money swindling.

Sometimes governments print money to overcome short-term problems.

But if there is more money around than real values of goods the result is inflation - money is worth less.

If more and more money floods into the economy it becomes valueless – that is completely worthless.

When hyperinflation hit Germany in 1923 people traded in cigarettes rather than money.

Money is therefore tied to real values produced by workers.

Like a piece of elastic it can go so far before it twangs back to measure true value as measured by workers' labour.

We produce the profits

CAPITALISM HAS been mentioned, but what is capital (4).

A suitcase full of fivers under the bed is nice to have, but it isn't capital.

Capital is money, plant machinery and materials, which are brought together to employ workers.

Workers are the source of wealth.

But, more than that, they are the source of new wealth, which feeds the lifestyle and investment plans of the bosses.

How can this be?

The rip-off is not obvious.

If somebody works 40 hours they get the "going rate" and come out with 40 hours’ worth of money before

deductions.

This is one of capitalism’s big myths - that employment is based on "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay".

A look at the working day helps clear up the fog.

THE WORKING DAY

A person may be employed for eight hours in a day. In that time, eight hours of labour time is spent in producing

goods or services.

The employee will never receive those eight hours back in form of pay.

If s/he did, no profit would be made and the company would go bust.

In the example the person receives only four hours’ wages.

But he/she cannot go home after four hours: the worker has to carry on working free for the boss.

Every day, in fact every hour of the day, people are making their employers richer.

They are allowed no say in how that wealth should be used.

They can only improve their wages by fighting for it.

This extra labour produces surplus value (5).

This is divided into rent to the workplace landlord, interest to the banker and profit to the workplace boss.

Everything sold in the shops has a piece of surplus value in it. Everything bought makes the bosses richer.

Capital accumulates and grows.

The bosses don't invest because they like to see people in work - they invest solely to make a profit.

If there's no profit, there's no production.

And profit comes from the unpaid labour of the working class.

One argument is that it is the consumers not workers that are exploited.

This states that employers "overcharge" - they mark up their goods to rob the consumer.

It is certainly true that shops will try and rob us if they can.

But new wealth doesn't mainly come from overcharging.

If I have a car that's worth £750 and I sell it to you for £1,000, I've gained £250 and you have lost £250.

There's been a transfer of money from you to me.

But there's been no new wealth created.

A capitalist starts with a load of money.

He rents a workplace, machines, employs workers and ends with more than s/he started with.

This comes from the unpaid labour of the working class.

What decides how much should go to the worker and how much to the boss?

The employer will try and keep wages or "necessary labour time" (6) (also see definition at back) down as low as

possible to keep profits up.

The bottom line is sufficient money to keep the worker fit enough to come back to work the next day and raise a

new generation of workers.

But even that is not definite.

In times of high unemployment bosses would not be bothered if bad health hits workers due to low pay - as long

as there are others to take their place.

Nowadays it takes two incomes to have enough money to raise a new generation of workers.

Workers need to push the balance the other way.

Through union organisation they can force the employer to give ground and raise wage rates.

Workers' wage increases are usually blamed when inflation takes off. A glance at the working day example shows

this is untrue.

If there is a pay rise it just means the "cake" is divided in a different way: the dividing line between necessary

labour and surplus value changes in favour of the workers.

Workers get more and the bosses less.

The total value of goods hasn't altered.

The cause of inflation lies not in pay rises, but in the ‘money swindles’ of financiers and governments.

Every battle in the workplace boils down to a battle over the ‘line’ between wages and surplus value.

Every dispute over tea breaks, bonuses and overtime is about how much ‘free labour’ workers are going to give

to the boss.

The existence of surplus value shows that workers are never "overpaid".

The Socialist Party calls for a 35-hour maximum working week.

With determined, fighting trade union leadership this can be achieved.

For many workers, however, long hours of overtime are the only way to make ends meet.

Overtime suits the employer.

It cuts down the need to employ more staff.

One way for bosses to increase surplus value is through unpaid overtime.

The working day

In example A of a working day the boss gets four hours’ surplus value.

By making the working day longer and keeping wages the same surplus value goes up to eight hours (working day B).

This is called absolute surplus value.

Back in feudal times serfs on the land worked with the seasons and daylight.

Work was hard and starvation never far away. But production of food was stopped when there was enough.

Under capitalism night becomes day, working hours become limited only by union power and the need for sleep.

The fact that many workers get time and a half or double time for overtime shows that surplus value exists.

The employers can pay higher rates and still make a profit.

Many workers would like to work 35 hours a week, but are forced into low-paid, part-time jobs due to a lack of

real jobs and provision of cheap nurseries and childcare.

These part-time and casual jobs give workers few rights and are therefore very profitable for the boss.

Another way for employers to increase surplus value is through speeding up production.

The working day

In working day A there is four hours’ surplus value.

If production speed is doubled the worker makes up his/her wages in half the time. In working day B wages

have not been cut, but by working twice as hard the worker has produced enough goods to cover wages in only

two hours instead of four.

By speed-ups the employer gets six hours surplus value instead of four.

This is called relative surplus value (7).

How does the capitalist increase productivity?

One way is to force workers to work harder.

Plain terror tactics may be used.

Or else bonus schemes, "the carrot that bites", may be used to coax people.

Bonus schemes will rarely compensate workers for the extra surplus value produced or else the employer

would not introduce them.

Most bonus schemes are divisive - they set worker against worker.

The boss will seek to drive workers into the ground.

But the human body can only take so much before we start getting angry.

And employers are greedy for more profits than our sweat can provide.

The machine rules our lives

THE SECRET of capitalism’s development lies in the use of machinery.

Someone using modern machinery will generally always be more productive and therefore more profitable than

a worker without it.

From steam power to the most modern "computer integrated manufacture" the story has been the same.

Speed up production to cover wage costs as quickly as possible and therefore increase surplus value per

worker massively.

In modern car plants wages are made up so quickly that workers work free for the boss for much of the year.

New technology has the potential to reduce the working week to just a few hours.

But under capitalism this "labour saving device" becomes a stick to break our backs.

The cost of machinery is so great that the employer steps up production to pay off debt.

Work becomes unending in 24-hour shift rotas.

And machinery replaces labour.

This fact was hidden during the great economic upswing of 1950-1973.

While big investment took place in assembly line production (for example in big car plants) large numbers of

workers were still needed to staff the machinery.

Today's technology needs far fewer workers.

Today's manufacturing workers are worked to death and stress at work results in millions of days lost, much

more than are lost due to strikes.

Meanwhile, unemployed workers sit idle on the dole, unable to produce goods and services useful to society.

The service industries

A LOT of people today do not work in manufacturing industry.

There has been a growth of "services" like finance and shopping.

Many employees in service industries make surplus value for their bosses.

Workers in McDonald's make profit through their ability to cook burgers at very low pay rates.

People don't need to "make" something to produce surplus value.

A care assistant in a private nursing home produces a profit for her employer, just like a manufacturing worker

does.

A lot of service industries are involved in selling goods and services.

Shops present goods in an attractive way to coax people to buy.

Many finance companies just spend their time marketing money to capitalists and workers.

These services are largely "unproductive" in the capitalist sense in that they do not produce surplus value

directly.

The bosses in this sector make money by taking a share of the surplus value produced by the companies they

provide services for.

It certainly doesn't make them any nicer to their own workforce!

Profit's "logic" says that a public sector is also "unproductive".

Being paid out of government taxes and income means that they don't make surplus value for bosses.

Nationalisation and the welfare state were won in the past by working-class pressure on government and the

bosses.

The capitalists were prepared to accept some form of public sector to provide a workforce with basic health and

education.

They also needed transport and power laid on by the state to help their profiteering. The aim of privatisation is to

bring socially useful jobs directly into the profit system.

This gives the rich a double bonus: a chance to turn a profit while gaining government tax cuts.

This is the root of the government’s Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Service to the public is at the bottom of the

priority list (8).

They gamble with our money

IN THE early days of capitalism the family owned firm was normal.

As more "efficient" firms swallowed others, great monopolies began to run the world.

As surplus value became greater and greater, the money created through workers’ labour began to be traded

through finance companies.

Big banks became giants.

Building societies, insurance companies and pension funds have developed to trade people's money for a

profit.

The modern capitalist may never have been to the company s/he invests in.

The stock exchange lists shares in the big firms and government stocks.

The capitalist's leisurely pastime involves gambling with our money by picking out the stocks and shares she or

he thinks will be the best bet.

The biggest gamble is on the money markets.

By buying and selling the world's currencies trillions of dollars are traded worldwide every day!

And then we're told there is no money for public services or benefits.

The market doesn't work

IF CAPITALISM keeps making profits why does the economy keep crashing?

Why is there mass unemployment?

What's wrong with the 'market economy’?

At one time capitalist economists thought economic crisis was due to sunspots or the movement of the planet

Venus.

Today they sometimes blame computers for stock exchange crashes.

The truth lies within the guts of capitalism itself.

Capitalist production has limits.

When these limits are reached workplaces shut and people are thrown onto the dole.

And these crises are caused because there is too much capital to maintain profits (this is called "over-accumulation").

How can there be "too much capital"?

Under a socialist plan there can never be "too much".

Investment would just carry on to meet people’s needs.

But capitalism depends on profits and the rate of return; if they aren't high enough production stops.

"Over-accumulation" shows itself in a number of ways.

Here are two:

a) Tendency for the rate of profit to fall

Capitalists invest large sums in machinery to get surplus value from each worker.

While each worker makes enormous profits there can be a trend for the costs of machinery to cut the rate of

return for the boss.

b) Problems in the market

Workers are not paid for their full day's work.

They therefore cannot buy back all the goods they produce.

Capitalism tries to overcome this by the sale of the extra goods between members of the capitalist class.

There is always the possibility of "overproduction" producing more than society can buy.

In the market there is no democratic control of production.

Anarchy and crisis can result (9).

Economic boom followed by recession is as natural to capitalism as breathing to a human being.

Workers build up production during a boom only to see it destroyed later.

At the height of a boom capitalism hits barriers it cannot break through.

Investment has raised the costs of machinery, possibly leading to a decline of profit rates.

The lack of buying power can hit sales.

Bankers and governments are fearful for the future and raise interest rates.

Raising the cost of borrowing raises the cost for the industrial capitalist, eating into profits.

Inflation can take off as financiers look away from industry towards speculating on the money markets and

property.

There is an "overaccumulation" of capital and the house of cards collapses.

In the depths of a recession factories are on short time or shut, unemployment is high and shops have

permanent sales.

Banks normally have low interest rates to encourage people to borrow.

Capitalists will only invest so long as they make money out of it.

Once companies start to turn in a loss, or a much-reduced profit, capitalists will take their money somewhere else - often out of industry and into finance markets. Company closures and putting people on the dole are the result.

As well as the recessions and booms of the short-term "trade cycle", there are also long-term trends in

capitalism.

1950 to 1973 were years of upturn with high growth and profit rates.

A change was detonated in 1974-75 by massive oil price rises and problems with the US dollar.

The underlying reasons, however, were more deep-seated than this.

Large assembly line production methods brought rising profits and full employment in the main capitalist countries.

But these methods were unable to sustain rising profits indefinitely.

By the end of the 1960s, profit rates and productivity improvements were tailing away.

US economic control over the globe was starting to be challenged by Japan and Germany.

Since 1974 we have lived in a depression, a long period of problems and crisis for capitalism.

Growth and profit rates are low compared to the 1950-73 period.

New technology has been developed in the workplace.

But it has not solved the problems.

The massive investment in machinery increases costs and therefore attacks profitability.

New technology under capitalism means redundancies.

The huge pool of unemployed in the advanced capitalist countries means less money around to buy the goods

that the "state of the art" factories produce (10).

Capitalism makes the few rich at the expense of the many.

Despite marvellous inventions it cannot solve the basic killers in the world, malnutrition, malaria and war.

The market doesn't work.

It has outlived itself.

Only a democratic plan of production can link the talents of the human race harmoniously with the earth's

resources.

Once a democratic socialist planned economy is established, the end of the world's suffering beckons.

Notes 1) See Marx's pamphlet Genesis of Capital

2) See Marx's pamphlet Wage Labour and Capital chapter 1.

3) See Marx's pamphlet Wages Price and profit chapter 6.

4) See Wage Labour and Capital chapter 3.

5) See Wages Price and Profit chapters 7-11 and Engels’ introduction to Wage Labour and Capital

6) You can find the definition of ‘necessary /labour time’ in Capital Volume one, chapter 9, section one.

7) See Capital Volume one, chapter 12.

8) See Capital Volume three, Chapters 17 and 19, and Marx's Theories of Surplus ValuePart One, Chapter 4 for more on "productive" and "unproductive" labour.

9) If you want to tackle the theory of crisis read Paul Mattick’s Economic crisis and crisis theory or Makoto Itoh's

The basic theory of capitalism.

Some relevant chapters in Capital are Volume three chapters 13, 14, 15, 25,27, 30.

For how the market works read Volume two, chapters 20 and 21 but beware these chapters are very complicated.

10) For more detailed explanation of what has happened in the world economy since 1945 and the economic

turning point reached in 1973 read The World Economy - processes and prospects in A World in Crisis (1993)

published by the Committee for a Workers’ International, the international socialist organisation which the

Socialist Party is affiliated to and Global Turmoil (1999).

Militant International Review (the forerunner of Socialism Today; the Socialist Party’s theoretical journal) deals

with economic depression in issue number 53.

Also for more material on privatisation you can read The Great Gold Rush (Socialist Party, 2002).

All books and pamphlets are available from Socialist Books, PO Box 24697, London E11 1YD (Telephone: 020 8988 8789)

GLOSSARY

ABSOLUTE SURPLUS VALUE

Surplus value produced by making the working day longer.

CAPITAL

Wealth accumulated to exploit labour power and create surplus value.

"Self-expanding value": it grows (accumulates") through exploitation.

CAPITALISM

The mode of production based on producing commodities, with a class system of wage labour and private ownership of production.

COMMODITY

Something produced for sale on the market. Its value is measured by the

‘average socially necessary labour time’ needed to produce it - the average time taken to produce it under given social conditions.

CONSTANT CAPITAL (C)

Capital put into machinery and raw materials. Sometimes called "dead labour".

CREDIT

The general system of lending and borrowing for a profit.

EXCHANGE VALUE

The value of a commodity compared with others. For example: 1 coat = 20 pairs of socks = 2 pairs of trousers = £30. It is measured by the socially necessary labour time of the commodities being exchanged.

LABOUR POWER

The ability to produce. For its price (wages) see Necessary Labour Time.

MONEY

The commodity against which the value of all other commodities is measured.

NECESSARY LABOUR TIME

The part of the working day in which goods are produced to cover wage costs.

ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF CAPITAL

The proportion between the value of dead labour (machinery and material) and labour power in a capitalist industry or economy.

RATE OF EXPLOITATION (OR SURPLUS VALUE)

The ratio of unpaid to paid labour (S/V).

RATE OF PROFIT

How surplus value compares with the total costs of production (S/C+V).

RELATIVE SURPLUS VALUE

Surplus value produced by reducing labour time.

SURPLUS VALUE (S)

Rent, interest and profit, the unpaid labour of the working class.

USE VALUE

The usefulness of any given object.

VALUE

The ‘glue’ that binds the capitalist economy together.

The value of something is measured by the labour time taken in its production.

It appears in comparison to another product, as exchange value.

It shows itself in three forms: commodities, money and capital.

VARIABLE CAPITAL (V)

Wages. The section of total capital used to employ labour power.

José Martí biography

NAME: José Julián Martí y Pérez

OCCUPATION: Journalist, Poet

BIRTH DATE: January 28, 1853

DEATH DATE: May 19, 1895

EDUCATION: Central University of Madrid, University of Saragossa

PLACE OF BIRTH: Havana, Cuba

PLACE OF DEATH: Dos Rios, Cuba

Best Known For

A poet and a journalist, José Martí spent his short life fighting for Cuban independence.

He died in 1895 during a failed attempt to win freedom for Cuba.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

José Martí

Sometimes called the Apostle of the Cuban Revolution,

José Martí was born on January 28, 1853.

He showed a talent for writing and revolutionary politics at an early age.

First exiled from Cuba in 1871, Martí spent much of his life abroad.

In 1895, he returned to Cuba to fight for its independence. He died on the battlefield.

Quotes

"The Republic...should be the unjust predomination of one class of citizens over the rest, but the open and sincere equilibrium of all the real forces of the country."

– José Martí

Early Years

Born to poor Spanish immigrant parents, José Martí showed a talent for writing early on.

He had several poems published by the time he was 15.

At 16, Martí also proved to be a revolutionary in the making.

He supported efforts to cut ties with Spain, which held Cuba as one of its colonies at the time.

Begun in 1868, this conflict between Cuban nationalists and Spanish loyalists became known as the Ten Years' War.

To advance his cause, Martí created a newspaper, La Patria Libre.

He also wrote several significant poems during this time, including "Abdala," in which he dreamed of liberation.

Martí was arrested and sentenced to six years in a political prison, reportedly for criticizing a pro-Spanish friend.

After serving six months of hard labor, he was released and deported to Spain.

There Martí published Political Imprisonment in Cuba, about the harsh treatment he received in jail.

He also furthered his education, studying law first at Central University of Madrid and later at University of Saragossa.

Martí completed his degree in 1874.

Living in Latin America

By 1875, Martí had moved to Mexico, where he continued to campaign for Cuban independence.

He contributed to several newspapers there and became involved in Mexico City's artistic community.

But he soon became disenchanted with the country's government, and moved to Guatemala in 1877.

Martí became a college professor at the Universidad Nacional, where he taught literature, history and philosophy.

Martí returned to Cuba when a general amnesty was declared in 1878 after the Ten Years' War had ended.

He tried to practice law there, but the government refused to let him.

Instead Martí found work as a teacher.

Another uprising, known as the Little War, erupted the following year.

Farmers, slaves and others clashed with Spanish troops in Santiago de Cuba.

Martí was arrested and charged with conspiracy in the wake of the rebellion.

Again, the revolutionary writer was forced to leave his homeland.

Life in the United States

By 1881, Martí had settled in New York City.

He wrote in both English and Spanish for several newspapers, including a regular column for Buenos Aires' La Nación.

Tackling a variety of subjects, Martí was as skilled at social and political commentary as he was at literary criticism.

He wrote well-received essays about such poets as Walt Whitman and he shared his impressions of the United States as a correspondent.

In one of his most famous essays, "Our America," he called for Latin American countries to be united.

Martí suggested that these countries learn from the United States,

but establish governments that are based on their cultures and needs.

In addition to writing, Martí worked as a diplomat for several Latin American countries.

He served as a consul for Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina.

However, he never forgot about Cuba during his time abroad.

Traveling to different cities, Martí developed ties with other Cubans living in exile in the United States.

In 1892, Martí became a delegate of the Cuban Revolutionary Party.

He worked hard on plans for a revolution in his native country.

Among his ideas for a new Cuban government,

Martí sought to prevent any one class or group from taking total control of the country.

He also wanted to overthrow the existing leadership quickly,

to prevent the United States from intervening in the matter.

While he admired much about the United States,

Martí had concerns that Cuba's northern neighbor would try to take over the island.

A Failed Revolution

To free Cuba, Martí joined forces with two nationalist generals from the Ten Years' War, Máximo Gómez and Antonio Maceo.

He raised funds from Cuban exiles and political organizations to support their efforts.

On January 31, 1895, Martí left New York City to make his way to Cuba.

He and his fellow nationalist supporters arrived in Cuba on April 11 and began the fight for independence.

Unfortunately for him, Martí did not last long on the battlefield.

He died on May 19 during some fighting in Dos Rios.

After his death, his compatriots continued their war against the Spanish, but the country did not achieve its independence until years later.

Through his life and writings, Martí served as an inspiration for revolutionaries around the world.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro has called him an important influence on his own revolution in Cuba decades later.

Although Martí once was sent into exile for his political activities, he is now considered a national hero in Cuba.

Personal Life

Martí married Carmen Zayas Bazán in 1877.

The two met while Martí was in Mexico.

The couple had a son together, named José.

© 2012 A+E Networks. All rights reserved

Social Pressure as a Moral and Political Tool

H.Scott

1. What is "social pressure"?

Social pressure consists of the comments, criticisms, attitudes and emotions of people directed against other people who do or say things that those employing the pressure do not approve of.

It is a method of changing and controlling the behavior of other people, both on the "micro" level (i.e. among acquaintances, friends and family), and also on the "macro" level (as a technique of social engineering and control).

All societies, and all individuals in every society, employ social pressure extensively.

At times we all criticize other people, and we all have feelings and attitudes about the actions and remarks of others which we express (verbally or non-verbally) from time to time.

There are social conventions—which vary from society to society, and place to place within each society—about when and how to do this.

The concept of social pressure is morally and political neutral in that such pressure can be used for any purpose, good or bad, and to promote or attack any moral or political position whatsoever.

But although the tool is morally and politically neutral, and although everyone uses the tool to varying degrees, the attitude of different individuals towards the use of social pressure varies tremendously.

There are plenty of people who say they oppose the use of social pressure, either completely, or "almost always".

Some people are quite vociferous about this, and even view any conscious use of social pressure as some kind of "totalitarianism".

The ironic thing, of course, is that in their criticism and disapproval of "social pressure" they are also employing their own social pressure.

This is in fact characteristic of those who oppose the use of social pressure; they only recognize it when it is being used by others—and specifically those who they disagree with—, never when they use it, or when it is being used to support attitudes and beliefs they approve of.

In short, those who oppose the use of social pressure are invariably hypocritical in their opposition—though they never seem to realize it.

2. Social pressure is an alternative to force.

One thing that should be realized by those who unthinkingly attack the tool of social pressure—even when it is being used for a good purpose—is that it is an alternative to the use of force to control the behavior of others.

And I think most people would agree that it is a better alternative than using force—when it can be made to work.

For those who have the power to employ it, force is always a fall-back choice when other techniques of social control fail to work—and when the matter at issue is important enough (e.g., controlling crime, or maintaining the ruling class in power).

But only the stupid use force when there are better methods available. Moreover, sometimes force is inappropriate (or wrong—not that that matters to some people) when alternative methods are not.

Bourgeois society relies, as its ideologists proudly proclaim, on the "rule of law" to control the behavior of people.

But laws are always backed up by force, and so relying on the rule of law is only a slightly-camouflaged way of relying on force to control the populace.

I am not saying that laws are unnecessary; even in socialist society we will need laws, and there too they will be backed up by force when need be.

That is the nature of all laws.

"A law is not a law without coercion behind it." (Attributed to President James Garfield)

But bourgeois society relies excessively on laws to control people's behavior.

"Gates' Law: If there is not a law, there will be." (W. I. E. Gates)

I read recently that there are now 130,000 pages of federal laws.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." (Tacitus, Annals)

By that standard, the U.S. is the most corrupt state in history, by far.

In a future socialist society, we do not want to do things that way.

While many laws will still be necessary (though fewer and fewer as we advance toward communism), we want to reform and control society not primarily through laws (and force) but rather through the much better techniques of education and social pressure.

We want to institute a society where the people themselves truly do rule, and where they rule in ways which are most beneficial to the people as a whole.

Among other things, that means that those from among the masses who go against the interests of the masses in general are restrained and corrected in the mildest way possible.

And that means primarily through social pressure and supervision by the rest of the masses—when this can be made to work.

And in most cases, it can be made to work.

3. Social pressure is powerful!

Social pressure is a very powerful thing.

Human beings are social animals, and very few people can withstand any constant social pressure directed against them.

In fact, about the only really effective way of withstanding such pressure is by identifying with a different social group.

As I write these lines (June 1998) I am engaged in an experiment in the Internet newsgroup alt.quotations (which exists to post and discuss interesting quotations on all topics).

There have been a number of sexist and anti-women quotations posted over the past few months (and not for the legitimate purpose of opposing them or their authors!); I and others (mostly women) have criticized these quotations and the people who posted them.

For a while we seemed to have the two worst sexist culprits on the run, but unfortunately a number of other males came forward to support the two—not so much openly supporting their sexism (which the two themselves do not admit to), but on "free speech" grounds, or because criticism of sexism is supposedly "inappropriate" in this newsgroup, etc.

This had the effect of showing the two that they had support, and that there was at least a vocal subset of the newsgroup regulars which backed them up.

It was interesting to note that as soon as they saw this support they both came back with some more "in-your-face" sexist quotes!

The battle is not over yet, but it appears that the attempt at the present time to establish a new ideological climate less hostile to women in this one newsgroup, where sexism would be jumped on, and therefore would be lessened via social pressure, has failed.

But, again, the reason it has apparently failed is that the social pressure was not intensive and broad enough (only a handful of critics), and because the culprits found refuge in a supporting social pressure of a reactionary sub-group.

So although social pressure can be powerful and effective, it is most effective when there are not opposing social pressures (at least within the milieu in question), and when it is intense and coming from lots of different people, from all sides.

4. The purpose of social pressure is not to silence people, but to win people over—though not necessarily the same people!

In the sexism-in-the-newsgroup case, I was accused of trying to silence people I disagreed with.

Actually, as I pointed out, I am glad when the wrong views that pervade society at large come up there, because it gives me an opportunity to criticize them (and hopefully get others to join in with that criticism).

In other words, like other revolutionaries, I try to turn all the battles around me into schools of struggle so that the problems of society as a whole can be successfully tackled.

It is true that the more limited aim in this case was to stop, or at least cut down on, the expression of sexist remarks and attitudes in this one newsgroup.

Ideally this would happen because the offenders saw the error of their ways, changed their attitudes, and no longer wanted to make sexist posts.

That is, we really were trying to silence sexist remarks, but not the individuals posting those sexist remarks—because we hoped to cause them to recogize what they were really doing, change their ways, and make all their future postings from a perspective showing more respect for women.

However, I readily admit that such ideal outcomes do not always happen when social pressure is applied.

Sometimes the culprits will just slink away from the intense pressure and go hang out where their views are not being constantly attacked.

Other times, people will in fact just fall silent, or even perhaps feign agreement.

If the primary goal is to win over those few individuals, then their falling silent or slinking away (let alone their feigning agreement) is a very bad result.

It means that the goal of winning them over has failed so far, and makes it difficult to continue working on them.

It is true, though, that if the primary purpose of the social criticism is more to win over the middle forces watching the struggle, or more to draw in additional people into such struggles and teach them to fight for their class and collective interests, then if those results really do occur it is less of a defeat that you don't win over the actual targets of the struggle.

It is still unfortunate, of course, that they are not won over, but we do have to recognize that not everyone can be won over all at once.

(And also that there are a few die-hards who can never be won over.)

One of the goals is always to win over those in error, and not just to silence them.

But if other, perhaps more important, goals are achieved, then the application of social pressure has been a good thing even if the actual targets are merely silenced instead of being won over.

There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy involved in recognizing this.

In the quotations newsgroup case, if the two major culprits had just stopped making sexist posts and that is all that happened, then it would not have been much of a victory—and may in fact have been more of a negative thing than a positive thing overall.

But even if they were just "silenced" on the issue, without changing their attitudes in any way, the whole episode of struggle could have still been a very good thing if one or more of the following results occurred:

If other people in the newsgroup (especially males of course!) learned that what the two were doing was wrong, and improved their own attitudes and actions towards women;

If some other men in the newsgroup were encouraged by the struggle to join in against those who attack women. (It is not just an issue of importance to women, after all!);

If other people in the newsgroup learned a bit about the sources of and reasons for the hostility towards women in capitalist society.

(One of the two culprits is a very religious person—possibly a preacher—and so I have emphasized the religious source of many of the attacks on women.);

If other people in the newsgroup (especially women of course!) learned that serious struggle against sexism and anti-women attitudes is appropriate, and worth the effort, and can yield positive results—thus encouraging them to carry on such struggle elsewhere as well;

If some people learned what we Marxists are really about, i.e., helping the people and sections of the people (including women, oppressed races, etc.) to learn to fight for their own collective and class interests, and attempting to broaden the struggle and bring light into it towards what needs to be done ultimately to really resolve such serious problems (namely, revolution).

I suspect that possibly the first three of these broader goals may have been achieved, at least to some small degree, and therefore probably some good came out of the struggle even though the two worst culprits were not corrected in any way.

In judging the correctness of any struggle we must always consider all the results which ensue from it, not just the limited immediate goal.

5. But is it right to try to win people over—even to a correct position—via social pressure?

Shouldn't we just use reason and good evidence?

It is crazy to imagine that people are strictly rational creatures.

Human beings are not totally irrational, either, but it is really foolish to believe that they are entirely rational, or to try to change human behavior and society based on that false assumption.

Just how rational individual people are depends on their education, what they have learned (and truly absorbed) about scientific technique, the rationality of the people around them (their milieu), what form of society they live in, and so forth.

Given that most people's education is laughably poor, that their understanding of science and scientific methods is close to nonexistent, that they have little or no training in logic and how to think rationally, and that they live in a capitalist society whose rulers depend on keeping the masses ignorant and fooled in order to hang on to their privileges (and constantly bombard the masses with lies through their control of education and the media), it is hardly any wonder that people often tend to be ignorant and quite irrational.

It is inevitable in contemporary capitalist society.

Why do people believe what they do?

Is it because we scientifically examine all the reasonable possibilities, carefully sift the evidence, use logic and the techniques of rational thinking to select the best answer?

No, regretfully, it is just not this way most of the time in current society.

Mark Twain put it this way:

 Mohammedans are Mohammedans because they are born and reared among that sect, not because they have thought it out and can furnish sound reasons for being Mohammedans; we know why Catholics are Catholics; why Presbyterians are Presbyterians; why Baptists are Baptists; why Mormons are Mormons; why thieves are thieves; why monarchists are monarchists; why Republicans are Republicans and Democrats, Democrats.

We know it is a matter of association and sympathy, not reasoning and examination; that hardly a man in the world has an opinion upon morals, politics, or religion which he got otherwise than through his associations and sympathies.[1]
 
 

Twain overstates the case just a bit!

Some people do manage to do some thinking on their own and thus escape some of the beliefs they are raised with, indoctrinated with, and find all around them—but only a tiny minority in our current unscientific age.

Most people do in fact hold the beliefs they were indoctrinated with in their youth, and which are constantly reinforced in them by their social milieu.

And that is just to say that most people hold the beliefs they do because of social pressure, both the social pressure applied in their youth and that which is continually directed at them as adults.

Since people basically believe what they do because of social pressure, it you want to change what they believe, and help them discover the truth about social reality, you must of necessity seek to apply your own counter-acting social pressure.

That is just the plain fact of the matter.

By all means, marshal all the evidence, logic, and rational arguments you can as well—but just don't expect them to be very broadly effective!

(I would even wager that in many cases the effectiveness of rational argument comes more from the concomitant social pressure than it does the actual reasoning and evidence presented.)

The masses have great strengths, but they also have great weaknesses.

Among them are many brilliant ideas—and many foolish ideas.

There is great rationality, and great irrationality.

We Marxists are indeed trying to make them (and ourselves!) more rational, more scientific in their (and our) approach to the world, more cognizant of their own class interests and how these interests may be advanced.

But we must also start our work with the people as they now are, as we find them in a backward, unscientific society.

In the future we hope to make people more rational, and as they become more rational we expect to rely more on rational argument to change people's thinking and actions, and to rely less on social pressure. But never forget—we still live in primitive times!

And in primitive times you are often forced to use primitive methods.

6. "But Scott!

How can you, as a Marxist, as a member of a tiny minority in this society that is itself subject to tremendous hostile social pressure, champion the use of social pressure?!

Doesn't it work more against your ideas now than for them?"

I certainly do not champion social pressure no matter how it is used!

Social pressure is in fact like any tool; it can be used for bad purposes as well as for good purposes.

When it used for bad purposes I of course oppose its use.

There is nothing inconsistent about this.

I also think hammers are fine tools, but that doesn't mean I am forced to approve of maniacs going around and hitting people over the head with them!

It's true that at the present time most of the social pressure employed in society is a negative thing, constantly reinforcing backward ideas.

And in no way do I support its use for any purpose that goes against the interests of the people.

But it is a simple matter of fighting fire with fire.

Sure the tool is mostly used for negative purposes at present, but it can also be used for positive purposes, and it is wrong to refrain from doing so.

It is wrong to refuse to use any tool which can advance the people's interests and their struggle towards liberation.

How can I expect that the positive use of social pressure by a small minority can hope to counteract all of its extensive negative use?

Well, by itself it cannot, and I don't fool myself into thinking otherwise.

We Marxists are well aware of the fact that all the good reasons we put forward, all the rational argument, and all the social pressure we can muster—all of that put together—is still not enough to change most people's thinking and change society.

Something more is needed, namely people's own experience, especially negative experience in times of social crisis.

And capitalism—being the wonderfully obliging system that it is—can be counted on to provide these vicious negative experiences from time to time.

It is true that all the negative experiences of war, imperialist aggression, economic depression, crises arising from the massive destruction of the environment, the oppression of women and minority peoples, and so forth, are also not enough by themselves to fully wake up the masses and cause them to overthrow an exploitive and oppressive system.

But when you add this "experience" factor to a proletarian pole of leadership putting forward a genuine alternative in the time of acute social crisis, demonstrating some ability to lead the masses in struggle, putting forward ample exposure of the crimes of the capitalist enemy, putting forward reasoned arguments and plenty of supporting evidence for what we say, and also powerful political slogans and as much social pressure as we can manage—then you have something really effective.

Then you might even have a social revolution and the creation of a new society truly capable of eliminating all the horrors of capitalism.

Social pressure really comes into its own in the early years of socialist society.

At that point the old capitalist ruling class has lost its control of the government, the news media, and has largely lost control of education and many other spheres of public influence.

If a revolution does actually take place it is only because the great majority of the masses support it, and thus you have a situation where progressive, positive social pressure can and should be applied against the relatively few backward elements, people who want to return to the old oppressive society, people who drag their heals resisting the further revolutionary advance of society, and so forth.

In the early days of the Russian revolution, Lenin called upon revolutionaries and the masses to "hound" the bourgeoisie that still existed though it had been knocked from power.

"Hound them the way they hounded us!" he said.

In other words, apply the most intense social pressure against them, to prevent them from returning to power.

If socialism can be consolidated—partly through the massive use of social pressure—long enough to bring up at least one new generation that is capable of truly thinking rationally, of investigating society to see what is truly in its own working class interests, and of taking a leading hand in the running of such a society, then we will have won, and won for good—even though a lot will yet remain to be done.

It is not easy of course; the international working class has failed in its first two attempts to do this (in Russia and China), and in both cases a new exploiting class grew up within the revolutionary party and stole the revolution before a sufficient fraction of the masses were sufficiently educated and empowered.

We have learned a lot from these two bitter experiences, and will not make the same mistake again.

But even today, in the midst of a backward society—backward politically, morally, and scientifically (as far as the thinking of the masses goes)—there is an important role for social pressure.

All revolutionaries and all progressive people should endeavor to use this tool, should gain practice in using it themselves, and should help the masses to use it to defend their interests.

We have an obligation to do this; we would be failing the people if we did not do so.

7. Conclusion.

Social existence requires the existence of social pressure.

All societies, and tendencies within society employ it, and must employ it if they are to survive.

Social pressure is a necessary tool in the transformation of society, and in the consolidation of any new society.

Social pressure is indispensable.

 If man draws all his knowledge, sensation, etc., from the world of the senses and the experience gained in it, the empirical world must be arranged so that in it man experiences and gets used to what is really human and becomes aware of himself as man.

If correctly understood interest is the principle of all morals, man's private interest must be made to coincide with the interest of humanity.

If man is unfree in the materialist sense, i.e., is free not through the negative power to avoid this or that, but through the positive power to assert his true individuality, crime must be not punished in the individual, but the anti-social source of crime must be destroyed, and each man must be given social scope for the vital manifestation of his being.

If man is shaped by his surroundings, his surroundings must be made human.

If man is social by nature, he will develop his true nature only in society, and the strength of his nature must be measured not by the strength of separate individuals but by the power of society. (Karl Marx)

Older than the pyramids of Egypt

CHAPTER IV: THE DECLINE OF FEUDALISM 

SECTION 2: PARLIAMENTARY ORIGINS

 De Montfort took advantage of the split between the barons, and a civil war ensued. Those barons opposed to the king were forced to rely on the support of other classes.

In 1264, Simon de Montfort defeated Henry at Lewes and desertion from the baronial ranks continued. The movement included town merchants, lesser landlords and the clergy.

De Montfort summoned to his ‘parliament’ representatives of the burgesses of chartered towns, as well as two knights from each shire.

This parliament is correctly described as a revolutionary party assembly and contained five earls, 17 barons and the burgesses - a reflection of the changing class structure of England.  

The growing difference between the great barons and lesser landowners or knights led to the barons retaining bands of armed followers prepared to fight, while the landowners and knights were increasingly content to live on their estates and make money from the wool trade.

This was the beginning of the English squirearchy, which dominated the countryside for the next five centuries.

These knights were drawn into local government, and, in 1254, as representatives of the shire, they were formally summoned regularly to council.

The balance of the council changed and was no longer regarded as merely a feudal body.

In 1267, de Montfort was defeated by Henry’s son Edward and was killed, but Edward found it wiser to adopt many of the changes that the rebels had demanded.

Like the jury, parliament was a royal convenience rather than a right of the subject but was used to collect taxes and became the focus of opposition. Many stayed away.

In 1295, a new crisis emerged in the form of a war with France and Scotland and the holding down of the Welsh.

Edward summoned a ‘model parliament’, which was made to grant large sums of money. More was needed in the following two years.

Edward I levied a heavy property tax, tolls on wool exports and seized some of the property of the Church.

In 1297, the levies were strongly resisted, and a Confirmation of the Charter was secured. Edward promised no more taxes without the consent of parliament.

The opposition was mostly baronial, but it was an opposition.

The same happened in the following reign of Edward II, alienating the barons by the failure of his Bannockburn campaign in 1315 and by grants of Crown lands to personal friends.

In 1327, Edward II was deposed by a rising of the barons, but this was carried through in regular parliamentary manner by establishing a precedent – this was important.

Edward III needed money for the Hundred Years’ War that lead to further parliamentary gains, so he agreed to elect treasurers to supervise the expenditure of the money, vote and examine the royal accounts.

This was a right of parliament not only to withhold supplies, but to exercise control over money and hence policy.

However, parliament was weak. There were three houses: Barons, Clergy and Commons. Though they acted together, at times the alliance was thin. The decline of feudalism strengthened the Commons.

In the 14^th and 15^th centuries, the nominal power of parliament was considerable.

However, the decay of feudalism brought together a very powerful small group of noble families, mostly related to the Crown.  They saw parliament as a convenient means through which to dominate the state machine.

The whole period was one of transition and parliament became a battleground for these forces.

Life in the UK Test

Immigrants must pass,- if they want to stay in the UK, -or leave, or be deported.

There are 24 questions
What is the pass rate ?.

A) 45%
B) 50%
C) 55%
D) 65%
E) 75% 

This is not one of the questions but I bet you get it wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK ?  Answer these questions then

Which of the following statements is true?

A) 45% of all ethnic minority people live in London
B) 35% of all ethnic minority people live in London

What percentage of the UK workforce are women?

A) 43%
B) 45%
C) 49%
D) 51%

Which statement is correct?

A) To become a local councillor you must have a local connection with the area
B) To become a local councillor you must be from the area

Large numbers of people from Eastern Europe have come to live in the UK since

A) 1987
B) 1992
C) 2001
D) 2004

Your employer should give you a written contract or statement with all details and conditions for your work within

A) 6 months after starting the job
B) 4 months after starting the job
C) 3 months after starting the job
D) 2 months after starting the job

How many parliamentary constituencies are there?

A) 464
B) 564
C) 646
D) 664

Which statement is correct?

A) The film classification “U” means that it is suitable for everyone
B) The film classification “U” means that it is suitable for everyone over the age of 4

Answers please !

Will you be liable for deportation?

Education

My 11 year old, Philippine, Sister in law, has been telling me about her Year 6 Primary School studies.

She has mastered :-

English for You and Me- Book 6

And Science grade 6 workbook

Maths she is not sure about which level she is at.

She does Music and Home Economics

And of course Filipino history

But apart from the Filipino language

She has Arabic and Spanish as separate lessons

And I have told you about English and Filipino

So she can speak 4 languages and has not yet started at High School.

I am sending to her. in the Philippines, KS 3 English Maths and Science –for 11-14 year olds.

You will have noticed that as a Christian she learns Arabic just as Muslims learn English.

All Filipino children can speak and read English.

Even a 2 year old can manage to ask for presents in English !

CHAPTER III: FEUDAL ENGLAND

SECTION 5:  THE GREAT CHARTER

 FROM THE CONQUEST TO 1200, STATE POWER GREW BUT WITHIN THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON IT BY FEUDALISM.

THE KING HAD CERTAIN RIGHTS AND DUTIES AND THESE WERE NOT CHALLENGED.

HE HAD A DUTY TO KEEP THE PEACE, LEAD THE ARMY AND COLLECT DUES FROM HIS VASSALS.

HE KEPT A ROYAL COURT, WHICH BECAME VERY PROFITABLE WHEN ITS ROLE WAS EXTENDED TO PRIVATE JURISDICTIONS.

THE BARONS RETAINED RIGHTS OF REBELLION, BUT THE POWER OF THE CROWN MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE CHALLENGED.

WHEN THE FEUDAL CONTRACT WAS VIOLATED, AS IT WAS BY JOHN WHO ATTEMPTED TO LEVY FINES NOT AUTHORISED BY CUSTOM AND CONFISCATE LANDS BELONGING TO BARONS AND CHURCH USING THE CROWN COURTS, THE SECTIONS OF SOCIETY THAT HAD BEEN ITS STRONGEST SUPPORTERS, PARTICULARLY THE CHURCH, REBELLED.

HE MIGHT HAVE SUCCEEDED BUT FOR THE FAILURE OF HIS FOREIGN POLICY, LOSING PROVINCES HIS FATHER HAD HELD, INCLUDING THE DUKEDOM OF NORMANDY.

THIS LOSS MEANT THAT THE BARONS LOST THEIR ANCESTRAL ESTATES, AND, IN THEIR EYES, JOHN HAD FAILED TO PROTECT WHAT WAS HIS FIRST RESPONSIBILTY - THEIR LANDS.


JOHN BECAME INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE WITH POPE INNOCENT III OVER THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

JOHN WAS EXCOMMUNICATED, AND THE POPE PERSUADED THE KING OF FRANCE AND SCOTLAND TO MAKE WAR ON HIM.

THE COUNTER ALLIANCE JOHN SOUGHT WAS CRUSHED AS THE BARONS REFUSED TO FIGHT ON HIS SIDE.

JOHN STOOD ALONE AND LOST THE NOBILITY’S SUPPORT.

THE REBELLION AGAINST JOHN WAS LED BY THE BARONS BUT BECAME UNIVERSAL WHEN JOHN COULD NO LONGER DEPEND ON THE FYRD.

THIS POPULAR MOVEMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO, AND, AT RUNNYMEDE ON JUNE 15th 1215, HE ACCEPTED THE PROGRAMME OF DEMANDS DRAWN UP BY THE BARONS IN THE MAGNA CARTA.

IT WAS THE TURNING POINT IN ENGLISH HISTORY, BUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS. THE CHARTER WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENT.

THERE WAS NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION AND NO GUARANTEE OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT, SINCE GOVERNMENT DIDN’T EXIST. AND THERE WAS NO RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.

WHAT IT DID DO, HOWEVER, WAS TO SET OUT IN DETAIL

HOW JOHN HAD EXCEEDED HIS RIGHTS AS A FEUDAL OVERLORD AND DEMANDED THE END TO HIS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES.

IT MARKED THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN BARON AND CITIZEN BY INSISTING ON FREEDOM OF MERCHANTS FROM ARBITARY TAX.

IT CURTAILED THE ROYAL COURT’S POWERS, WHICH IN ITSELF WAS REACTIONARY.

ITS FAMOUS CLAUSE WAS: “NO FREEMAN SHALL BE TAKEN OR IMPRISONED OR DISSEISED OR EXILED OR IN ANY WAY DESTROYED, NOR WILL WE GO UPON HIM OR SEND UPON HIM EXCEPT BY LAWFUL JUDGEMENT OF HIS PEERS AND THE LAW OF THE LAND.”

‘FREEMEN’ DID NOT INCLUDE THE MASS OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE STILL IN VILLEINAGE, BUT AS THIS DECLINED THE CLAUSE TOOK ON A NEW MEANING AND IMPORTANCE.

THE COMMITTEE OF 24 BARONS SET UP TO SEE THAT JOHN KEPT HIS PROMISE WAS SIGNIFICANT, AS IT WAS A NEW AVENUE ALONG WHICH THE BARONS COULD CONDUCT A POLITICAL STRUGGLE AS A CLASS RATHER THAN AS INDIVIDUALS.

OTHER CLASSES EVOLVED TOO, LEADING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARLIAMENT CREATED TO DEFEND THE NOBLES’ INTERESTS.

BUT, AS SOON AS THE BARONS DISPERSED, JOHN DENOUNCED THE CHARTER AND RAISED AN ARMY.

CIVIL WAR FOLLOWED, INTERRUPTED BY JOHN’S DEATH IN 1216. HIS SON HENRY, AGED NINE, WAS CROWNED, BUT THE BARONS RULED AND THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CHARTER BECAME THE BASIS OF LAW.

THESE WERE REAFFIRMED BY KINGS, FROM HENRY III TO HENRY VI.HISTORY NOW FALLS INTO THREE PARTS.

FEUDALISM DECLINED, AND THE POWER OF THE NOBLES WAS BROKEN IN THE WAR OF THE ROSES.
(WRITING HIS PLAY, KING JOHN, SHAKESPEARE NEVER REFERS TO THE MAGNA CARTA AND QUITE POSSIBLY HAD NEVER HEARD OF IT.)

THE BOURGEOISIE ENTERED THEIR REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD UNDER THE STUARTS, AND THE CHARTER WAS REDISCOVERED BUT MISREPRESENTED AND USED AS THE BASIS FOR CLAIMS OF PARLIAMENT.

ONLY IN THE LAST CENTURY HAVE THE HISTORIANS EXAMINED THE CARTA CRITICALLY AS A FEUDAL DOCUMENT AND DISCOVERED ITS REAL MEANING AND IMPORTANCE.

THE BARONS WON A VICTORY, BUT ONLY BY ACTING IN A WAY THAT WAS NOT STRICTLY FEUDAL.

THEY FORMED NEW ALLIANCES AMONG THEMSELVES AND WITH OTHER CLASSES

WWI a futile waste of life

Tuesday 23 October 2012 

Morning Star editorial

David Cameron's decision to splurge £50 million on celebrating the centenary of the start of World War I indicates what a waste of money his expensive private education was.

There is absolutely nothing to celebrate about a conflict over which European powers should hold sway over colonial empires.

Rapidly developing Germany, which had missed out on the 19th century carve-up of Africa, wanted access to the natural resources controlled by the British, French and Russian empires.

The labour movements of Europe saw what was in store long before the assassination of Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 provided the pretext for a continent-wide mobilisation.

The 1907 congress of the 2nd International of socialist parties had agreed to oppose an imperialist war and, if one was declared, to "utilise the crisis created by the war to hasten the overthrow of the bourgeoisie."

----

Brave words were followed by cowardly deeds as each party lined up behind its own ruling class and delivered working people into the hands of the recruiting sergeants.

Only in Ireland and Russia was a principled stand against imperialist war taken.

The 1916 Easter Rising, in which Irish Socialist Republican Party leader James Connolly's Irish Citizens Army played an outstanding role, was defeated by the British empire's superior firepower but sowed the seeds of Irish independence.

Russia's Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, transformed a disastrous imperialist war into a virtually bloodless revolution, overthrowing tsarist autocracy, ending colonial oppression of national minorities and beginning the country's social transformation.

Britain's working people, who had been let down by their political leaders, were told that they would march back to a "land fit for heroes."

They returned to rising unemployment and attacks on living standards, which triggered race riots and mass poverty.

The Ottoman empire, which had hitched its wagon to Germany, disintegrated, allowing Britain and France to extend their influence to the Middle East region, denying national determination, dividing different nationalities and laying the foundations for recent tragic events affecting Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis and others.

----

As Plaid Cymru MPs Jonathan Edwards and Hywel Williams note in their Commons early day motion, WWI saw 10 million soldiers killed and double that number injured. Seven million civilians perished directly or indirectly as a result of the war.

What kind of political halfwit could wrap himself in the butcher's apron and proclaim such futile slaughter worthy of celebration?

Unfortunately, imperialist wars are not things of the past. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya bear witness to our ruling elite's eternal determination to subjugate people in other countries in the cause of capitalist greed.

All these wars have proven unpopular, arousing public protests on varying scales, which has provoked a change of emphasis by our rulers.

They extol the bravery and professionalism of "our boys" or "our heroes," implying that refusal to back their efforts in Afghanistan or wherever equates to stabbing them in the back.

Those who betray working-class squaddies are the politicians who send these young people overseas to do their dirty work, ordering them to kill and be killed.

As with WWI, their deaths in combat are described as "brave sacrifices" for the nation. They aren't. They are wasted lives.

The real enemy of Britain's working class, including those in uniform, remains the ruling elite that corners the nation's wealth for itself and cuts living standards for the rest of us.

THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF CRIME

Some years ago Jock Young summarised Engels' views on crime as amounting to four alternatives facing the impoverished worker.

He "... can become so brutalised as to be, in effect, a determined creature."

Secondly he can äccept the prevalent mores of capitalist society, and enter into the war of all against all."

Thirdly, he can steal the property of the rich.

Finally he can struggle for socialism (Young 1975, p. 78).

This classification provides a very useful starting point for an investigation of Engels' treatment of crime. 

crime and brutalisation

The theme of demoralisation and brutalisation of the working class as a cause of crime

is undoubtedly strong in Engels.

At first sight the relation between brutalisation and crime appears to take a strongly determinist form.

Ïf the influences demoralising to the working-man act more powerfully, more concentratedly than usual, he becomes an offender as certainly as water abandons the fluid for the vaporous state at 80 degrees, Réamur.

Under the brutal and brutalising treatment of the bourgeoisie, the working-man becomes precisely as much a thing without volition as water, and is subject to the laws of Nature with precisely the same necessity; at a certain point all freedom ceases." [4:425]

Engels elaborates the effects of brutalisation in a number of directions.

Moral disintegration appears to be one consequence. Lack of moral restraint combined with poverty lead inexorably to crime.

"The moral training which is not given to the worker in school is not supplied by the other conditions of his life... his whole position and environment involves the strongest temptation to immorality.

He is poor, life offers him no charm, almost every enjoyment is denied him, the penalities of the law have no further terrors for him: why should he restrain his desires, why leave to the rich the enjoyment of his birthright, why not seize a part of it for himself? What inducement has the proletarian not to steal? ....

And, when the poverty of the proletarian is intensified to the point of actual lack of the barest necessaries of life, to want and hunger, the temptation to disregard all social order does but gain power. ....

Want leaves the working-man the choice between starving slowly, killing himself speedily, or taking what he needs where he finds it - in plain English, stealing." (4:412)

Engels gives us some graphic portrayals of the moral disintegration of working class life in early capitalism.

Such brutal conditions are particularly concentrated in the most marginalised elements, those on the fringes of the reserve army of labour who lead a casual existence and are forced into the lodging houses and hostels.

Speaking of the London lodging houses he wrote:

"Into every bed four, five, or six human beings are piled, as many as can be packed in, sick and well, young and old, drunk and sober, men and women, just as they come, indiscriminately.

Then come strife, blows, wounds, or, if these bedfellows agree, so much the worse; thefts are arranged and things done which our language, grown more humane than our deeds, refuses to accord." (4:336)

And again, in the Manchester lodging houses:

 "what physical and moral atmosphere reigns in these holes I need not state.

Each of these houses is a focus of crime, the scene of deeds against which human nature revolts, which would perhaps never have been executed but for this forced centralisation of vice." (4:366)

Radical says- The Nasty Party Policy today on Housing Benefit and space today

But brutalisation and demoralisation not only affect the poorest elements in the lodging houses but the working class as a whole.

In this context it is important to note that although property crime has a special significance, which we shall come to, Engels does not ignore other forms of crime. In particular he pays attention to prostitution, sexual harassment and domestic violence as features of working class family and working life.

"Next to intemperance in the enjoyment of intoxicating liquors, one of the principal faults of English working-men is sexual licence." [4:423]

The working class, "with no means of making fitting use of its freedom" turns to drink and sex which are carried to excess [423]. This excess is related to poverty and insecurity: what is the point in deferred gratification and 'respectability' when there is no security in life [4:424]

All this sounds very similar to those middle class Victorian moralists who studied the poor and the 'dangerous class' from the standpoint of the need to inculcate moral restraint.

Thus Henry Mayhew, twenty years after Engels, in his London Labour and the London Poor, published in 1861 was concerned with the 'undeserving poor' as 'a vast heap of social refuse' possessed of an 'innate love of a life of ease' and criminals as 'those who will not work'.

The obsession of the early Victorian middle classes in the 1830's and 1840's had been with the 'lack of moral restraint' of the working classes, and the need to habituate them to the discipline and sobriety of hard work even if this meant reforming the worst excesses of the factory system.

Engels was concerned to show that the destruction of morality was precisely a product of the 'hard work' and accompanying destruction of family life imposed by capitalism itself.

"The husband works the whole day through, perhaps the wife and also the elder children, all in different places; they meet night and morning only, all under perpetual temptation to drink; what family life is possible under such conditions?

Yet the working-man cannot escape from the family, must live in the family, and the consequence is a perpetual succession of family troubles, domestic quarrels, most demoralising for parents and children alike. neglect of all domestic duties, neglect of the children, especially, is only too common among the English working people..." [4:424-5]

Part of these strains and stresses of working class family life are related to the condition of various family members in the labour market.

Ïn many cases the family is not wholly dissolved by the employment of the wife, but turned upside down.

The wife supports the family, the husband sits at home, tends the children, sweeps the room and cooks.

This case happens very frequently; in Manchester alone, many hundred such men could be cited, condemned to domestic occupations.

It is easy to imagine the wrath aroused among the working-men by this reversal of all relations within the family, while other social conditions remain unchanged." [4:438]

He traces similar consequences from the employment of children.

Engels at first sight seems to be sanctioning a particular family division of labour and seeing domestic labour as trivial. Indeed in the German editions of 1845 and 1892 the phrase "the wrath aroused... relations within the family" is put in stronger language as "the just wrath aroused among the working-men by this virtual castration, and the reversal of all relations within the family."

There were plenty of middle class reformers lamenting the effects of the factory system on the morality and family life of the working classes.

But the comment "while other social conditions remain unchanged" implies that Engels starts from the possibility of a 'democratic domesticity' advocated by feminists[4] where the capitalist ideology of the male as breadwinner has been overcome:

Änd yet this condition, which unsexes the man and takes from the woman all womanliness without being able to bestow upon the man true womanliness, or the woman true manliness - this condition which degrades, in the most shameful way, both sexes, and, through them, Humanity...... we must admit that so total a reversal of the position of the sexes can have come to pass only because the sexes have been placed in a false position from the beginning.

If the reign of the wife over the husband, as inevitably brought about by the factory system, is inhuman, the pristine rule of the husband over the wife must have been inhuman too.

If the wife can now base her supremacy upon the fact that she supplies the greater part, nay, the whole of the common possession, the necessary inference is that this community of possession is no true and rational one, since one member of the family boasts offensively of contributing the greater share.

If the family of our present society is being thus dissolved, this dissolution merely shows that, at bottom, the binding tie of this family was not family affection, but private interest lurking under cloak of a pretended community of possessions". [4:439]

The first moment or aspect, then, of Engels' treatment of working class crime is the purely negative one of brutalisation and the deterioration of family life.

Obviously, if this theme of brutalisation is abstracted out from the rest of Engels' work as a 'theory of the causes of crime' then we end up with something very similar to conventional sociology or criminology.

In the same way that his account could be seen to echo the sentiments of middle class reformers of the factory system.

But this was not Engels' intention.

----------------------- 

Radical Says- Exhaust a man by his work and he has not the energy for crime as idle hands do !

---------------------------- 

the war of all against all

A second theme in the discussion of the causes of crime focuses on the social relations of competitive capitalist accumulation which have brought England to a state of the war of all against all.

"The brutal indifference, the unfeeling isolation of each in his private interest...

The dissolution of mankind into monads, of which each one has a separate principle, the world of atoms, is here carried out to its utmost extreme.

"Hence it comes, too, that the social war, the war of each against all, is here openly declared. Just as in Stirner's recent book[5], people regard each other only as useful objects; each exploits the other and the end of it all is that the stronger treads the weaker under foot..." [4:329]

At times Engels' discussion has almost the flavour of a conservative romanticism lamenting the decline of a stable ordered society in which each individual knew his or her place:

"The very turmoil of the streets has something repulsive, something against which human nature rebels.

The hundreds of thousands of all classes and ranks crowding past each other, are they not human beings with the same qualities and powers, and with the same interest in being happy?....

And still they crowd by one another as though they had nothing in common, nothing to do with one another..... The dissolution of mankind into monads, of which each one has a separate principle, the world of atoms, is here carried out to its utmost extreme." [4:329]

Bourgeois critics of the new urban life were of course saying similar things.

Thus in the same year of publication of Engels book, 1844, the Tory Blackwoods Magazine warned that "the restraints of character, relationship and vicinity are.... lost in the crowd ... Multitudes remove responsibility without weakening passion."[6]

But unlike these critics of the anomie of the industrial city Engels is clear that is it capital accumulation that lies behind this process, and which inevitably imposes its effects upon the working class.

"Since capital, the direct or indirect control of the means of subsistence and production, is the weapon with which this social warfare is carried on, it is clear that all the disadvantages of such a state must fall upon the poor ...

" If the worker "can get no work he may steal, if he is not afraid of the police, or starve, in which case the police will take care that he does so in a quiet and inoffensive manner." (4:330).

Crime is the natural result

"In this country, social war is under full headway, every one stands for himself, and fights for himself against all comers, and whether or not he shall injure all the others who are his declared foes, depends upon a cynical calculation as to what is most advantageous for himself.

It no longer occurs to any one to come to a peaceful understanding with his fellow-man; all differences are settled by threats, violence, or in a law court....

And this war grows from year to year, as the criminal tables show, more violent, passionate, irreconcilable.....

This war of each against all, of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, need cause us no surprise, for it is only the logical sequel of the principle involved in free competition." [4:427]

Crime as the inevitable result of capitalist social relations had been stressed by Engels in his Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy published the year before.

"Competition governs the numerical advance of mankind; it likewise governs its moral advance.

Anyone who has any knowledge of the statistics of crime must have been struck by the peculiar regularity with which crime advances year by year, and with which certain causes produce certain crimes.

The extension of the factory system is followed everywhere by an increase in crime....

This regularity proves that crime, too, is governed by competition; that society creates a demand for crime which is met by a corresponding supply; that the gap created by the arrest, transportation or execution of a certain number is at once filled by others, just as every gap in population is at once filled by new arrivals; in other words, that crime presses on the means of punishment just as the people press on the means of employment.

How just it is to punish criminals under these circumstances, quite apart from any other considerations, I leave to the judgement of my readers." (3:442)

In seeing crime as the natural result of capitalist relations of production Engels was far ahead of both those modern criminologists who insist on seeing crime as the result of some type of disruption of normal social relations as well as those who see it simply as a result of some 'moral panic' induced by the mass media.

For Engels, crime is not a result of the breakdown of social relations, it is rather one of the necessary forms they take. As Steven Marcus, in his biography of Engels in Manchester, wrote, crime is not considered by Engels to be a result of deviance or the absence of norms:

"It is, in the first place, much too intimately connected with the values and norms it violates to be considered as simply anomic in respect to them; and secondly, no behavior that is both an inversion and a parody of another can be properly or fully understood as a deviant form of the latter." (Marcus 1974 p. 223)

That crime arises from the normal workings of capitalist production rather than their breakdown is even clearer when Engels comes to talk about the criminal activities of the bourgeoisie itself, an area with which many modern criminologists have had problems precisely because it is frequently impossible to find anything 'deviant' about the bourgeois criminal[7]. Much of this activity, especially on the part of the small bourgeoisie, merchants and shopkeepers, concerned the adulteration of foodstuffs.

Thus "The workers get what is too bad for the property-holding class..." (368), that is, low quality rotting vegetables, meat etc.

Engels quotes numbers of cases of the Manchester courts fining meat-sellers for sale of tainted meat (369).

He concludes:

"And when one reflects upon the many cases which must escape detection in the extensive markets that stretch along the front of every main street, under the slender supervision of the market inspectors - and how else can one explain the boldness with which whole animals are exposed for sale? - when one considers how great the temptation must be, in view of the incomprehensibly small fines mentioned in the foregoing cases; when one reflects what condition a piece of meat must have reached to be seized by the inspectors, it is impossible to believe that the workers obtain good and nourishing meat as a usual thing." (4:369-70)

But workers are "victimised in yet another way by the money-greed of the middle class". (370)

Engels quotes the local Liverpool Mercury on cases describing all the fiddles of the period - sugar adulterated with pounded rice, even refuse from soap making sold as sugar!

Cocoa adulterated with brown earth and mutton fat, recycled tea leaves, flour adulterated with gypsum and chalk etc.

Not only food but cloth, pottery etc., but also various quack medicines such as the notorious Godfrey's Cordial.

"Fraud is practised in the sale of articles of every sort...

But the lion's share of the evil results of these frauds falls to the workers.

Radical says - Product contents are in such small print and so ambiguous as to be considered a fraud.

Take Bread, my homebaked bread tastes nothing like supermarket bread so what do they put in theirs ? 

The rich are less deceived, because they can pay the high prices of the large shops which have a reputation to lose... while.... They (the workers) must deal with the small retailers, must perhaps buy on credit, and these small retail dealers who cannot sell even the same quality of goods so cheaply as the largest retailers, because of their small capital and the large proportional expenses of their business, must knowingly or unknowingly buy adulterated goods in order to sell at the lower prices required, and to meet the competition of the others"(4:371)

Engels has thus a sophisticated understanding of the contemporary dynamics of fraud committed against the working class as consumer - small retailers have little choice but to adulterate - these are the competitive conditions.

If discovered they can always move elsewhere, a large shop will lose its capital if it is exposed: the crime of the petty bourgeois in food adulteration etc. is understood as an inevitable consequence of the market. (ibid.)

The crimes of the bourgeoisie do not stop at fraud and adulteration of course.

Engels was mainly concerned with the conditions of the working class, he was not writing a treatise on criminology.

For a history of murder among the upper classes we can therefore justifiably be asked to turn elsewhere.

Engels' focus was those crimes committed against the poor and the working class, and in this context he mentions another form of crime, sexual harassment and rape at work in a context in which modern writers would describe as 'power rape' or 'exploitation rape'[8]

"It is, besides, a matter of course that factory servitude, like any other, and to an even higher degree, confers the jus primae noctis upon the master.

In this respect also the employer is sovereign over the persons and charms of his employees.

The threat of discharge suffices to overcome all resistance in nine cases out of ten, if not in ninety-nine out of a hundred, in girls who, in any case, have no strong indictments to chastity. If the master is mean enough... his mill is also his harem; and the fact that not all manufacturers use their power, does not in the least change the position of the girls. In the beginning of manufacturing industry, when most of the employers were upstarts without education or consideration for the hypocrisy of society, they let nothing interfere with the exercise of their vested rights." [4:441-2]

Engels' discussion finally moves on to wider crimes of the bourgeoisie which includes death in the city by asphyxiation and workplace death in the factories and mills, by what would now politely and equally hypocritically be called 'industrial accidents' in many cases brought about by the use of use of drugs to pacify children at work [esp. pp 436-7]

Up to this point Engels' has given us a graphic portrayal of crime as pure negativity, of the working class as suffering from the moral and social disintegration inflicted by industrial capitalism of which interpersonal violence and theft, inflicted by working-class people on one another is the natural result.

He has also shown how the capitalist class, in the normal course of business is under constant pressure to violate laws and to engage in criminal, as well as legal exploitation of working class communities.

If his account had stopped here, he would still have given us a graphic historical memoire of the conditions of life in early industrial capitalism.

If he had been among the liberal utilitarian reformers of his age, such as Edwin Chadwick or Henry Mayhew he would then have continued on to suggest various enlightened strategies for the moral education of the working classes and the amelioration of their conditions.

But Engels' interests lay in quite other directions. 

crime and the struggle for socialism

For Engels, as for Marx, any amelioration of the conditions of the working class brought about from above, by the actions of the ruling class and the state, would be concessions wrung on the basis of fear of the self activity of the class and its latent, and growing, capacity to overthrown capitalism.

Engels was not, therefore concerned with Victorian plans for social reform but with understanding how, from the conditions of demoralisation and deprivation described so far, the working class emerges as a historical force.

For Engels, crime is a central part of this emergence.

It is not just that the working class leaves crime behind as it develops political consciousness, crime is an essential stage in the development of class consciousness.

Class consciousness and working class political organisation rather overcome the limitations of - certain forms - of crime while preserving some of their driving forces, notably the sense of rage and hatred of capitalism.

Politics is the dialectical transcendence of crime, not simply its displacement.

The demoralisation and brutalisation of the workers finds its immediate negation in rage and hatred:

"There is, therefore, no cause for surprise if the workers, treated as brutes, actually become such; or if they can maintain their consciousness of manhood only by cherishing the most glowing hatred, the most unbroken inward rebellion against the bourgeoisie in power." (4:411)

Such hatred, although expressed through crime, was for Engels:

" ... the proof that the workers feel the inhumanity of their position, that they refuse to be degraded to the level of brutes, and that they will one day free themselves from servitude to the bourgeoisie" [4:414]

The consequence is crime which is, of course, a destructive activity.

The working class has been negated and crime is where it discovers its power and humanity but at first only in that negation, by negating others even within its own ranks. In other words

 "...such crime is estranged labour coming to perverse life, endeavouring immediately to cancel its frozen and 'objectified' existence and behave in accordance with its deformed conception of a free human being." (Marcus 1974 p 221).

But as the workers come to realise the source of their oppression, the more conscious among them come to direct their rage against its real source rather than their fellow workers.

This involves initially a focus on theft which according to Engels is becoming the majority form of crime committed by the poor.

"The offences, as in all civilised countries, are, in the great majority of cases against property and have, therefore, arisen from want in some form; for what a man has, he does not steal." [4:426]

Radical says - Capitalism perpetuates this by creating a need through the power of suggestion. The result is to create a want, exploit it for profit and greed. 

That the development of capitalism brings a relative shift from violence to theft in interpersonal crime would find agreement among many historians [Zehr 1976] though it is obvious that various forms of violence - against women in the home for example - would be under represented in the arrest or reported crime statistics and theft against property owners well represented.

But as capitalism develops the working class becomes aware of itself as a class, rather than as a group of individuals.

The workers overcome and go beyond the individual demoralisation and brutalisation with finds its reflection in individual crime against property.

The rage against and hatred of the bourgeoisie, which took an individual form in crimes against property, takes on a more directed, organised, effective political form as the working class makes the transition from being simply as class-in-itself to a class-for-itself.

Engels describes the process in the following way:

"The earliest, crudest, and least fruitful form of this rebellion was that of crime.

The working-man lived in poverty and want, and saw that others were better off than he.

It was not clear to his mind why he, who did more for society than the rich idler, should be the one to suffer under these conditions.

Want conquered his inherited respect for the sacredness of property, and he stole.....

"The workers soon realised that crime did not help matters.

The criminal could protest against the existing order of society only singly, as one individual; the whole might of society was brought to bear upon each criminal, and crushed him with its immense superiority.

Besides, theft was the most primitive form of protest, and for this reason, if for no other, it never became the universal expression of the public opinion of the working-men, however much they might approve of it in silence." [4:502-3]

How does such a transition, from crime to politics, from Luddite machine-smashing and robbery to Chartism and Socialism become possible?

Obviously capitalist development, the expansion of industry and the size of the working class, the decasualisation of the labour market, the reduction in female and child labour and the stabilisation of the working class family and community: all these factors lay at the basis of the emergence of strong working class political and trade union organisation for the collective organisation of grievances on one hand and the development of strong informal controls against crime within the community on the other.

But this is to move ahead, well beyond the period about which Engels was writing, and to read into his account a social history of the growth of a type of working class community and Labour politics which he did not, at that time, anticipate.

In particular such a view would see criminality as a sort of pre-history rather than an essential moment in the development of class consciousness. In fact both Engels and his collaborator Marx, were thinking, in the mid 1840's, of something very different: the proximity of revolution.

The growing power of the Chartist movement coupled with violent resistance by the employers to trades unionism convinced both Engels and Marx that a revolutionary situation was near at hand.

"When such insanity prevails in the property-holding class, when it is so blinded by its momentary profit that it no longer has eyes for the most conspicuous signs of the times, surely all hope of a peaceful solution of the social question for England must be abandoned.

The only possible solution is a violent revolution, which cannot fail to take place". [4:547]

and furthermore:

"The classes are divided more and more sharply, the spirit of resistance penetrates the workers, the bitterness intensifies, the guerrilla skirmishes become concentrated in more important battles, and soon a slight impulse will suffice to set the avalanche in motion.

Then, indeed, will the war-cry resound through the land: 'War to the mansion, peace to the cottage - but then it will be too late for the rich to beware." [4:583]

Engels quotes the criminal arrest statistics for England and Wales which rise consistently from 4,605 in 1805, through 14,437 in 1825 to 31,309 in 1842.

In Scotland an even more rapid increase was to be noted. Engels emphasises the urban nature of the bulk of these arrests (London and Lancashire) - i.e. London and Manchester produced 1/4 of the whole in 1842.

He also notes that nearly all crime arises within the proletariat, over half of those arrested could read or write only imperfectly and a third could neither read nor write. 0.22 out of a 100 had a higher education. He continues:

Ïf demoralisation and crime multiply twenty years longer in this proportion (and if English manufacture in these twenty years should be less prosperous than heretofore, the progressive multiplication of crime can only continue the more rapidly), what will the result be? Society is already in a state of visible dissolution..." [4:426]

Thus as the social war between bourgeoisie and proletariat continues to intensify, it would continue to take the form of both rising criminality and at the same time the metamorphosis of criminality into more organised forms of class struggle.

Radical says - Hence the Police States throughout the Capitalist world  to protect the Ruling Classes interests 

As long as it is understood that crime and organised class struggle, far from being mutually exclusive, are components of each others development - crime as a primitive form of class war, heightened class struggle as increasing the rage that gives rise to crime, then we can understand why Engels saw it as natural to presuppose that both would increase. hand in hand.

To make sense of this assumption two things have to be understood.

Firstly, it is important not to make the mistake of reading Engels' account, written in the 1840s, from the standpoint of modern notions of criminality which already presuppose the modern criminal law and a clear distinction between organised reformist working class politics and crime[9].

The criminality which Engels has in mind is much closer to what Edward Thompson and his collaborators called 'social crime'[10] much of which arose from the defence of older forms of traditional rights - to common pasture for example - against the encroachment of bourgeois property relations and which continued into the urban setting in such forms as traditions of 'pilferage' in the London Docks.

This is the crime that working class people 'approve of in silence' and not the modern notion of petty crime, stealing from your neighbours or robbing elderly people, crimes of which the working class, then and now, firmly disapproves.

Most important of all it has to be remembered that attempts at the formation of trade unions, then termed 'combination', was itself a criminal activity, under the notorious Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800.

The criminalisation of working class resistance to capitalist property relations in the eighteenth century was followed by the criminalisation of working class resistance within capitalist property relations in the early nineteenth.

But it is important also to understand that a clear distinction between social crime and harmful intra-class crime is one imposed by historians after the event.

The distinction at the time was much more blurred. As E.P. Thompson warned:

"there is not 'nice' social crime here and 'nasty' anti-social crime there" (Thompson 1972)[11].

Such a distinction presupposes the strong cohesive working class community which was as yet in a process of formation[12]

This is precisely what is implied in crime as a moment in the development of class consciousness.

A second factor to keep in mind is that Engels is not engaging in some sort of romanticisation of a criminal underworld or 'lumpenproletariat' as the leading force in the class struggle, nor is he regarding personal crimes like rape, for example, is somehow class conscious acts.

Engels is clearly talking about crimes committed by the working class against the bourgeoisie, a type of criminality which, as already noted, mainly concerned theft, though arson and machine smashing are also mentioned.

While Marx and Engels did not always use the term 'lumpenproletariat' precisely in a sociological sense (Bovenkerk 1984), it was clearly distinguished from the working class, including the most marginalised sections of the reserve army of the unemployed.

Four years later, in the Communist Manifesto (1848) Marx and Engels referred to the

".... 'dangerous class', the social scum, the passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society ... (which) ... may, here and there swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution, its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary regimes."

Of course, the brutalisation by capitalism to which theft is a response, also gives rise to more destructive forms of inter-personal violence within the working class, and it is in this context that some of Engels' more chauvinist remarks concerning Irish immigrant workers have to be read.

It is also of course true that in the early nineteenth century, as the working class was still in the process of formation, the distinction between the living conditions of its poorest sections, so graphically documented in The Condition of the Working Class in England , and those of the lumpenproletariat or criminal underworld is blurred.

"This reserve army, which embraces an immense multitude during the crisis and a large number during the period which may be regarded as the average between the highest prosperity and the crisis, is the 'surplus population' of England, which keeps body and soul together by begging, stealing, street-sweeping, collecting manure, pushing hard-carts, driving donkeys, peddling, or performing occasional small jobs." [4:384]

This is echoed later by Marx in Capital where the poorest sections of the reserve army of labour are seen as living in similar conditions to, though distinct from, the criminal underworld:

" The lowest sediment of the relative surplus population, finally, dwells in the sphere of pauperism.

Exclusive of vagabonds, criminals, prostitutes, in a word, the 'dangerous classes'[13] this layer of society consists of ....First, those able to work...Second, orphans and pauper children...Third, the demoralised and ragged and those unable to work,,, [Capital Vol. I. 643]

The fact that the actual conditions of life of sections of the reserve army of labour blur into the lumpenproletariat is the other side of the coin of the criminalisation, by the ruling class, of the working class in general in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as 'the mob' [Linebaugh 1992].

But however similar the conditions of life of sections of the working class and the criminal underworld, the political distinction between these groups remains profound.

Radical says - Not in the eyes of this Police State - Orgreave and the Miners Strike are good examples.

So Cameron's" tough on crime and the causes of crime" purposely intends to suppress the Working Class as a criminal class while letting the Ruling Class get away with not only corporate murder but greed, exploitation and  avoidance of responsibility for them including tax evasion.

The distinguishing feature of the working class - even the weaker sections of it continually moving in and out of the ranks of the reserve army of labour - is its capacity to learn and develop forms of class consciousness.

It is quite otherwise with that permanent underworld of professional thieves and robbers for whom crime is itself a form of economy and employment whose social relations are antipathetic to all forms of class consciousness.

These factors: crime as a form of generalised, albeit individual, resistance to capital, the working class rather than 'lumpen' nature of much crime together with the assumed immediate prospect of revolutionary upheaval, help explain why Engels made the assumption that crime would continue rising even as it was merging into more developed collective forms of political struggle.

But history developed in a different direction.

FREEDOMS  - PART 2

The end of peasant serfdom

William Harrison’s Description of England – 1577

“As for slaves and bondsmen, we have none; may such is the privilege of our country by the special grace of God and bounty of our princes, that if any come hither from other realms, as soon as they set foot on land they become so free of condition as their masters, whereby all note of servile bondage is utterly removed from them.”

And if you believe that in 2012 there are no slaves or bondsmen or bondswomen in the United Kingdom, then you are not listening, hearing or seeing for yourself,-
 
- that so many live a miserable existence as a result of pressure from and control by the State, the Rich and Social Groups.

You may not believe starvation exists in the UK or child poverty is rife,but recently, it has been reported that the Red Cross, a charity, not Government, has set up stations in the UK to deal with those who have  “fallen through the net”.

And whilst the Government of the day award their friends with a reduction in the 50% rate of tax there are pensioners going hungry and cold and children on the breadline in these “mountains green and pleasant lands”

No my friend the “dark and satanic” have returned.

The rest is up to you and me !

FREEDOMS

Man’s Freedom of action,TODAY, is limited by the authority of the STATE,

by the POWER of the RICH and the CUSTOMARY PRESSURES of SOCIAL GROUP.

THERE ARE DEGREES OF FREEDOMS AND UNFREEDOMS.

Kid yourself not, that you are free, those freedoms you believe you hold were fought for by your ancestors so don’t let the bastards take them away from you.

Inactivity will not protect your freedoms from those who have a vested interest –profit through expoitation- from denying you and yours.

Look around you and see how your “rights” are being eroded.

In the 1300 & 1400 freedoms were fought for through petitions.

Peasants used the words from the Domesday Book and action was to withhold service to the extent that the harvest was left uncut to the Lords loss.

Petitions were influenced by the increasing taxes imposed on the peasants/villeins by the Lords/State & Church

Peasants had a degree of freedom depending on the amount of land they farmed.

They could be serfs – holding 12-15 acres of arable land or villeins,  holding 5 acres or less.

Slave comes from Slavonic and Serf comes from Slave –“Servus”

Petitions were about “ownership” and concerned with the plaintiffs birthplace.

Ownership was whether the land was “tied” or “untied”

All this stemmed from the 1381 Peasants Revolt, led by Wat Tyler, which did not initiate the decline of serfdom but was an end rather than beginning or beginning of an end as their were many smaller risings.

The rising was against increased rents and “services” –provided free as a condition of rent.

The strength of the “movement” was the co-existence of a large and increasing number of free tenants and tenants of ancient demesne.

The fact that “free” smallholders had a miserable existence on the edge of starvation is irrelevant.

The demand for freedom of status was sustained but the advantages were not obvious in the 14C.

Boon works – labour services called on during peak times –harvest etc.. was common practice, so the essence of “free status and tenure”  was not “freedom” from rent in this form of “labour service”.

Even in the 17 C laws concerning villeinage were never abolished – it just withered away, but it took Manorial Lords much time to face up to the process.

The mobility as a result of the first pestilence of Black Death which led to shortgages, and the  acquisition of more land or the search for higher wages,was important for Peasant holdings of up to 50 acres, and those larger farms demanding labour.

However the Landlords, Squirearchy and the Ruling Classes in order to beat the rise in wages tried to re-impose “boon” – “ services” and it was this situation that resulted in the revolt of 1381.

There was also a general intensification in demand for rent and taxes, so it was not the exaction of labour services that caused the villain resentment, but that they were used for profit.

And if profit could be acquired in other ways the Lords would take it, hence increased rents and raising money which caused the trouble.

Rents were increased by 50% in three years.

When labour was short other ways were tried.

£20 for declaring a fugitive tenant a free man, and 40 shillings for permission to marry a widow tenant.

The Church was in on this too.The Bishops of Worcester and Durham.
At Methley in Yorkshire a tenant tried to surrender poor land, from being rented  but the case was twisted and the tenant had to persuade a Court of the land’s worth. The Land was re- let for no entry fine.

So the loss of a villeinage to a freeman was as much as the loss of the land or goods.

This shows the pressure Landlords put on their tenants in the decades after the plague.

Servility was seen as essential to the Ruling Classes interests.

Particularly act’s by the Landlord or Church demanding money from an un-free man for his freedom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So the moral of this story is that the Ruling Class will rob you blind if you don’t fight for better rights and expose wrongs.

People and the planet report

The Royal Society

26 April 2012

Working Group member Dr Eliya Zulu, Executive Director,

African Institute for Development Policy and President, Union for African Population Studies

Rapid and widespread changes in the world’s human population, coupled with unprecedented levels of consumption present profound challenges to human health and wellbeing, and the natural environment.

This report gives an overview of how global population and consumption are linked, and the implications for a finite planet.

Working Group chair Sir John Sulston FRS, Chair of the Institute for Science, Ethics & Innovation, University of Manchester.

Key recommendations

Key recommendations include:

1. The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today.

This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health.

2. The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.

3. Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally.

This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.

4. Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues.

Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.

Other recommendations made in the report focus on:
 the potential for urbanisation to reduce material consumption
 removing barriers to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all
 undertaking more research into the interactions between consumption, demographic change and environmental impact
 implementing comprehensive wealth measures
 developing new socio-economic systems

British Farming and Food

Based on British Farming by Wilfred Willett

Comments by Giles Wynne

An account in four parts

1. Introduction
2. The Past
3. The Present
4. The Future

4. The Future

The only real future for British farming to produce the food the people need is in the hands of the working class.

Food will be produced to feed the people and before profit.

There will be a policy of reducing imports

A return to seasonal produce, will change our diet and encourage more home produced food.

Do we really need strawberries the year round, while we continue to pay over the odds for bread because export prices, higher than home prices, encourage farmers to send the bread wheat abroad?

We will leave the Common Market because it is not common.

Euro countries also seem to flout the rules, to their advantage, and we shall save £65billion a year.

Our policy will be to trade (fairly) with any country in the world who will sell to us at the cheapest price.

There will be no tariffs paid

We will sell a surplus to any country willing to pay the highest price,we can obtain and also there will be considerably more bartering.

Bartering is to exchange goods without money. For example Wool for Wheat ?

Ireland will be United and encouraged to follow Britain’s example and to make us a favoured trading partner.

When you think about it, we can produce most of our own foods and it is luxuries that we shall import.

We shall place a 200 mile fishing zone around our coast and enforce it and where there is less than 200miles a 50/50 arrangement will be made.

We shall expand our manufacturing base to produce the agricultural machinery we need.

At present so much is foreign owned or imported and that will be reversed.

The population of Britain is a major factor and only tourists and emigration will be encouraged.

Reciprocal pension arrangements with warmer climates sought, so that our pensioners can retire abroad for part of the year.

An exchange of worker skills will also be encouraged.

Immigration will  depend on Britain’s labour needs.

Farms will enjoy stability of prices.

A Guaranteed Farm gate price structure will return and Marketing Boards be re – introduced.

There will be no excessive profiteering and no produce sold below cost as today.

Supermarkets will no longer reap the rewards of support to farmers.

A national apprenticeship scheme will be introduced to replace ageing farmers, who will be retained, to share their knowledge on farms.

The building of more rural homes will meet local needs and second home ownership reduced by taxes.

There will be introduced council smallholdings of 2- 5-10 acre holdings, to rent, for those who want to return to populate the dwindling rural economy and start the good life.

Holdings will be encouraged with planning consideration of soil quality and suitability.

Larger holdings in less favoured areas and smaller holdings in grade 1 and 2 land areas.

We shall nationalise the land not family occupied and without compensation.
It was stolen from the people and will be returned to them.

Agricultural Science and Research will be encouraged, free Animal welfare and a free  Advisory service for farmers

Public health will ensure all food imported is checked before made available for peoples consumption, not just the 20% of consignments as at present.

Our local specialist foods will be protected.

No longer will foreigners be allowed to sell us “Cheddar” cheese, and regional specialities will be protected and encouraged by law.

We shall discourage fast foods in favour of home cooking, allotments and kitchen gardens.

The Policy will be self sufficiency.

Farm machinery, threw men out of work, but shared machinery will be encouraged as will shared harvesting.

For those who remember, farms shared machines and labour to get the harvest in to the benefit of all.

When the workers are in charge everything is possible, every new invention encouraged.

The policy will be one of a collective effort but not collective farms.

Fruit bushes and trees will be planted in towns and cities for people to help themselves and neighbourhoods will be given responsibility for public planting, weeding and management of public places with an emphasis on food as well as flowers.

Recycling and composting will be encouraged but also centres for surpluses of seasonal gluts.

As all produce depends on the weather, more glass houses and protective buildings for stock made available.

Home gardens will be productive for the common good, and the keeping poultry and a pig encouraged.

Slaughter facilities and an Advisory Service will be freely available to small scale producers.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Rural communities will share in all the services now enjoyed in cities.

More Education and Entertainment, though less television and couch potatoes, will be replaced with libraries and rejuvenated village activities, shows and exhibitions.

Local skills trades will be encouraged to reduce transport costs and local energy encouraged.

The opportunity is unlimited with methane production from manure to solar power and sunflower and rape seed oil used as fuel and for cooking.

Coppicing and all forms of renewable energy will essential as less oil is imported.
Naturally inequality will not be allowed.

From each according to his work then ability will be enshrined in law.

Women will achieve equality through performance.

There will be no need for charity in a classless society, religion will be encouraged for those who believe, but will not interfere in national material development or be discriminatory.

The Church and Crown will lose their lands to the State, as will the banks and absent landlords.

 Farm workers will enjoy increased responsibility for those who want it and through support and education, will share better in the wealth of better food production.

Wealth will not be allowed to be exported.

Taxes will be paid by all and property will only be available to those who are British, whatever colour race or creed they may be.
Foreign ownership of all property will stopped and re claimed.

This future is not utopia or a dream but possible under a change from a capitalist system to a socialist one.

We shall need all the skills the workers can command so full employment will be possible but before that we need a peaceful revolution.

That historically is inevitable.

Capitalism has had its day and failed its people.

Greed, and profit will be replaced by more consensus in power

What replaces it is for the people to determine,but we want no more destructive wars as only peace produces.

British Farming and Food

Based on British Farming by Wilfred Willett

Comments by Giles Wynne

An account in four parts

1. Introduction
2. The Past
3. The Present
4. The Future

3. The Present

I have digressed from farming but it was absolutely necessary to understand the background of our world,if we are to improve food production.

The important fact is that capitalism sucks capital out of farming especially in England through the landlords rent and the banks mortgages.

These wealthy parasites do not in most cases farm the land themselves but rent it to others who do.

Though those who claim to own the land do so on sufferance of the banks.

Some larger ones are farmed through the medium of from bailiffs or managers

Understand that the land is the peoples.

It is earth and cannot have any value by itself.

Only when man works, drains and plants it does it have value.

Common land and small holdings have been taken/stolen from people little by little and so land has become a monopoly of the rich and it is this that is particularly disastrous when we realize how little land suitable for farming is so limited and becoming more so.

Standing still for family farms is not an option for more land is need year on year just to stand still due to increased costs and reduced markets. Milk is the current example and pigs the previous one. Farmers must farm more intensively or give up.

However the more productive the land, the more expensive the rents are to farm it, so it can be seen that the price of farm produce is fixed by the cost of producing it on the worst farms and not even on average farms, so the saving in cost of producing it on better farms goes to the landlord or bank in increased rent or cost of land.

Similarly, if the price of food rises so that the farmer gets a better return for his produce, the value of the land goes up and therefore the rent.

It would be possible to nationalise land but with the present system of government it would benefit the wealthy not the farm worker.

The result would benefit the larger companies to run with the sole idea of getting a maximum profit.

All this would be done without central planning.

By that I mean guaranteed pricing structure support for less favoured land and an apprenticeship scheme to benefit new entrants to the industry.

There is nationalisation which even capitalists support not too be confused with nationalisation under a socialist system and make no mistake the farm workers are more than capable of running farms.

Capitalist nationalisation, as in highland clearances for profit, wrecked small farms driving thousands from the land.

To this day, annually, 3000 farmers are giving up.

And farms are being amalgamated into ranching units, which is less productive.

On other farms labour is reduced in favour of larger machinery, yet per man hour, production keeps increasing.

Therefore the small farmer has to work four times as hard just to keep his head above water and keep up with costs and competitors.

Many of these farmers have sided with the farm workers and in socialism, the workers and small farmers will own the farms and run the countryside.

To these men will come the task of leading UK farming to its heights of production now undreamed of and the task will begin to reduce the amount of imported food and so the export market will expand.

Next – The Future

British Farming and Food

Based on British Farming by Wilfred Willett
Comments by Giles Wynne
An account in four parts

1. Introduction
2. The Past
3. The Present
4. The Future
2 THE PAST

To understand the needs of the future we must study the past.

Without going into Primitive man or Feudalism and the Industrial Revolution we recognise that the struggles of our peasant fathers were doomed to failure.

Peasants wanted “socialism” or a socially integrated system before capitalist production began, which would make the world so wealthy.

Peasants had no plan. They only knew that it wasn’t right that a few men should have all the riches while they went hungry, were brutally treated, even when they asked for justice.

The rich have never been gentle, but the time of reckoning had not come as it has today, when the working class is capable of ruling the nation far better than the rich can, though they must take power before man can progress to a better and happier life.

As Karl Marx put it :–
“The agricultural people, first forcibly expropriated from the soil, driven from their homes, turned into wanderers, and then whipped, branded, tortured by laws grotesquely terrible, into the discipline necessary for the wage system”

For five centuries this sums up what has been going on.

Wage workers turn out in a day more than all the village craftsmen with their handywork could turn out in a year.

In its best days capitalism rapidly embraced every new invention that man could devise to quicken and improve the production of goods.

Centuries of bloodshed, cost millions of workers and peasants their lives and yet hardly a life was lost to the wealthy.

It continues today, condemning a third of the world population to live in abject poverty through a system that man is expendable, unemployment endemic and the wealth gap increasing daily.

Small manufacturers are swallowed up, as are small farms, into larger concerns, then the banks took a hand as they could make or break a business.

Competition actually decreases and no longer the pretence “ to love thy neighbour” so instead to ruin him as quickly as possible.

The next step in this capitalist system was that very big industrialists and bankers combined  to become the £billionaires, who owned the factories, shipping, food, oil and everything else that men wanted.

These imperialists controlled governments who present a solid front for the furtherance of the interests of landlords and big business and against measures for the betterment of workers whose conditions must always conflict.

After the monopolies and rings controlled production or the markets, the progressive character of capitalism declined.

Periods of booms and bust, always inevitable under capitalism has become severer.

The capitalists could have invested in agriculture to make English farming prosperous, as it had been allowed to lag behind, but today the standard of life for all workers and especially farm workers has declined in real terms as we import more until we are now only net exporters of some cereals and net importers of all other foods we produce.

Rich landlords suck the life blood out of farming and county council holdings are sold off.

The irony of the situation is that the rich in England supplied Germany with the money and a large part of the raw materials to arm herself.

The result was another new division of the world and no matter who wins, world wars will continue as long as capitalism lasts.

Through the capitalists system fascism breeds in various forms, one as in Zionism today.

The workers always come off worst unless they unite and insist that they themselves shall rule the country for the common good, so that all share according to their work in the fabulous wealth that they the workers create.

Next
THE PRESENT

BRITISH FARMING

Based on British Farming by Wilfred Willett
Comments by Giles Wynne

An account in four parts

1. Introduction
2. The Past
3. The Present
4. The Future

1. Introduction
“Bread is the staff of life”- It says so in the Bible

Man must grow his own food as the first necessity of his existence

Only after we are reasonably certain of a supply of these foods can we begin to do all the other things that make and advance civilisation.

If famine comes, work is slowed down or stops: money and riches except food loses value.

We don’t suffer famine in England as there is plenty of food in the shops.

The exception was the war and since millions of acres of land have gone out of cultivation, thousands have left the land, farmers used to be fined for over production, food was left to rot.

Something was and is wrong when we import £ billions of food most of which is not inspected and this affects England and the UK balance of payments.

We are net importers of all foodstuff we produce except cereals and that is about to change too.

( Net importers means we import more than we export of the food we produce )
( all foodstuffs means particularly Meat, Milk Vegetables and Fruit but applies to all we produce in the UK.)

All this yet farmers are going out of milk production, meat is a luxury and thousands live on the breadline here in the UK.

In 1934 7 million Chinese died because of famine while in the rest of the world, food went to waste. The Chinese now can feed its massive population.

A similar situation occurred in India though this famine was caused because profiteers exported rice at a time when they could have fed its own people.

Destruction of food and restriction of production continues today and history, real history, not that of Kings and Queens, Lords and Ladies, Dukes and Generals who are at most secondary characters.

Real history is the story of man’s continuous struggle to master natural forces of the earth, to harness it for his better security, ease and comfort of life so that increased prosperity comes from increased knowledge.

So there are always two struggles:-

a) To increase mastery over nature
b) Find a system of control best suited to use his increased mastery.

Progressing from one system to another that involves increased importation of food is sheer madness.

Necessary change is violent as nature is violent, and man is part of nature.

Examples include Human Birth, Hatching of an egg and the splitting of a seed.

To change the system involves a revolution, not necessarily violent or sudden,though history moves rapidly as does population growth

This is the history of evolution.

Next
2. The Past

CHAPTER I: TRIBES AND LEGIONS

SECTION 4: THE ROMAN TWILIGHT 
 
THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS INEVITABLE, AND RESULTED FROM A COMBINATION OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CAUSES.
 
ITALY WAS ORIGINALLY A LAND OF SMALL PEASANT CULTIVATORS, HER TOWNS BEING SMALL TRADING CENTRES.
 
IN THE WARS BETWEEN ROME AND CARTHAGE (264-200 BC), THESE PEASANT HOLDINGS WERE DESTROYED AND REPLACED BY HUGE GANGS WHO CONTROLLED EVEN LARGER GANGS OF SLAVES.
 
THE PEASANT WAS DRIVEN FROM THE LAND, JUST AS THE ENGLISH PEASANT WAS IN THE 1500 AND 1600S, BUT WHILE THE DESTRUCTION OF PEASANT AGRICULTURE CONTINUED, THE GROWTH OF CAPITALIST INDUSTRY REPLACED IT.
 
THIS WAS NOT THE CASE IN ITALY, WHERE INDUSTRY REMAINED AT A LOW LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT.
 
THE RISE OF THE MERCHANT AND USURER’S CAPITAL WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING INDUSTRIAL BASE LED TO A HUGE PARASITICAL PROLETARIAT WITH CITIZENS RIGHTS BUT NO SETTLED MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD.
 
THE SUCCESS OF THE REPUBLIC WAS NOW CORRUPTED. IT INVOLVED A CONTINUOUS FORWARD MOVEMENT TO PROVIDE SLAVES ON WHICH THE ARMY AND THE WHOLE ROMAN ECONOMY DEPENDED.
 
SLAVE PRODUCTION IS ALWAYS WASTEFUL AND FAILS TO REPRODUCE ITSELF, ESPECIALLY IN THE ARMY.
 
THIS FAILURE PRODUCED DEPOPULATION IN PLUNDERED AREAS, AND WHEN IT WAS MILITARILY IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN TERRITORY HELD OR ASSIMILATE FRESH TERRITORY, DECLINE WAS INEVITABLE.
 
IN ADDITION, THERE WAS INFIGHTING BETWEEN THE GENERALS OF THIS MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.
 
ALL OF THIS ULTIMATELY LEFT BRITAIN AN ISOLATED OUTPOST PROVINCE DRAINED OF HER MANPOWER.
 
MAXIMUS 383 AD and CONSTANTINE 407 AD WERE THE CULPRITS HERE.
 
HOWEVER, THE ROMAN EMPIRE PERSISTED, LARGELY DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY OUTSIDE FORCE POWERFUL ENOUGH TO ATTACK IT.
 
IN THE 4th CENTURY AD, MIGRATORY MOVEMENTS WEST ACROSS  ASIA, AS A RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE THAT TURNED GRAZING LAND INTO DESERT, RESULTED IN THE HUN, A MONGOL TRIBE, SETTLING IN EUROPE.
 
AT FIRST, THESE TRIBES WERE ALLOWED AND EVEN ENCOURAGED TO ENTER THE EMPIRE, BUT AS THE CENTRAL HOLD OF ROME DIMINISHED, OUTLYING PROVINCES WERE RELINQUISHED.
 
ONE BY ONE, THEY WERE OVERRUN BY BARBARIAN TRIBES WHO SET UP INDEPENDENT KINGDOMS OF VARYING CHARACTER, SOME LARGELY ROMAN IN CHARACTER, OTHERS WHOLLY BARBARIAN.
 
BRITAIN, REMOTE AND EXPOSED, WAS AMONG THE EARLIEST TO FALL AWAY, AND ATTACK CAME NOT FROM THE GERMAN TRIBES ACROSS THE NORTH SEA, BUT FROM THE GOIDELIC CELTS OF SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.
 
SUCH ATTACKS HAD PREVIOUSLY EASILY BEEN BEATEN OFF, BUT IT WAS A SIGN OF ROMAN DECLINE THAT IN 360 AD VILLAS WERE BURNT AND PILLAGED, RIGHT UP TO THE SOUTHERN WALLED TOWNS AND EVEN LONDON.
 
AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF CONSTANTINE AND THE BULK OF TROOPS STATIONED IN BRITAIN, OTHER TRIBES INVADED BRITAIN FROM GERMANY VIA GAUL.
 
407 AD MARKS THE ROMAN DEPARTURE, BUT THERE WERE NO PLANS TO ABANDON BRITAIN. CONSTANTINE ONLY INTENDED TO ADD NEW PROVINCES TO HIS HAUL, YET BY THIS DATE THE REGULAR ARRIVAL OF GOVERNORS AND OFFICIALS CEASED.
 
IN THE SOUTH AND EAST OF BRITAIN, TRIBES THAT HAD VIRTUALLY BEEN DESTROYED, ALONG WITH NEW CIVILISATIONS THAT HAD BEEN WEAKENED, FACED A NEW ENEMY.
 
THE ANGLIAN AND SAXON TRIBES FROM THE GERMAN COAST APPEARED. THEY FIRST CAME AS DARING RAIDERS, BUT FROM 450 AD AS INVADING CONQUERORS AND SETTLERS. HOWEVER, THEY FOUND MUCH OF THE ROMAN LEGACY ALREADY UNDONE BY THE LOCAL TRIBES.
 
THE RICHEST LANDS WERE LAID WASTE BY LOCAL LANDLORDS OR MAGNATES AT THE HEAD OF ARMED BANDS. THESE FORCES WERE ALMOST AS RUINOUS AS THE ENEMIES FROM WHOM THEY CLAIMED TO BE PROTECTING INHABITANTS.
 
IT WAS LARGELY FOR THIS REASON THERE IS SO LITTLE TRACE OF ROMAN RULE IN BRITAIN

TOM MANN- Working Class Hero

Tom Mann was born in Coventry in 1856.

He left school at the age of nine to begin work as a quarry worker, later taking up an engineering apprenticeship.

His views were not determined simply by political theory – it was from practical experience gained over many years while working on every continent.

Mann’s religious belief was as strong as his politics, and he supported non-conformist organisations like the Salvation Army.

 Mann soon turned to socialism.

He moved to London in 1877 and by 1881 was a member of the Engineers Union ASE.

His first involvement in a strike came in 1884. Mann then published his pamphlet on the eight-hour day.

Mann helped organise the Match Workers’ strike of 1888 and he began producing a Socialist journal, the ‘Labour Elector’.

 The Gas Workers’ successful strike in 1889 for the eight- hour day was possibly the most political of all of the new union strikes that year.

The Gas Workers’ leader Will Thorne was ably assisted by Ben Tillett, Tom Mann, John Burns, Harry Hobbit, Harry Quelch and Herbert Burrows: a formidable team.

The skilled workers unions had been asking for the eight-hour day for decades, in fact, one of the first aims of the Trades Union Congress, formed in 1868, was to campaign for the eight-hour day; the difference being that once the so-called unskilled unions were formed, as in the case of the gas workers, they demanded the eight-hour day which they achieved through industrial action.

This demonstrated the difference between the liberal TUC and the Socialist inspired New Union movement.

Mann not only articulated the logic of the eight- hour day through his great oratory delivered throughout length and breadth of Britain, he wrote :- 

‘What a compulsory 8 hour working day means to the Workers’ in 1886".

The pamphlet was written three years before the successful strike for the eight hour day by gas workers in Beckton, East London.

.Mann was one of the leaders of the 1889 Dock Strike and was elected President of the Dock Wharf Riverside and General Labourers Union.

Along with Quelch and Tom McCarthy he acted as mediator with the all-important South London Dockers who were often alienated by Tillet’s dictatorial style.

Mann tried unsuccessfully to form a Super Union from the legions of unions that were formed in 1889 -1890 as a way to combat the coming power of the Multinationals.

 Unfortunately sectarian interests prevailed, weakening the Labour movement in the process.

In 1892, three years after the winning of the eight-hour day by the gas workers, and the formation of the New Union movement, Mann wrote:-

‘The Workers’ Demand The Eight Hour Day’.

The sceptics within the TUC and skilled workers unions were now silent: the dream of the eight-hour day now seemed realisable.

In 1895, Tom Mann, by now national figure, became a founder-member of the Independent Labour Party.

Not everybody agreed with Tom Mann’s views.

He had many enemies on the right of the Labour movement and was defeated in the ASE election where he stood for the post of Secretary.

 However, in 1896 he did become President of the International Transport Workers’ Federation which he had helped to create.

In 1898, along with Tom Chambers, he helped launch the Workers’ Union, a small but militant organisation.

Mann now started his International campaign, forming unions and preaching international solidarity and unity.

This did not go down well with the authorities and he was deported from a number of European countries on the grounds of sedition.

He first began agitating in New Zealand before moving onto Australia and organising for the Australian Labour Party.

He had his first taste of imprisonment in Australia, in 1906, the charge: again, sedition.

This did little to dampen Mann’s spirit – he moved to South Africa, where continued his activities organising and agitating.

Returning to the UK in 1910, Mann noted that many of the firebrands of the 1880’s had become reformist.

He argued that socialism could not be achieved without the trade unions playing a major role. It was during this period that Tom Mann was reunited with his old comrade from America ‘Big’ Bill Haywood (Mann had assisted Haywood’s IWW movement whilst in America).

They had long discussions on the way forward for the international labour movement.
Mann then founded the syndicalist education league.

It’s a misassumption to conclude that the English syndicalist movement was on a par with that in France in terms of ideology.

 Mann fully understood the loathing of political theory and ideology amongst organised labour: his was a very British syndicalism.

Despite their political and personal differences, Ben Tillett invited Mann to become an organiser in the 1911 Liverpool transport strike.

Tom Mann raced to the assistance of James Larkin, James Connolly and the Dublin strikers in 1913 -14, and again during this dispute linked up with comrade Bill Haywood.

The TUC was totally opposed to Larkin and the strike and withdrew its support leading to the defeat of the strike.

Mann was totally opposed to the First World War and was prosecuted for sedition.

 In 1917 he joined the British Socialist Party, and in that same year, was a firm supporter of the Bolshevik revolution.

In 1919, despite his earlier defeat over 20 years previously, he became the secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, retiring in 1921.

He was chairman of the rank and file National Minority movement which built a strong base in all sections of the trade union movement much to the annoyance of the TUC, and he was a founder member of the Communist Party in 1920.

He tried unsuccessfully to enlist in the International Brigade but was denied because of his age, although he raised funds and spoke on many occasions both in the UK and in Spain.

He also worked with Wal Hannington and the unemployed workers movement.

At the age of 75 he was indicted for sedition in Belfast after making inflammatory speeches.

Famously, the judge said to him before sentencing: “someone your age should know better.”

To which Tom Mann replied:

“Sir, the longer I live and the more I see here and around the world I know my course is right.”

Tom Mann died a poor man, at least in financial terms, in Leeds in 1941, but rich in terms of his legacy to the Labour and Trade Union movement.

Terry McCarthy.