Tesco and Equal Pay for Equal Work

Do markets have memory? No, according to a basic tenet of market fundamentalism, the philosophy of the rich and powerful which is endorsed by their high priests, the professors of neoclassical economics. Markets, they contend, are forward looking and respond only to changes in prospects, not past events. This is why they are beyond challenge. They reflect the future and condition what is possible in the present. Furthermore, in the case of financial markets, they respond instantaneously – the so called ‘efficient market hypothesis’. Thus news that Tesco was being pursued through the conciliation service ACAS by the law firm Leigh Day over an equal pay claim that could cost Tesco £4 billion may have dented Tesco’s share price to the extent that investors thought it likely to succeed, but there was no question of customers having to pay for the £4 billion settlement, should it succeed, with higher prices. Future prices would be affected, according to this theory, only to the extent that the average cost of employing staff in future increases.

For communists, two issues arise here.

  • While we agree that markets don’t have memory, the economy we actually experience is one of State Monopoly Capitalism in which institutional pressures are brought to bear to protect capital, including that invested in Tesco. To understand this economy, we need to begin our analysis not, where the neoclassical economists begin, with market prices, efficient or otherwise, and work backwards but with production, labour and the creation of value by workers and work forward, identifying with whom this created value ends up. It doesn’t end up with workers, whether shop floor or warehouse, male or female. After workers receive enough to survive and replicate (assuming their offspring are still needed), it ends up with those who own the capital – the 1% and the 0.1%.
  • While communists fully support equal pay for equal work claims such as that against Tesco, we recognise that capitalism is incapable of achieving this except in the very limited case of a single workplace – and even then it is hard enough to achieve and sustain. Equal pay for equal work across an entire economy is the defining condition of socialism, which Marx defined as from each according to their means to each according to their work. That is not something that social democracy can, or even wishes, to deliver as, it would rent asunder our existing institutions (on which they, themselves, depend) and replace them with the more democratic framework needed for building communism with its ultimate aim of from each according to their means to each according to their need.




The BBC is required under its new Charter to provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them”. Its failure to do so renders BBC news coverage increasingly irrelevant. It’s now not only Question Time that leads so many of us immediately to reach for the off button. Much BBC news coverage is more likely to increase blood pressure than increase understanding and engagement.

The requirement to provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” has, however, prompted the BBC to propose in its Religion and Ethics Review published this week that its coverage of religious issues should be increased and “greater religious understanding” incorporated into its news reporting. Investigative reporting of the corrosive influence of religiously segregated schools in Northern Ireland and, increasingly, the UK mainland would assist this understanding, but that’s not quite what the authors of the Review had in mind.

One problem for the Review was that it couldn’t avoid recognising that an increasing number of people in the UK do not affiliate to any traditional religion. It was in response to this awkward fact that it concluded that the extended coverage it recommends would also have to “reflect beliefs which aren’t founded on religion”. What “beliefs unfounded on religion” the review had in mind was not explained, so one has to speculate. Belief in creationism, that blood transfusion is impermissible  and (I suspect) that the world is flat are all endorsed by followers of some traditional religion. The Review will have to look to belief in flying saucers for truly independent beliefs – or have I missed its endorsement somewhere?  The Review did, however, identify the  target audience for unaffiliated believers: those not engaged with traditional religion who are “spiritual and interested in the big issues affecting them”.

As communists we are most certainly interested in the “big issues”, and not only those that affect us personally. Furthermore, communist philosophy, i.e. Marxism, provides, in our view, the best understanding there has ever been of the world around us. So can we expect to benefit from this envisaged extended coverage by the BBC? Of course not! We will be excluded, ostensibly because we are not “spiritual”. This is correct in the sense that we don’t rely on spirits to understand the world. However, the real reason we will be excluded is because, as Marx wrote, we not only seek to understand the world, we seek to change it. That is the reason the BBC will exclude us; but while it remains the mouthpiece of the ruling class, we would not have it any other way.

The BBC can do what it wants, but if you want to learn about Marxism and how it can help us to understand and change the world, you can join the Communist University of South London (CUiSL) which runs classes at 7.30 pm on the third Thursday of each month at Ruskin House, 23 Coombe Road, Croydon CR2 0BN. In the Spring Term we will be studying eco-socialism. For more details e-mail cuisl@communist-party.org.uk.


The Beginning of the End of Capitalism

The Guardian reported yesterday that Four Seasons Health Care, a private care home provider that looks after 17,000 residents, could go into administration after talks aimed at staving off its collapse were derailed by haggling between private investors. The Guardian article goes on to point out that Labour has criticized the role of high finance in social care.

Is this a sufficient response from Labour? At the root of the problem is a long held reluctance by social democrats to tax wealth and to recognise the contradiction between the need for ‘homes’ for all and the use of housing as private investment. The former requires declining house prices and the latter requires ever increasing ones.

The Labour Party 2017 Manifesto, For the Many, not the Few calls for a comprehensive National Care Service but avoids the question of the provision of care homes and how to pay for them. Under current arrangements we all play the Alzheimer’s lottery game under which some home owners get to pass on their investment to their children while others find they must liquidate their investment to pay for a place in a care home. However, with escalating house prices, essential if housing is to act as an investment, even the children of those who win the Alzheimer lottery may not be able to buy their own homes due to the escalating house prices essential for housing investment.

The other big omission in the Labour Party Manifesto is the taxation of wealth. Despite some recent expressions of interest by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnel, it does not feature in For the Many, not the Few. Yet it was included in the Labour Party Manifestos of 1974, 1979 and 1983 before being dropped. Why was this?

For Labour, a wealth tax has always been seen as something to “make the distribution of the tax burden accord more closely with taxable capacities” [i], not a means of redistributing wealth. The essential distinction is whether the tax can be paid for out of income or out of capital. References to ‘taxable capacities’ imply the former. The latter implies the start of what Marx called “expropriating the expropriators”[ii], i.e. the beginning of the end of capitalism.

As Howard Glennerster’s paper Why_was_a_wealth_tax_for_the_UK_abandoned? demonstrates, there will be resistance to even modest proposals for a wealth tax paid out of income. Proposals for a tax paid out of capital are likely to provoke a hysterical response from those required to pay it. No social democratic party, even a Left Labour led by a principled politician freed from the shackles of an entrenched Parliamentary Labour Party, is going to risk provoking such opposition.

The Communist Party has no such inhibitions. Our aim is not to manage capitalism more humanely, it is to replace it. Thus in our pamphlet From Each according to their Means[iii] we proposed an initial annual wealth tax of 2% per annum, with higher rates for the mega rich. Even without these higher rates, a wealth tax would raise £90 billion per annum, sufficient to break the link between housing as investment and housing as a need and also finance a truly comprehensive National Care Service. Most significantly, however, a 2% + wealth tax would signal the first step in the abolition of capitalism. Let’s start promoting it now.


[i] Labour’s Green Paper following the 1974 election.

[ii] Karl Marx, Capital, Chapter 32

[iii] From Each according to Their Means, Communist Party, 2014. £2.50 from CP shop

Why Should We Celebrate the Russian Revolution?

One question communists can expect to receive is Why should we celebrate the Russian Revolution? It’s a difficult one to answer with soundbites, especially when the questioner isn’t really interested in your answer. There is a wonderful example of this here when the BBC interviewed Rob Griffiths, our General Secretary, during his recent trip to celebrate October 1917 in St Petersburg with CPs across the world. First the loaded question; then the broken link before Rob can answer fully; and then the smear implying that either Rob himself or possibly Putin pulled the connection. Deliberate sabotage or incompetence by the BBC would seem more probable explanations.

In fact any assessment of the Russian Revolution or, more meaningfully, the failed attempt by the USSR to build socialism, is highly complex and the subject of continuing serious study and debate. It has, for example, been a recurring item on the agenda of our own Communist University in South London (CUiSL). Here, however, are ten more or less random reasons why it should be celebrated:

  1. The contribution of the USSR to the defeat of Hitler – without it the Nazis would have won the Second World War and you and I would now be enslaved – or dead. Does anyone think Tsarist Russia could have defeated the Wehrmacht?
  2. The mere existence of the USSR strengthened the confidence of workers in the West and required capitalists from 1945 to offer concessions to workers to dampen demand for a revolution here. This explains why, as the economic performance of the USSR imploded in the 1980s, capitalists in the West no longer saw any need to offer concessions to their workers, resulting in increasing inequality and exploitation thereafter.
  3. With its planned economy, the USSR saved its own population from the ravages of the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the West, only the advent of WW2 achieved this.
  4. The USSR should be recognised for organising through the Comintern opposition to the rise of Hitler and then for seeking collective security agreements which could have to isolated the Nazis. Only when these were rebuffed and it became clear from the Munich Agreement that the USSR stood alone and that the capitalist nations would be happy to see Hitler attack the USSR did the USSR seek its ill-fated, non-aggression pact with Hitler.
  5. The USSR was the only country to provide support for the Spanish government against the Franco putsch and, though the Comintern, organise the International Brigade. The capitalist nations turned their back on Spain and provided implicit support for Franco with the non-intervention pact.
  6. The cultural and artistic achievements of the USSR – dance, music, painting etc
  7. The scientific achievements of the USSR – achievements which matched those of the much wealthier West.
  8. The tangible support the USSR gave to the socialist revolutions in other countries, especially China and Cuba, both of which continue and provide hope for us all.
  9. The tangible support the USSR gave to communist parties in the West and in the developing world.
  10. The USSR’s contribution to the dismantling of colonialism and the ending of apartheid in South Africa. While the Cuban contribution was more tangible, that would not have been possible without the USSR’s support for Cuba.

Can anyone propose two more to make it a dozen? But for a more balanced assessment of the USSR, its successes and failures, and to learn the lessons for the future, we need not only study the former USSR. We can learn from China and Cuba where the building of socialism continues; and we need proper discussion and debate, not soundbites, sneering BBC commentators and mysteriously pulled plugs.


A Thought for Halloween

Writing this week in City AM, Diego Zuluaga, Head of Financial Services and Tech Policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs, seeks to defend capitalism. His article on 24 October Big Businesses Denigrating Capitalism Don’t Understand It is interesting not for its call on big business leaders not to rock the boat, nor for its arguments in defence of capitalism – even the author must surely recognise, deep down, they are disingenuous – but because it was felt necessary to publish such a defence at all.

For Marxists, a study of history and an analysis of capitalism and its instabilities leads us to conclude that capitalism is merely the penultimate stage in our evolving, class-based society, not the final equilibrium or ‘end of history’ envisaged by Francis Fukuyama. Marxists are sometimes accused of irrational belief, but belief has nothing to do with it. Our approach is a rational and scientific one. It is the defenders of capitalism who exhibit irrational belief. Their confidence that de-regulating markets will lead to the welfare of all is, at best, based on an elegant model built on unrealistic assumptions[1]. In practice, it is based neither on economic theory nor on Zuluaga’s flimsy arguments but on the self-interest of the ruling class and those in their pay. Our theories, on the other hand, have concrete evidence to support them: the 2007 financial crash; historic levels of inequality; Grenfel Tower; global warming; the housing crisis; growing hospital waiting times; bloated expenditure on ‘defence’; and …. Readers of this blog are invited to complete the list.

It may be too soon to claim again, as did Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, that ‘a spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of communism’, but we can take comfort from the thought that something is spooking our ruling class.

[1] The Arrow-Debreu Model, a mathematical expression of Adam Smith’s ‘hidden hand’. Amongst its many unrealistic assumptions is perfect and complete markets.

Reasons to be cheerful

At the end of 2016 it would be fair to say that the future looks bleak. We confront four years of a climate denying US President. We face a similar period of Tory rule in this country, propped up by a mass media owned by sympathetic oligarchs or, in the case of the BBC, cowed into grovelling submission. Both are intent on persuading the public that Labour under Corbyn is “unelectable”. The prospect of a Tory negotiated Brexit threatens an outcome that could be even more dire than the slow strangulation by neo-liberal policies we experience as a member of the EU. Pessimism is not, however, a trait associated with communists. Hey, we overcame the failure and eventual collapse of the first serious attempt to build socialism anywhere in the world, the USSR. We remain determined to build our own Road to Socialism in Britain and then across the world and we won’t be deterred by a few, short-term obstacles such as these.

Reasons to be cheerful? Here are a few.

On the international stage, while our mass media speaks of the rise of populism and gives as examples the rise of Le Penn in France and the break-up of Angela Merkel’s centre-right coalition in Germany, they ignore the improved prospects for Jean-Luc Mélenchon, backed by the French Communist Party, and for Die Linke, the successor to PDS, the East German communist party.

Looking to the USA, we can take comfort from the relative success of Bernie Saunders, achieved in the teeth of a mass media who told the electorate that, like Corbyn, he was simply “unelectable”. What we learned was that the mass media has been weakened by the growth of social media and that an electorate offered the ‘same old, same old’ centre-right options will look for something else. This will apply just as much to the Tories and their ex-coalition partners, the Lib-Dems, as it did to Hilary Clinton. Even under first-past-the-post elections, standing as the least worst candidate may no longer be the ticket to success.

We also learned from Greece that half-way measures don’t work. Syriza won the election and thought it could stay in the Euro and use its democratic mandate to negotiate with the European Commission. As if! Had the electorate had the nerve to vote in the Greek Communist Party, with its uncompromising attitude to the EU, the country would at least have stood a chance.

Peace in Syria? Stability in Iraq and Libya?   Not yet and not soon enough. But at least we have learned that military intervention and bankrolling the opposition with a view to “regime change” doesn’t benefit the inhabitants of these countries or those adjacent to it.

And what of Brexit? Although the immediate prospects are daunting, leaving the EU was an essential first step on the road to socialism. We have to resist the attempts that will be made by Dame Theresa and her gang to further disadvantage the trade unions – they received precious little from the EU but even that could be threatened – and to enter into trade deals that favour big business, not workers. If these can be resisted, opportunities will arise for genuine democracy at home and real internationalism abroad.

Socialism isn’t “what a Labour Government does” (Herbert Morrison) any more than communism is “Soviet power plus electrification” (Lenin). It’s a society were, eventually, each receives according to their need. Let’s make 2017 the year when we take significant steps towards this.

All the best for the New Year from Croydon Communist Party.

What’s the difference between a socialist and a communist?

Party Congress, a biennial event at which delegates from every branch, district and nation meet to agree party policy and strategy and to elect a new Executive Committee which, in turn, will elect Party Officers, including the General Secretary, will be held later this month. It’s therefore an appropriate time to reflect on why we are communists and what is the difference, if any, between a communist and a socialist.

In the popular mind, the distinction is one of degree. Socialists want a significant degree of public ownership and greater equality of outcome – although some would settle for mere equality of opportunity. Communists, on the other hand, are commonly thought to want to abolish all private property and achieve total equality. There is also a commonly held view that communists want a society modelled on that of the former USSR and former socialist states in Eastern Europe. There may be elements of truth in all these distinctions, but they are, nevertheless, mistaken. The principal distinction between a socialist and a communist is that anyone can call themselves a socialist, but to call yourself a communist you need to be a member of a communist party.

Communist parties differ from other parties in that they are subject to democratic centralism, which means they arrive at decisions and policies after unrestricted internal discussion and debate and then unite to promote these policies and implement them. Communist parties reach their decisions by applying the ideas of Karl Marx as developed by others Marxists such as Lenin and Gramsci. These ideas can be described in one hyphenated word: Marxism-Leninism.

Does Marxism-Leninism mean that we are striving to replicate the former USSR and Socialist countries of Eastern Europe? No. We recognise that, while the USSR achieved much, it failed in the end to build socialism. Lessons must be learnt from these failures, and no one is keener to discover them than communist parties. Next time we must do it better – more democracy, greater efficiency, deeper humanity and more effective connection with working people.

This emphasis on communist parties begs the question – what is a communist party? The much loved and missed Tony Benn was fond of pointing out that there were too many socialist parties and not enough socialists. Regrettably, this is also true of communist parties. Only one party in Britain can trace its origins back the formation of the British Section of the Communist International in 1920. This section became the Communist Party of Great Britain and, in 1991, the Communist Party of Britain. Now known simply as the Communist Party or CP (generally preferred to CPB), we do not recruit in Northern Ireland, leaving that to our sister party, the Communist Party of Ireland. There are, however, four or five other parties and small groups in Britain calling themselves communist parties – the New Communist Party, the Communist Party of Scotland, CPB-ML, CPGB-ML etc. Without wishing to disrespect individuals who are members of these groups – some are sound Marxist who engage constructively with the wider labour and trade union movement – overall they lack substance, legitimacy and, as reference to Solidnet, will confirm, recognition by the international movement of communist and workers parties[i]. This lack of legitimacy is especially true of the so called Communist Party of Great Britain, a grouplet that high-jacked the party name dropped in 1991 in order to defeat an attempt at that time to dissolve the party and close our newspaper, the Morning Star. This attempt failed and the group behind it has long since dissipated, but the consequence, loss of the use of our original name, continues, only partially ameliorated by the fact that we retain its exclusive use for electoral purposes, having registered it with the Electoral Commission.

No review of communism in Britain, however brief, would be complete without reference to the other revolutionary Marxist tradition present in the UK. This derives, however tortuously, from Trotsky’s Fourth International founded in 1938 rather than directly from the British Section of the Communist International formed in 1920. While also suffering from an excess of minor parties and grouplets, it is represented by two quite significant parties, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Socialist Party (formerly Militant). We share much Marxist theory with these parties but, given the history of conflict between us and a resulting lack of trust, it is hardly surprising that it is not always easy to work with them; and these difficulties can be exacerbated by their employment of “entryism” whereby membership is concealed in order to enter social democratic parties and coalitions. This practice was encouraged by Trotsky but abjured by communists who point to the advice in Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto that communists should not hide their membership of the party. Despite these differences, we have, however, in recent years managed to work successfully with them in certain narrow areas, particularly opposition to the EU and it is to be hoped that these tentative links will grow in future.

The above reflections are personal ones and don’t necessarily reflect the CP’s formal policy or official history. If your views differ from mine, you are invited to comment accordingly.

[i] With one minor exception – the small New Communist Party has secured some limited recognition internationally.

The Same Mistakes

Disappointment at learning that the ‘wrong’ Dylan, Bob, not Thomas, had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature this year was only partially mitigated by the reminder that being dead disqualifies one from winning a Nobel Prize. Dylan Thomas has been dead for 63 years and in his turbulent lifetime never courted Establishment recognition.’Llareggub’ was what he expected and that’s what he got.

Establishment recognition is a heady treat that recipients are well advised to imbibe with caution. The credibility of the British gong system and, in particular, membership of the House of Lords, is at an all-time low following misuse by successive governments to reward party donors and pack the second chamber with party hacks. Can it still be deemed “an honour” to receive such taudry awards? The Nobel Prizes for Chemistry, Literature, Physics, and Physiology/ Medicine were first awarded in 1901 and remain hugely prestigious. Less so is the Nobel Prize for Peace – awarded to Barack Obama in 2009 for no obvious achievement than that he had won the US Presidential Election eight months previously. The so-called Nobel Prize for Economics was the creation of the Swedish Central Bank in 1968 and is awarded to whichever bourgeois economist can come up with the least implausible justification for sticking with free market economics.

Notwithstanding the award to Bob Dylan, the Nobel Prize for Literature, while inevitably more contentious than awards for science, has until now retained its credibility. The award in 2005 to Harold Pinter cannot, for example, be faulted. Another worthy award, albeit one given very little coverage or endorsement in the UK media, was that to Svetlana Alexievich in 2015. She writes in Russian, which could conceivably explain this lack of interest, but a more likely explanation is that her interviews with citizens of the former Soviet Union are far too sympathetic for the tastes of our newspaper owners; and, although she does not whitewash the shortcomings in the former USSR, neither does she portray a system that was all bad. The current edition of the London Review of Books contains a detailed and largely positive review of her book Second-Hand Time: The Last of the Soviets and may encourage sales of the book.

Another sympathetic look at the shortcomings of the USSR is Landscapes of Communism by Owen Hatherley (Penguin, 2015). This book looks at the built environment of the former socialist states and China and refrains from rubbishing them out of hand. Mr Hatherley, coincidentally, also writes for the London Review of Books. While it would be pleasant to dwell only on the successes of communism, glorying in the October Revolution, the Long March etc, it’s vital to understand what went wrong in the first attempts to build socialism. Superficial analysis that focusses on the flawed personality of the leader or conflates socialist states with totalitarianism won’t achieve this. We need honest and thoughtful analysis so that we don’t make the same mistakes next time.

The Long Term View

In the final paragraph of his book, Stepping Stones, the making of our Home World, Steve Drury concludes that:

a mere 10 thousand years of human history has created economic chains that stifle such potential and increasingly endanger its survival. It seems to me that if history is to continue being recorded and sifted through, the next stepping stone is consciously to break those chains.

As communists we heartily endorse this conclusion, but we may not all be fully aware of how we got here. Marxists tend to study history and pre-history back to the end of the last Ice Age, but Steve Dury takes us from when our planet was formed some four and a half billion years ago and, drawing on the latest scientific evidence, explains everything with stunning clarity and insight. You can still find copies of the original hardback first edition  (Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0 19 850271 0) if you hunt round for them but he has now generously published a revised, second edition as an e-book  here . Both this and the revised second e-edition cannot be recommended highly enough. Day to day political and economic analysis and knockabout is all very well, but, in addition, we all need to be aware of the long term view..

Follow the Cuban Model

In the posting last week I suggested that resistance to antibiotics should be added to the threats facing humanity. This has been confirmed by the Final Report to government from the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) published today. In the preface to this report, Lord O’Neill, now a government minister, accepts that routine surgeries and minor infections will become life-threatening once again and that the hard won victories against infectious diseases of the last fifty [surely sixty plus] years will be jeopardized. Unless action is taken, the report concludes, the number of deaths each year from AMR could balloon to 10 million, at a cumulative cost to global economic output of $100 trillion. On this basis, by 2050, the death toll could be a staggering one person every three seconds and each person in the world today will be more than $10,000 per annum worse off – quite a problem when the world average income is currently less than $18,000 per annum – but such distributional matters tend not to concern Tory ministers.

Some of the report’s recommendations are obvious, including restricting doctors from prescribing antibiotics until they have confirmed with tests that they are actually required. Others are conspicuous by their absence and reflect the prejudices of the government of which Lord O’Neill is a member. These include the need to block TTIP so that US factory farming methods dependent on intensive antibiotic use are not forced on us when this agreement with the  EU is signed. Leaving the EU is the best, possibly only, way of stopping TTIP  – what a shame that the official Brexit Campaign, dominated as it is by right wing Tories, is so reluctant to point this out.

The report concludes that remedial action can be financed from existing NHS budgets. That will generate a huge sigh of relief from a government unwilling to provide an adequate level of funding for even current services. It depends, however, on the assumption that the drug companies can be made to pay. The key recommendation is a new settlement with Big Pharma, a so-called ‘pay and play’ requirement: pay for the investment in new antibiotics and inoculation in exchange for continuing their privileged position as monopoloy suppliers to governments. Given Big Pharma’s record of dodging taxes and ripping off governments, this has all the prospects of a snow ball in hell. The knee jerk reaction from the trade body the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry was, as would be expected,  immediate rejection.

Big Pharma is the epitome of capitalism and the illusion that if we give the rich and powerful everything they want, the welfare of everyone else will be enhanced. The truth is that, as with global warming, international, profit driven enterprises cannot be trusted with the fate of humanity. They will always put the interests of the elites who own them or feed off them as managers first. They must be cut down to size, stripped of their monopolies and, in the case of Big Pharma,  replaced with democratically controlled research institutes. If the impoverished Cubans can do it, so can we!