Capitalism and Hunger (1978)

From the June 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

The world is overpopulated, we are told, and this alleged overpopulation (often confused with density of population) is the cause of hunger. Hence, in order to eliminate the problem of hunger, the world’s population must first be reduced.

This is the reasoning behind the many attempts to force Indian villagers to limit their families to only one or two children, whether by persuasion or compulsion. The moral persuasion advocated by Malthus in the nineteenth century has given way in the twentieth century to government campaigns for mass sterilization.

But this argument is, although widely accepted, totally false. The facts do not support it. For example, a special issue on “Food and Agriculture” in Scientific American (Sept. ’76) invite the conclusion that we are capable, now, of feeding not just the present world population but an even greater world population. The cause of hunger, starvation and malnutrition, whether in the so-called “Third World” countries or in the West, is to be found in our economic system.

Why is it that the capitalist economic system does not produce enough food? In the first place, under capitalism the production of food, like that of other commodities, is deliberately restricted. If there is “too much” food, the price falls, farmers lose profits and sooner or later, governments intervene with policies aimed at restricting production so as to maintain the market price at a profitable level, if all else fails the stuff can always be destroyed — dumped at the bottom of the sea, for instance: anything will do just so long as the market price is maintained. Above all, it must not be given away to the hungry.

Which brings us to the other half of the equation. Why are people hungry when shops and warehouses are full of stored food? Here we have to state the obvious. The only reason for most people doing without the food they and their families need is quite simply that they cannot afford it. Poverty restricts the ability of most of the world’s working class to buy what food is available—the price is too high. The old “Let them eat cake” problem!

Along with this view of food as simply a commodity to be marketed, like houses or oil, with production controlled and restricted in such a way that supply should never catch up or overtake demand, we see agriculture exploiting the earth as a source of profits. Mother earth is raped by profit-seeking agro-business. The farmer’s business is not growing food for people to eat. Like every other capitalist, he is in business to accumulate more capital. Therefore he cannot afford to concern himself much about soil erosion, the destruction of humus, the loss of wild flowers or eagles. His real concern has to be the balance sheet: that his capital investment should produce as big a profit as possible.

Capitalist agriculture has found a few crops exceptionally profitable. In some areas, the West Indies for instance, monoculture has replaced the cultivation of a variety of food and other crops. In Europe a lot of arable land is now devoted to non-food crops — barley for the brewers in Britain, grapes for the wine trade on the Continent. Cotton, tobacco and sugar are all still dominant in many areas noted for their hunger. Forests are felled for the sake of a quick buck. Rivers are polluted by profit conscious industries. The seas are scoured to the point where even herrings become scarce; they are drilled for gas and oil and suffer pollution from oil tankers, all in the interests of maximising their owners’ profits.

Capitalism puts pressure on agriculture and industry alike to produce as cheaply and as fast as possible. Hence the excessive use of pesticides and mineral fertilisers, with consequent damage to the soil and destruction of the eco-balance. In our society the earth is capital — wealth which must be used to produce profits.

The working class throughout the world suffer poverty and hunger. This hunger is not a natural phenomenon. It is not caused by the alleged inability of people to grow enough food. It is caused by the fact that, on the one hand, it is often more profitable to grow non-food crops, and on the other hand, food is produced as a commodity to be sold at a profitable price and is therefore never produced in sufficient quantity to satisfy all man’s needs, any more than housing is. Profits first, people’s needs last — that’s capitalism.

Only if we end this system where production is primarily for profit, only if we end the money-based economy and the wages system based on class ownership of the earth and other means of production, only then do we stand any chance of both satisfying human needs and at the same time developing production techniques which will safeguard the natural environment. It is high time all “friends of the earth” recognized that profit-based capitalism is the real enemy both of those who are concerned about the problem of the “starving millions” and of those whose main concern is ecology and the environment. In Socialism there will be no conflict between the satisfaction of human needs and care for the environment.

Charmian Skelton

Reformism is no solution

A capitalist is someone who owns capital, and through his ownership receives an income; and the capitalist system is one in which this form of ownership predominates. Capitalism is a system in which the means of producing wealth are privately owned. There have been other systems of private ownership, such as Feudalism and Slavery, but in them the wealth has not taken the form of capital. Before them again there were societies in which there was no private ownership of the means of producing wealth and no exploitation of one class by another. We say that it is private ownership which is at the root of our problems, and we propose that society should take over the means of production and use them, the only sensible suggestion to satisfy the needs of the members of society, instead of allowing a class to make a profit out of their use. Today, there is a class of poor people who have no property, and who live by working, and another class of rich property-owners, who live by owning property. The workers get wages, which they have earned by their labour. It is they who have grown the food, made the clothes and built the houses and factories, and carried goods from one place to another, and it is they who have organised this work and supervised and directed it. On the other hand, the property-owners have received rent, interest and profit without having to labour for it at all. From what source then do their incomes arise? Is it not plain that these people who own the means of production are living on the labour of those who use them to produce wealth?

At present we have the workers compelled to ask permission of the owners before they can get to work, and the condition on which permission is granted is that the workers should keep the owners in idle luxury. And this private ownership has other evil effects besides being a means of robbing the workers. We have workers producing goods of greater value than they receive back as wages, the difference being a surplus for landlords, bankers, and manufacturing capitalists. So that after the workers have spent their wages there is still a great mass of goods in the warehouses which the owners must sell before they can realise their profits, and it is much more than they can possibly consume themselves. It is in this way that unemployment is caused. The people who own the goods want to sell but cannot find buyers, while the workers who want the goods have no money to buy. Production has to be curtailed, and goods are wasted or slowly consumed by the unemployed who live on doles and other forms of relief. Alternatively, capitalist countries are forced to go to war to try to snatch markets from their rivals, and destroy their powers of production. But whether they win or lose, the problem is only aggravated.

This is the capitalist system, and we propose to abolish it. We want to destroy entirely the right of any individual or class to live by privately owning something which society wants to use. We say this results in robbery, and we are out to end it. Nobody would deny that capitalism brought with it great economic, political and social advantages, but we say that it also brought the seeds of unavoidable evils and conflicts, and that the evils are now so great that only a new and higher system can be of any use. Such a system is socialism.

Socialism will mean not only the end of capitalism, but also the end of all private ownership of the means of production and exploitation. Of course, when we talk about common ownership we are only referring to the means of production, like the land and the factories, not personal possessions and such personal things like these. There is but one course, and it is for the workers to take it. It is to end capitalism, with its absurd contradiction, super abundance, and want, coexistent, and to establish a community of interests—socialism. Socialists talk about the means of production and by this we mean all the instruments and technical know-how that man has developed for the purpose of producing wealth, from hand tools to nuclear power stations. All reformist politicians agree that these means of production should continue to be monopolised by a small privileged section of the population.

We are facing an environmental crisis. Exploitation. Consumerism. Waste. Pollution. Greed. All contribute to global warming. Poverty, extreme inequality, racism, sexism, nationalism and militarism these are the roots of of capitalism. Without fundamental changes, ecosystems will continue to deteriorate all around us. To combat climate change along with widespread ecological degradation and inequality, we need more than reformist policies. We believe the capitalist system to be the enemy. We see that CAPITALISM as the cause of most if not all of our problems, not the selfishness of the capitalists, nor the incompetence of their governments. We see that the workers are wretchedly housed and badly fed and shoddily clothed and vilely mis-educated, because they are poor. We see that they are poor because they are robbed, and they are robbed because the capitalist system is based on robbery. When we say that it is the system itself which is at fault it matter not who administers it. It will still be a system of exploitation of one class by another. If it ceases to be this, it will cease to be at all, because that is its nature. A system which is based on the robbery of the workers obviously cannot be made to work out to their benefit. We do not want anyone to administer capitalism; we want to destroy it. We say that profit-making is robbery.

To sum up, we see that capitalism is the enemy, and that socialism is the only remedy. Socialism necessarily means the denial of the right to live by owning. All who can work must work in order to earn the right to enjoy the products of labour. Socialism can be introduced only by a socialist electorate, and the present owners, as a class, cannot be expected to yield their rights until they must.

Reformers do not condemn the system of living by owning. They are not committed to socialism. Their attempts to patch up an obsolescent system of society will fail. Reforms cannot give the workers that comfort and security which alone can end their discontent, without attacking the foundations of capitalist society. Those who set their leaders the impossible task of solving the insoluble contradictions of capitalism will themselves be responsible for the inevitable disillusionment and betrayal. The issue lies in the hands of the workers. We appeal to your intelligence, confident that sooner or later, the brutal pressure of economic forces will compel consideration and acceptance of our case—the case for socialism, a society in which wage labour and the production of value have been abolished, where each person contributes what they can according to their abilities and each person receives goods according to their need. A socialist society would not compel its members to work for a wage. It would provide goods to its people for free, allowing them to fulfil their needs without having to worry about artificially produced scarcity. Production would be carried on entirely through voluntary work and would be defined by a cooperative spirit.

Rejoice in Socialism

The world is in desperate peril and what is needed now is not an uncritical acceptance of the qualities which capitalism needs and honours but a penetrating questioning of the social system. The sad fact is that it is the workers who suffer under capitalism, who so ardently stand up for the system. It would be pleasant to be able to wash our hands of capitalism but we cannot do this—we cannot live outside the system. The reason for this is that at present the capitalist class hold their power by the support of the workers. As this support lessens, as the socialist movement grows, the power of the capitalists diminishes. Their promises, their threats, their sops, which are so readily accepted by workers now, will lose their effect. As the number of socialists grows the class struggle will take on a different appearance. Socialist trade unionists, for example, would never fall for threats and promises from a Labour government and agree to reduce their living standards, as some unionists are doing now. And, of course, as this situation develops the ruling class would be eager to try to divert the movement with ever more generous reforms. It is true that at present few people are inclined to grasp socialist knowledge. Some of the blame for this rests on organisations like the Labour Party, which have spread confusion among the working class and have dragged the name of socialism through the mud. Perhaps our attacks on capitalism inspire Labourites and Leftists. What effect, then, do our attacks on those parties, as pro-capitalist, have on those people? We hope to make them think about society, and about what to do with the power in their hands. This is the positive side of socialist propaganda—every attack we make upon capitalism has two edges and the other is the conclusion, that socialism alone can end the problems of the modern world.

A minority of socialist MPs would certainly support genuine reforms in working class standards and conditions but they would not be allowed to make the mistake of becoming reformist — of offering reforms as a political programme and an alternative to Socialism.

The class ownership of the means of production and their use to make profits is the basis of modern, capitalist society. It means there are two opposed classes: those who own and those who because they don't own must work for those who do. Mere democratic reform that leaves untouched this class basis of society is not nearly enough. A genuine democracy in which all the people would have a free and equal say in the conduct of political, economic, and social affairs. That, more or less, is our aim too. But we say it can be achieved only on the basis of the common ownership of the means of life. For as long as the means by which society must live belong to a class there will be the exploitation, oppression, and social inequality that frustrate democratic control today.

We are not really surprised that many who want a new and better society should tend to steer clear of the word ‘socialism’. We ourselves are only too painfully aware of what it means to many people—the oppressive regime of the former Soviet Union and its satellite states, the discredited Labour parties, the swindle of nationalisation. The Socialist Party has always tried to keep alive the real meaning of socialism as a democratic world community based on the common ownership of the means of life where the one aim of production will be to satisfy human needs. With the end of class ownership everybody will be socially equal and free to take part in the running of social affairs. The oppressive government machine, which is needed only to maintain ‘law and order' in class society, will be dismantled and replaced by the democratic administration of industry. With common ownership and production for use, the barriers to abundance will have been removed so that society can rapidly go over to “from all their best, to all their need”. People will work as best they are able and then take from the common store whatever they need. This is socialism.

Because full democracy can be achieved only through socialism it is futile to separate the pursuit of the one from the pursuit of the other. To fight for democracy alone could mean the achievement of neither socialism nor democracy. Efforts should be concentrated on the struggle for socialism. It is not from contesting elections, but from advocating reforms, that the danger comes. Parliament, which makes the laws the police enforce, is a body those who want to reform capitalism, let alone replace it by socialism, must capture. A socialist majority outside parliament, using their votes to elect a socialist majority inside parliament, could use political power to institute the common ownership of the means of production. That in fact is our policy and why we have ourselves had candidates in the past. So, it’s not elections in themselves that are dangerous. Far from it. It is vitally important that those who want to change society should take part in elections. The danger comes from fighting for reforms of capitalism, outside as well as inside parliament. Socialism, as a democratic community based on the voluntary co-operation of its members, can be set up and run only by people who are fully aware of its implications. It can be set up only when a majority understand and want it. Support built up for reforms cannot be turned into support for socialism, for most of those who want the reforms will have illusions about what present-day society can offer. They will assume that all that is needed is the will to do something—end the housing scandal, stop unemployment — and that implementing this is just a simple administrative matter. Capitalism, however, is not a rationally-organised community, but a class society subject to its own economic laws. Because it is based on the profit motive and on the exclusion of the workers from ownership it cannot be made to serve human needs and can never solve the housing or health or education or employment problems of the workers. Capitalism is a class system that can work only one way: as a profit-making system in the interest of the class that lives off profits.

We are out for LIFE for the workers. The world is beautiful. Life is glorious. Even work is joy if a man may, as Morris said, “rejoice in the work of his hand.” Evolution has given us the possibility of producing by work, as distinct from toil, wealth in such abundance that the amenities of civilisation shall be the portion of all, without scrimping.

Let’s End Charity

Members of the Socialist Party are frequently perceived as stingy scrooges for we often criticise the idea of giving to charity and we scold philanthropy. We do not doubt the sincerity or compassion of those who donate to charities or volunteer to help them (although the latter is somewhat tarnished by the unemployed living under the threat of losing benefits if they do not put in unpaid hours at the local charity shop.) But what is fostered is the dangerous illusion that, either through charitable alms-giving, the many problems of capitalism can be solved by good-will and kind gestures. Socialists are not indifferent to human suffering but we point that society is well capable of solving the problems of poverty, hunger and homelessness. What does not exist is the social system of production and distribution can be matched to people’s need. Capitalism is a world of deliberate scarcity, in order to pursue the aims of competition and profit.

The voluntary efforts via a host of charitable institutions and associations do not tackle the cause of such problems that they profess to alleviate. The main beneficiary of charities is the capitalist class, who otherwise would pay, via taxes, for State expenditure for the Welfare State, the NHS, and the local councils’ responsibility and obligations. To fill the gaps in state spending on “welfare” is the function of the legions of charities. The never-ending problems they seek to ameliorate are caused by the fact that what we produce is not for our use but for the capitalist class’s profit. Since the State is funded by the capitalist class, you get the absurdity of the have-not’s giving from the little they earn to organisations whose real reason for existence is to save the capitalist class money.

What then is the Socialist Party’s attitude towards charities? This can best be answered by another question: Why do the workers need charity? Because they have not access to all the things that could give them joyful and healthy lives (a sure preventative measure of most ailments). Our answer, then, is that all our spare time and money, which is very limited, should be spent on furthering the cause of socialism, the sure cure-all for the economic and most other social ills which humanity suffers. Achieving socialism will be far simpler and quicker. It is the direct method of solving the poverty problem. The sad thing is that charities, despite the enormous amount of human energy and goodwill that go into them, can rarely do more than touch the surface of the problems they were set up to deal with. They can never get to the root of these problems. Only political action aimed at revolutionising the whole structure of society and abolishing its profit system can wipe out the problems that give rise to charities.

The Socialist Party believes that poverty is unacceptable and unnecessary. We want to persuade people of the severe limitations of organised charity and also of the unfortunate effect it has in wrongly suggesting to people that, by giving money, they are doing something about solving the world’s problems. What charities never suggest is the plain truth that the perpetual calamities and suffering they exist to cope with are due not to any inevitable defects in man’s capacity for organising the world but to a social system which puts profits-and armaments to guard these profits-before human welfare. Charity will end when we get socialism. People won’t need it then. It’s something worth thinking about.

Some say, considering socialists are out for a society where each gives of their labour and its produce freely, why we are so negative about charity. Our answer is, is that for us, socialism is not about moralistic giving and self-sacrifice, but a condition of society wherein helping others is the best way of helping ourselves though working to help others. The fruits of the common effort of socialism will not be gifts but, rather, the common wealth of all.

 “I had become convinced as Ernest was when he sneered at charity as a poulticing of an ulcer. Remove the ulcer was his remedy; give to the worker his product; pension as soldiers those who grow honourably old in their toil, and there will be no need for charity. Convinced of this, I toiled with him at the revolution, and did not exhaust my energy in alleviating the social ills that continuously arose from the injustice of the system.” - Jack London in ‘The Iron Heel’

What is to change with socialism

Capitalist society is rushing headlong towards some form of barbarism. So long as the insane striving for profit in this private property economy exists, and it must exist as long as capitalism exists, war is forever the prospect of life, while environmental destruction is forever the reward of the overwhelming majority of the peoples of all countries. Capitalism is incapable and unwilling to produce in the interests of the common good of the people. Its production is organised solely in the interests of profit. Invention, which could lighten the lives of the people and produce enough to have plenty for all, is impossible in an economy where the main aim of those who own the industries, mines, transportation and utilities is production for profit. The capitalist vultures whose main occupation is to exploit workers for their own class benefit gorge themselves on profiteering in war. Society cannot and must not be controlled by capitalism. Society is doomed to destruction if this happens. Only a socialist society, a society without classes, without war, without competition, without unemployment, and poverty can properly utilise the harnessing of the planet’s resources. A class society which lives by exploitation can only subordinate such natural wealth to the interest of private profit. Let our fellow-workers ponder this fact. Let them understand that when the media talks about the risk of destruction to the world, they are not joking at all. The destruction of the world is a grim reality unless the social order of capitalism is abolished and replaced by socialism, the society of all the people.

The Socialist Party does not accept the necessity for inequality, poverty and war as a social and historical fact. On the contrary we can see that social harmony and the common good can be achieved without them. Capitalism has become an obsolete oppressive system that ought to be got rid off. A relatively small minority recognise this and are consciously anti-capitalist, but the masses continue trying to survive within the system rather than by overthrowing it. So, there is no real possibility of overthrowing that system and attempts to do so degenerate into futile reformism and/or terrorism, whatever the “revolutionary” rhetoric. The injustices of slavery and serfdom were eliminated by abolishing the social institutions of slavery and serfdom themselves, not by prohibitions against maltreatment of slaves and serfs. The injustices of wage labour, including unemployment, will be eliminated by abolishing the social institution of wage labour itself, not by directions to employers to treat their workers better. The social revolution as profound as abolishing the ownership of slaves by slave owners. We are talking about a transformation of private/state property to become social property working to a common plan. The social revolution required to transform capitalist enterprises into associations obviously involves far more than government decrees transferring ownership. The revolution itself would have produced various models of workers’ councils in many establishments, which would have taken over responsibility for management from the previous authorities. But that only establishes pre-conditions for the transformation, without actually solving the problem itself. Moreover, in many enterprises the workers’ councils would be weak or non-existent, or a screen behind which the old bosses are still in charge, since revolution develops unevenly.

 Anarcho-syndicalists seem to imagine that if everybody democratically discusses everything, production units will be able to exchange their products to supply each other’s needs, and to supply consumer goods for the workers, with no more than ’co-ordination” by higher level councils of delegates from the lower level establishments. Actually, things are not so simple, and any attempt to realise that vision would only mean preserving market relations between independent enterprises, still not working to a common social plan. No amount of elections from below, directives from the revolutionary government, or consultations with the masses will change the fact that these people will be responsible for the policy decisions in industry and will have to know what they are doing. Nor would it change the fact that they are doing the job currently done by capitalist “bosses” and will have ample scope to develop into new capitalist bosses themselves (and bosses with wider and more totalitarian powers). Electing different bosses does not abolish the boss system. The big issues are not decided “on the shop floor”, to use a phrase much loved by advocates of “self management”. Capitalism is already transferring more and more authority on the shop floor to workers themselves rather than supervisors or lower level line management. This only highlights the fact that questions like unemployment are imposed by market forces outside the control of “shop floor” management, or higher management for that matter. Elected workers’ councils would be in exactly the same position of having to lay off staff, if there is no market for the goods they produce. Revolutionaries have to raise their sights above the shop floor, to places where more important decisions are taken, and to issues on which decisions simply are not taken in a market economy, because there are no decision makers with authority over the economy as a whole, and our fate is still subject to the blind workings of economic laws beyond our control. Just saying “the workers will do it” does not solve a thing. Who are these workers who will do it after the revolution, without discussing what they will do, before the revolution? Power will pass from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the hands of the working class, because the working class will put forward a clear cut program to rescue society from the impasse it finds itself in under bourgeois rule. Slogans simply demanding a change in power because it is “more democratic” will get nowhere. The question of centralisation and decentralisation of enterprise management, is quite separate from the question of abolishing commodity production. The issue of “who decides, who rules” only arises in the context of “what is to be done”.

The socialist solution is to dissolve the antagonism between separate enterprises so that each is directly aiming to meet social needs as best it can, rather than responding in its own separate interests. How do you decide whether to build a steel mill, or a hospital, or a thermal or hydro-electrical power station? Not just by democratically consulting steel workers, or hospital patients, or construction workers, or delegates from all three and others concerned. There must be some definite economic criteria for decision making. It is no good just saying we will build socially useful things like schools and hospitals instead of profitable things like steel mills or power stations. You need steel to build schools and hospitals, and you need electric power to run them. At present the only criterion according to which goods and services are produced and investments are made to produce them, is market profitability. The actively functioning capitalists today are the financial managers and similar functionaries who are not the nominal owners of the capital they control, but carry out the social functions of the capitalist controlling it, and live it up accordingly.

Scotland, the Bereaved (1959)

From the No. 6 — 1959 issue of the Western Socialist

  “Baith faither and wee Willie oot o' a job . . . It’s worse than a death in the hoose.”

This piece of ungrammatic but nevertheless heartrending conversation happened to catch my ear one night while travelling in one of Glasgow’s tram cars, that ancient mode of transport which most of the city’s workers are obliged to use despite the “cheap” family automobiles now on sale. Although at first glance the wee Glasgow housewife’s remark may have seemed a peculiarly dramatised one it is undoubtedly true that a household that finds its two bread-winners unemployed is a pretty cheerless place.

The television and probably the furniture has been procured on the “never never” system and, with nothing but a few pounds coming in from the unemployment benefit and national assistance, the house in all probability will not only be a sad one but pretty soon — an empty one. The agonising round of cap-in-hand job-hunting commences and soon men who had a passionate pride in their skill as shipwrights, carpenters and electricians find themselves thankful for the chance of a couple of days’ work as labourers in casual employment on a building site, as part-time workers in bar rooms and cinemas.

And with the edge of poverty and insecurity sharpening day by day, the home that was a haven of sociability becomes a place where frayed nerves lead daily to bickering and squabbling. Soon the nagging thought, that perhaps it is due to some failing on his part as a worker that he can’t find a job, drives the breadwinner, bit by bit, to lose confidence in himself and gradually his self respect is destroyed. So desperate is the plight of the unemployed worker that not only is his physical condition denuded of virility by denial of the barest necessities of life, but his moral fibre is destroyed by conditions which degrade him to the extent of losing his self respect. He becomes in fact a mere shadow of a man, a shell whose substance has been torn from him by the monster that is present-day society.

It is at this point, that the most objectionable of social disease, unemployment, throws up to the surface its cancerous, parasitic growth — the Labour leader — that detestable embodiment of all that is unscrupulous, insincere and unprincipled. The emotion-filled speeches fill the air as workers are coaxed, implored and railroaded into giving their support to this or that great man. Later when the worker has been wooed and won and the political honeymoon is over, the disenchantment occurs. The great men turn out to have feet of clay, "right up to the elbows.” It is then that phrases such as "sold up the river” and "stabbed in the back” become the every day parlance of embittered working men.

The history of working class politics in the west coast of Scotland serves as an object lesson as to how much faith workers should place in the promises of silvery tongued "rebels.” The old days of the "Red” Clyde are past but if the working class can learn from the disastrous mistakes of their fathers then some of the blood which has been spilled by the old misguided fire-eaters of yesteryear will not have been spilled in vain. If the problems of unemployment, insecurity and poverty are to be solved it is obvious that a knowledge of how these problems arise is necessary. Instead of calling on the "assistance” of the political witchdoctors to solve these problems, we must seek the cure on our own behalf. We must wave aside the "nationalisation balms” and the "state control incantations” as these "remedies,” these political prescriptions have proved not only inadequate but injurious when applied to the body politic.

Whether you, as a worker, are engaged in a shipyard, a mine or a factory you cannot ignore the threat of unemployment. This threat hangs like a cloud over the heads of all workers whether they produce tankers, coal or papier mache dolls. If there is no longer any profit to be realised from your particular product, the owner of that industry will dispense with your mental and physical energies. You will in fact be unemployed although, in Britain, there is a tendency in the press to call it "redundant” rather than unemployed. However a garbage heap by any other name would still stink.

All commodities today are produced for profit — no profit. . . . no production. . . . no work. It is an undeniable fact, difficult as it may be to realise, that goods are not produced for use; coal is not mined in order that your house may be warm, clothing is not tailored to be worn nor are houses built to be lived in.

Recently miners in Scotland have become unemployed because, as officials of the National Coal Board assure us, there is too much coal; but go into any house in Scotland and ask if there is too much coal and you will receive dark looks from the inhabitants who will in all likelihood be huddled around a pathetic fire which could well do with some of this surplus coal that is piling up. It is because we live in a society where production is carried on for profit that we have to endure such insane situations as thousands of people homeless, or ill housed, and an army of building tradesmen out of work.

The Glasgow housewife, with whose comment I started this article, will probably never read this but hundreds who have the same fear of the insecurity of modern society will and it is to them that I say, let us, the working class, the only people of any consequence, get to the cause of this insecurity and by our understanding change society from Capitalism to Socialism where the good things of life will not be produced for profit but for use. For then, and only then, fellow workers, will such a plight as can be described as " . . . worse than a death in the hoose” be a part of man’s prehistoric past.

Dick Donnelly 

Glasgow Kelvingrove Branch

From 

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/03/scotland-bereaved-1959.html

TOWARDS THE REVOLUTION

Though it is subject to recurring crises and to progressive degeneration, capitalism will not collapse. It must be overthrown. Political power must be captured by the working class. Though workers are in constant conflict with capitalist social relations, the resulting struggles are generally fought out on capitalist grounds. Class organisation and class consciousness of a sort does develop on this terrain, but it is contained within the fight for "better terms in the sale of labour power", and better conditions for the reproduction of the working population. Capitalism retains sufficient elasticity and resiliency through a mixture of concessions, diversions, and repressions, the ability of to survive a whole range of struggles. The capitalist media is constantly implementing campaigns to undermine, divert, divide, isolate, and repress any potential revolutionary opposition. The day-to-day struggles of the workers against the capitalists do not develop to the point where the class is sufficiently organised and conscious to undertake the revolutionary reconstruction of society. From this it is clear that the struggle for a socialist revolution is not, 'inherent' in the spontaneous class struggle. The crisis of capitalism is not confronted by a unified and determined anti-capitalist opposition. The working class, which must provide the base of this opposition, is so split. Despite the growing crisis and the heightened level of mass struggle, the great bulk of the people are still under the sway of capitalist ideology. Certainly, it is becoming less common to find workers embracing the mythology of capitalism. For sure, a general disaffection affects the entire working class but a rejection of the capitalist culture is rarely linked to a clear positive alternative worldview.  Though there has been a tremendous growth in the numbers of those who are alienated from major features of capitalist culture, few have sufficiently escaped from capitalist ideological domination to be able to see the practicability of an alternative society.

In more and more spheres, the conflict is increasing between priorities dictated by capitalist profit and capitalist property and the popular needs and potentials created by economic and technological development. Organising the workers as a class is not a matter of coercing and cajoling them into 'doing the right thing'. It is a process, fundamentally of developing individuals and collectives that are able to work critically and self-consciously — that are able to set their own goals and work out their own projects for achieving them. Of course, it is just this kind of experience which makes workers aware of their own potentials, and turns socialism from an abstraction into a real and attainable goal. The primary role of the Socialist Party is to discover and articulate the patterns of thought, action, and organisation which embody the potential of workers to make a revolution. The work of the party involves linking these fragmentary autonomous elements and socialising them into a new culture of struggle. This means that the party must emphasise and develop those forms of struggle which show workers the possibility of relying on their own collective solidarity and strength, not on capitalist legality and bureaucratic procedures.  Our perspective aims at the development of an anti-capitalist movement as the engine for the transformation of the reform struggle into a revolutionary movement.

The rule of capital isn't exercised only, or even mainly through the use of overt economic, political, and military power by the capitalist class. It is manifested as well in the capitalist domination of the institutions and organisations which socialise individuals and groups and relate them to each other; not only the factory and the government, but also the schools, the churches, the mass media, the family, the political, fraternal, labour, nationality, social, and recreational organisation. How many times have we heard workers say that, 'socialism is a good idea but it wouldn't work because people are basically selfish (or lazy, or dumb, etc.)'. In the capitalist conception of the world, there is no sense in which 'communism' is a good idea, while the notion that man is inherently selfish is a pillar of capitalist common sense. Through these forms, essential capitalist notions of what is right good and proper are transformed into material forces on the lives of working people. It’s no longer about voting for a lesser evil. It’s about the politics we need for human survival.

We are socialists out of conviction because we see capitalism as harmful to the vast majority of our own and the world’s people. This system we live under, by its very nature, grinds the poor and working people, sets one group against another, and acts violently against people at home and around the world when they resist. We see in socialism the means of achieving a more just, more cooperative and more peaceful society. Are we helping the socialist movement to grow? There is a need for sharing our experiences and knowledge. This process of can only be done collectively, because we need the abilities of many people to overcome our individual deficiencies. We need a broad organisation that can can coordinate activities, consolidate gains, and recruit and involve new people productively. if our work is thorough and well-done, the Socialist Party will inspire confidence among working people and win them over. The Socialist Party offers an alternative which can meet basic needs of people and which is based on cooperation and general, productive and fulfilling lives. Socialism offers a future free from the fears of poverty, sexism, racism, dog-eat-dog competition, joblessness, and the loneliness. As our movement grows, we will be nearer to creating a society that allows each person to create and produce according to her or his ability and to obtain what she or he needs. We advocate and work for socialism–that is, working class ownership and collective control of the means of production (factories, fields, utilities, etc.) and government. We want a system based on cooperation, where the people build together for the common good.

To build a socialist organisation requires that we distinguish between essential and deferred questions. Without unity on essentials, no serious practice is possible. The principles of unity of the organisation are the essential questions upon which there is no basis for disagreement and are the basis for strategic decision-making, and for deciding on priorities. Deferred questions are those secondary to the main task at a given time. Such questions may become important in a future period but until answers become crucial, there is room for differences of opinion within the organisation. People are our most precious resource.

It’s Up to All of Us

The Socialist Party wishes there was a much greater demand for socialism but the reality is there isn’t. What the capitalist system needs to conceal is exactly what we need to reveal.

We have made it quite clear that our exact aim and object is socialism and that we are socialists advocating the common ownership of all wealth production, and this involves the complete end of the capitalist system. We are working for the common good making every effort to create the co-operative commonwealth. The Socialist Party seeks not only a society in which people’s needs are provided for by an abundance of goods and better social services, but in which their full skills and talents can be fully developed. Changing the economic system is not an end in itself. It is a means of creating conditions in which human beings will be able to realise their full potentialities and work together for the common good, instead of being divided by class, sex, race or creed. Capitalism distorts human individuality, subordinates men and women to the needs of the profit system, sets them against each other. The democratic and humanitarian pretensions of the capitalist system are being constantly discredited.

Socialism aims to develop their individuality by creating a society in which exploitation and poverty are ended, and the resources of science and technology used to reduce the time spent in monotonous and mechanical jobs to a minimum, and vastly increase the amount devoted to leisure and creative work. Socialism is not a society in which the state and the government regiments the people. It is the people themselves who have to build socialism and be responsible for the development of society based on co-operation instead of domination and exploitation. In socialism the means of production would be owned in common, all the wealth they produced would be available for the use of the people as a whole, including that part of it which the capitalists now take as their private profit. Moreover, the removal of the fetters on production imposed by capitalist crisis would be removed, and the production of wealth greatly increased. Socialism would be able to meet the social needs of the people and improve the quality of life. People have everything to gain in this universal liberation struggle. The Socialist Party takes its place in the fight.

Workers cannot be organised in secret, conspiratorial organisations. They can be organised only in free and open associations. Democracy is indissolubly bound up with Socialism both a means to an end and as integral part of the final goal. We in the Socialist Party believes in real democracy, in rule by the majority with proper consideration for the interests of minorities. We believe in social democracy which is the broadest and most fair of all democracies. The Social Party declares its object to be the establishment of a system of cooperative production and distribution whereby all the means of production and distribution, to be administered by organised society in the interest of the whole people, and the complete emancipation of society from the domination of capitalism. The capitalists have failed to solve the climate question. They are unable to challenge the accumulation of capital that is the driving force this economic system. The change has to come from us the workers. We believe that workers all over the world, no matter what their nationality, have common problems and common bonds. We have common interests with the workers of other lands against the common enemy. We rejoice when we learn that the workers of other countries have had victories which improve their standard of living or widen their liberties, we sympathise with them in their defeats. We wish to spread this spirit of international working-class solidarity to introduce a system of society where industries are run not for profit but for the good of humanity. 

Socialism will not only guarantee a more equitable distribution of the world’s goods but an enormous increase in the production of all that is necessary to make mankind happy. Capitalism is a wasteful, unscientific system which operates not on the basis of producing what is good for the people, but only what shows the biggest profit. Great inventions are held back or even destroyed because they would affect the profits of the capitalists, while millions of pounds are spent every year to convince people to buy what they don’t want. So once the shackles of private profit-making are removed our world will march ahead to unheard of production of goods and people’s talents, and this will provide plenty of everything for everyone, a society where each will contribute to the common wealth of society according to ability and will receive all needs without any limit. The Socialist Party is working for such a society but there are not enough of us yet to make the progress which the welfare of the workers’ demands. What about joining us? Why not become part of that Party which is working, organising and fighting for you? You will he fighting for your future as well as the future of your family, workmates and neighbours, for your community and mankind.

“We have been naught, we shall be all!”

Working-class unity is the perennial goal of socialists. Unity and solidarity have to be made explicit goals. The Socialist Party affirms its commitment to the principle of internationalism and working-class solidarity the world over, and proclaims its unalterable opposition to war. Modern wars as a rule have been caused by the commercial and financial rivalry and intrigues of the capitalist interests in the different countries. Whether they have been frankly waged as wars of aggression or have been hypocritically represented as wars of “defence” or “humanitarian” interventions they have always been made by the ruling classes and fought by the masses. Wars bring wealth and power to the capitalists, and suffering and death to the workers. They sever the vital bonds of solidarity between their brothers and sisters in other countries. The Socialist Party is unalterably opposed to the system of exploitation and class rule. Our fellow-workers are in ever increasing numbers becoming interested in radical solutions for their problem. The Socialist Party will agitate against against every illusory idea and all half-baked panaceas; against every form and manifestation of prejudice and against nationalism. Our class interest is one with that of the workers of all lands.

In a socialist society, the labour-power of individuals is placed under the management of society, in some manner or another, so the labour that is the expenditure of this labour-power is directly social labour, having a social character from the outset. From a socialist perspective, capitalism is the co-operation of the many for the profit of the few. We observe that the capital invested in modern industry is owned by private individuals, called capitalists, and is used by them to exploit labour primarily for their own private profit. Capitalism is wage slavery, because it binds the workers through capitalist ownership to the control of the capitalist class. At the same time without the cooperation of millions of labourers modern industry, with its accompanying exploitation, would be impossible. The control is actually in the hands of only a few giant corporations and financiers who control lands, mineral ore deposits, oil fields, forests, pipe lines, transport companies, banks, etc. The capitalist class which controls industry is anxious to keep that control and the privileges that go with it. Hence, it strives to control all social institutions. It participates in the writing and administering of the laws. It seeks to control the content of schools, the media and all other means of molding public opinion. In addition, when it has found that it has been unable to prevent the organisation of labour in opposition to its interests, it has sought to control the organisations which have been formed. When unsuccessful in this, it has tried to create disharmony among them and to destroy them by playing one against the other. The Socialist Party emphasises that under the capitalistic system profits are first in importance, the common good, secondary. Therefore, capitalists do not hesitate to disregard the common welfare if it interferes with the accumulation of profits. They are not even above leading the workers to war, if by doing so there is a chance to enrich themselves or to solidify their control.

The Socialist Party believes that most social problems are caused by capitalist mismanagement and greed. We state that to this greed can be traced the need for foreign markets, world wars, race wars,  and discouragement of projects directed toward improving the welfare of the masses. However, the Socialist Party is more critical of the capitalistic system than of individuals who are capitalists. It doesn't propose to reform human beings. Instead, it intends to reform the economic system so that the common good rather than profits for those in control will be the goal. The Socialist Party contends that the solution of modern social problems and the establishment of better social relations requires the abolition of capitalism. Only those few who would lose their special privileges would be worse off, if capitalism were to be done away with. The rest of mankind would be much better off. The original job of the capitalist was to furnish funds and management. Now management is the job of a specially trained section of the class of hired hands, and funds are amply provided out of corporate profits. In other words, the system of corporate administration that capitalists have built up has made them superfluous. 

Shamocracy

For far too long discussion has been monopolised by the politics of the mundane - how and who will deliver either more or less of the same. It’s time for an explicitly case for socialism that exposes the limitations of capitalism and reveals the political, social and economic boundaries that capitalism imposes while  challenging its apologists on the Right and on the Left.  Socialism has meant many things to many people. How one defines socialism determines the politics of the matter. Ask someone what socialism means and you get various responses - it means government control, state ownership, regulations, deficit spending, economic intervention by government, redistribution of income, progressive taxation. It’s the welfare state, the mixed economy, or totalitarian state capitalism, the one-party command economy. It has been described the so-called “real existing socialism.” Some have concluded that the very meaning of socialism has been lost and it is quite unfashionable to even utter the dreaded ‘S’ word at all. Often when someone proclaims that he or she is “a socialist”, they have difficulty defining what that actually means other than they are for good job conditions, full employment, free health care, etc. In the past number of years there has been a great public and worldwide outcry against “predatory” “globalized” capitalism. The nature of much of this protest has been termed “anti-capitalist”, but being anti-capitalist or anti-capital does not make an individual or movement consciously socialist. The problem with such “socialisms” is that they all leave capitalism in place.

Perhaps the best way to begin defining socialism anew is to define what capitalism is. By understanding capitalism and how it works, we can come to a clearer understanding of what socialism should mean.

Capitalism is a system of capital creation and accumulation. Capital must not only be created, it must be necessarily accumulated and expanded (and unless accumulated to a great extent the system breaks down resulting in recession and economic crises).  The existence of capital presupposes two things - first, a working class which is divorced from, does not own the means of production. The only thing that workers really possess is their labour power, their ability to labour which they must sell for a wage or salary. Secondly, the existence of a class which owns or controls capital, which buys the labour power of the workers and uses it for the creation of surplus value, profit. Thus, capitalism is a class divided society. On the one hand those who own only their labour power, on the other hand those who own capital. On the one hand those who survive by selling their labour power, on the other hand those who gain their existence by living off the profit (surplus value) created by the other class.

The working class was essentially created. Peasants, serfs, farmers were driven off their lands, dispossessed of everything they owned, forced into the cities, forced to sell the only thing they had left - themselves, their ability to work. It was either that or starve. In essence, it was enforced wage slavery in which capitalists made use of the powers of the State (laws in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries were made to that end; the enclosures throughout England and Europe; the destruction of Scotland’s Highland clan system and the forced clearances of the 18th and 19th centuries; the forced dispossession and removal of the Irish peasantry; the imposition of an oppressive colonialist rule in what became known as the ‘Third World’; apartheid; the brutal industrialisation and collectivisation in the Soviet Union and China. The process continues to this day with the destruction of lands of indigenous peoples around the world). Marx was correct. Capitalism came into existence dripping with blood. The distinguishing feature of capitalism is not that capital/property is privately owned or that production is anarchic, that there is no planning. It is that labour is alienated, exploited. If the State, government intervenes into the system, it does not affect the fact that workers remain exploited. If the State nationalises property and eliminates private capitalists the State itself becomes the single capitalist, its bureaucracy the de facto owners of capital. Capitalism as the ‘system of capital’ remains unchanged.

The workers do not produce ‘goods’ for themselves. They do not use their mental and physical abilities as the essential, creative part of their own nature as human beings. They simply produce to the dictates of capital and the need for capital accumulation. They are told what to produce, how to produce it, how fast and under what conditions. 

The actual existence of capitalism as a ‘system of capital’ imposes limits to what that system can do. In the end, the system cannot work in a way that is detrimental to capital and all action within this system of capital (reforms, taxation, public works, health care, issues of the environment and ecology, etc.) are determined and restricted by the inevitable fact that capital must accumulate. To the consternation of many the inevitable fact remains that capitalism and capital cannot act uncapitalistically. The politics within capitalism is then a series of trade-offs for those who define themselves as part of the political Left. Environmentalists are limited to what industry must maintain as a healthy profit margin. Jobs versus environment becomes an issue. Health care workers see public funds frozen, diverted or cut back because the State “just doesn’t have the money”. The same said for education, child care, scientific research, artistic development, unemployment assistance, etc. Trade unionists end up as supporters of multinationals to maintain jobs against workers in other countries. Unemployed workers fight for jobs against hired workers. Activism reproduces itself as a non-ending activism (i.e., the endless fight for higher wages, better work conditions, societal reforms) in a system that simply cannot deliver. Capitalism not only limits what one can do it also divides people against each other in an acknowledged ‘Rat Race’ that lays the foundation for the politics of despair, racism, sexism, ethnic division as people compete for the crumbs offered.

Socialist politics means radical break from capitalism, then all the premises of capitalism (production for profit, buying and selling of commodities, etc.,) must be fundamentally challenged. Production to the dictates and needs of capital must be replaced by a system of production controlled by society and based on the satisfaction of real human need. Since the very existence of capital implies economic exploitation of a working class then capital itself has to be abolished. Property (the means of producing and distributing) is not to be nationalised. It is to be taken over by the community, the collective, by democratic control of society as a whole. The very real and observable antagonistic relationship between capital and labour can only be overcome by the abolition of capital (and thus the abolition of waged labour). The goal of a society where the individual as part of the collective is able to determine production and meet his or her needs - what we call socialism - is desirable, necessary and achievable. It is in every way ‘practical’. It is those who defend and work through the system of capitalism and expect a society fit for human beings are the ones who are the Utopians. Their ‘practicality’ cannot go beyond the limits of capital. Their proposed solutions to very real problems from joblessness to refugees, from hunger to environmental destruction, are bound up with this inevitable limit. In the end, a society in which people’s needs are met and the possibility of a full, creative life is simply impractical under capitalism. The politics of its ‘shamocracy’ becomes a game of the absurd where billionaires become Prime Ministers and Presidents.

Our Aim in the Socialist Party

The working class has always been inspired by one idea—the overthrow of capitalist society, built on slavery, exploitation and violence. In this struggle of labour against capital, the working class can win only by mustering all their forces against the common enemy. This is why for the working-class unity is imperative. There is but one power that can save mankind from being plunged into chaos and catastrophe. There is but one power which can defend the workers of all countries against political and economic oppression and tyranny. There is but one power which can bring freedom, welfare, happiness and peace to the working class and to humanity. That power is a well-organised and determined working class, ready to fight all who would oppose and prevent its emancipation. The Socialist Party exists to assist the class struggle and the destruction of capitalism. The Socialist Party’s aim is to encourage the democratic organisation and understanding necessary for the working class to achieve its own emancipation. We fight against the division of people into theorists and activists and leaders and led, within and outside the group. We seek to encourage the growth of the  socialist movement in other countries and to work with them towards the goal of world socialism.

Perhaps never as before has the bankruptcy of our social system been more widely recognised. Today we see the beginnings of a desire for change. Yet, today even the limited gains achieved by our fellow-workers are fast disappearing with regular attacks on peoples' living standards. It is not enough to bemoan this situation. We describe ourselves as revolutionaries not because we consider all reforms worthless and to be opposed, but simply because we think that most of the major problems afflicting working people are incapable of solution within the framework of present-day society. By reforms we mean changes in society, whether or not achieved by legislation, which leave the basic structure of capitalism intact. This society cannot be made to work against its fundamental nature by a straightforward accumulation of reforms. Islands of socialism cannot exist within an ocean of capitalism. Thus, although we may be involved in organisations, campaigns and experiments of a predominantly reformist nature, our activity is guided by a set of priorities different from that of the majority of participants.  Workers gained major reforms during capitalism's periods of expansion, precisely because these also helped in capitalism's own development and modernisation. Today, with each recession, even these basic reforms come under attack. Reforms of benefit to workers are not impossible now, but they are certainly hard to come by. The old merry-go-round offers less and less; revolution becomes more and more obviously the solution. As socialists and workers we participate in all the struggles of our class. We do so, not with any illusions. but in order to assist the class struggle. We do not seek to become leaders and manipulate workers. Workers in capitalist society struggle in many ways to assert their needs as human beings against the profit-making motives of capital, to defend their conditions of life and work, and to contest the total control over production and society exercised by the capitalist class. To make advances in these struggles, especially during a period of crisis, workers have to develop the capacity to organise in a democratic way, and unify struggles in different industries, areas, nations and aspects of life. 

The socialist aim is the democratically administered social affairs (education, health, design of the environment, planning), and the satisfaction of the real, self-determined needs of human beings, and the fullest possible development of individuals and society. Thus goods and services are produced solely and directly for use, instead of for profitable sale on the market as commodities. Useful work will be re-organised to gear technology to human needs by automation of boring and dangerous tasks, by making goods to last much longer than at present (ending built-in obsolescence) by eliminating wasteful packaging, by conserving energy, etc. As the working class abolishes all classes, including itself, and integrates their members into a single human community, the need for the State disappears. We see various bodies transcending the division between work and the rest of life, and co-ordinating by general assemblies, delegated congresses and councils at industry, area, region, continent and world level. The administrative organs will use whatever aids are available such as computer and statistical systems through which the community can plan, assess and monitor its needs and productive efforts, discuss and make decisions on social issues. Decisions about production will take into consideration peoples desires and needs as voluntary producers, as consumers and as residents, and short and long term environmental and social consequences. Different types of decision will be made and different types of activity co-ordinated at different levels, with the aim probably of arranging matters at the 'least central level consistent with the effective use of technology. For example, although broad energy policy may be decided at world level, the use of local energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal) could enable local communes to satisfy many of their own needs. The community will face enormous problems left by capitalism. It will have to co-operate with the inhabitants if the underdeveloped parts of the world to relieve their impoverishment as rapidly as possible, and enable them to participate fully in social administration. It will have to salvage and protect the ravaged natural environment, re-build the worlds' cities and integrate city and countryside. It will have to reconstruct transport and energy systems, and provide better facilities for children. Priorities will have to be set for concentrating resources on the most urgent problems first - for example, the first problem is to guarantee basic necessities to the whole world population. Although money becomes obsolete when socialism is established, democratically agreed rationing of some goods and services may be necessary for some time until free access to everything becomes possible. In socialism, people will be able to experiment with a great variety of ways of living, working and playing together, and society will develop in ways we cannot now foresee in detail.

Pensioners hit again

Thousands of Scotland’s poorest pensioners who are in a “mixed age couple” could stand to lose out on around £7000 a year when new UK Government changes to Pension Credit come into force in May.

Mixed age couples affected are those where one is below pension age and one is in receipt of a low state pension. Pension Credit tops up the state pension to £163 a week for a single person and £248.80 for a couple. The Universal Credit rate, which would be applicable for new mixed age couple applicants, is around £115 a week. The difference is around £7000 a year for those on the lowest incomes. The move was quietly announced through a Written Ministerial statement on a busy Brexit vote day in the UK Parliament in January. The new changes will go in effect on 15th May 2019.

Until now, mixed age couples will be able to choose whether they claim Pension Credit or working age benefits. However, from 15th May, a couple will have to wait until they both reach their State Pension Age in order to claim Pension Credit. Those who are not able to be on Pension Credit will also lose out on cold weather payments, housing benefit, Council Tax Reduction, social fund funeral payments and may not be entitled to the warm home discount.

Age Scotland’s Chief Executive, Brian Sloan said: “This outrageous new policy will have a devastating impact to Scotland’s poorest pensioners and will make older couples of mixed age poorer for living together. When the move was announced the UK Government did not know how many people it would impact. Weeks later it emerged that it would impact 15,000 people in 2019/20, 30,000 the following year and 40,000 the year after that, but still no official assessment for Scotland. We estimate that at least 1500 of the poorest pensioners in Scotland will be hit next year and double that the following year. It’s not acceptable. The health of Scotland’s most vulnerable pensioners will be harmed as they struggle to pay bills and heat their homes all because of an out-of-touch policy. Right now, four in ten pensioner couples have difficulty paying their fuel bills and 38% of people over the age of 50 are financially squeezed. Pension credit is massively underclaimed and can help older people out of pensioner poverty which affects around 170,000 in Scotland. 

The change does not affect existing recipients or those who submit a claim up to 14 May 2019. The change is not restricted to Scotland.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poorest-scots-pensioners-face-devastating-7000-a-year-blow-1-4885525