The money trick revisited

3 02 2011

Today marks the centenary of the death of Robert Tressell, whose book The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists has for decades been an inspiration for the Left.  One of the very few authentic working-class voices from an era that is now more likely to be associated with costume dramas and the perceived opulence of the pre-war wealthy, it contains a classic passage in which the principal character, Owen, describes what has become known as The Great Money Trick, a passage worth quoting at length:

“Money is the real cause of poverty,” said Owen.

“Prove it,” repeated Crass.

“Money is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits of their labour.”

“Prove it,” said Crass.

Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and put it in his pocket.

“All right,” he replied. “I’ll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked.”

Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread, but as these where not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left should give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives of Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed them as follows:

“These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun.”

“Now,” continued Owen, “I am a capitalist; or rather I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the landlord and capitalist class. I am that class; all these raw materials belong to me.”

“Now you three represent the working class. You have nothing, and, for my part, although I have these raw materials, they are of no use to me. What I need is the things that can be made out of these raw materials by work; but I am too lazy to work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins” – taking three half pennies from his pocket – “represent my money, capital.”

“But before we go any further,” said Owen, interrupting himself, “it is important to remember that I am not supposed to be merely a capitalist. I represent the whole capitalist class. You are not supposed to be just three workers, you represent the whole working class.”

Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.

“These represent the things which are produced by labor, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent a week’s work. We will suppose that a week’s work is worth one pound.”

Owen now addressed himself to the working class as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.

“You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in various industries, so as to give you plenty of work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week’s work is that you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week’s work, you shall have your money.”

The working classes accordingly set to work, and the capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.

“These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can’t live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is one pound each.”

As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the capitalist’s terms. They each bought back, and at once consumed, one-third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week’s work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of things produced by the labor of others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound’s worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they had started work – they had nothing.

This process was repeated several times; for each weeks work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pool of wealth continually increased. In a little while, reckoning the little squares at their market value of one pound each, he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended on it.

After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound’s worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools, the machinery of production, the knives, away from them, and informed them that as owing to over production all his store-houses were
glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.

“Well, and wot the bloody ‘ell are we to do now ?” demanded Philpot.

“That’s not my business,” replied the kind-hearted capitalist. “I’ve paid your wages, and provided you with plenty of work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at the present. Come round again in a few months time and I’ll see what I can do.”

“But what about the necessaries of life?” Demanded Harlow. “we must have something to eat.”

“Of course you must,” replied the capitalist, affably; “and I shall be very pleased to sell  you some.” “But we ain’t got no bloody money!”

“Well, you cant expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn’t work for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!”

The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast.

It’s in some respects a crude analogy, but it has a power and truth that resonate down the ages.

The Great Banker Trick

Today things have moved on.  Our modern Owen – let’s say, a librarian or a health-care worker faced with redundancy thanks to the Con Dem coalition – would describe something very difficult.  For a start, the capitalist would be a manipulator of debt too.  He’d happily lend the money to buy the essentials of life, because he has learned that the illusion of affluence built on credit and debt is a powerful tool to compel economic compliance. But since the workers are poor he would do so at usurious rates of interest against their next payday.

And, more significantly, he’d be explaining how he increased his wealth, not by investing in productive capacity but by speculating and gambling on the markets in which market was exhanged, or by buying raw materials and stockpiling them, creating shortages and therefore bidding up prices; or by developing huge, elaborate edifices of debt and lending.  And, once the fact that they were built on air was exposed, and the edifice collapsed around them, they would convince governments that they needed to be bailed out, with the taxes of the people who worked productively.  And then he would show how he would require that to pay for this bailout the decencies of life provided by taxes were unaffordable, and the people delivering them were doing non-jobs.  But he’d continue to pay himself, and just as Tressell’s Mugsborough had its comic pompous mayor, Londoners would have their own ponderous comedian saying that we had to grant even more tax privileges to the failed bankers to avoid their running away and failing to make their great contribution to their city’s wealth, even though that contribution is illusory.

And, just as in Tressell’s day, the power of capital was maintained by churchmen, brewers, and rentiers donating to charity while deciding who was deserving, the bankers’ friends in Government would reinvent themselves as makers of popular culture, advocates of the big society, floppy-haired Etonians with a sense of entitlement that they knew best.

And a future generation might, just might, realise the abject irrationality of what was being done, the damage and the waste.





Cruelty, ignorance and George Osborne’s useful idiots

21 10 2010

There’s plenty of virtual ink being used across the blogosphere to describe the enormity of what the Coalition announced in yesterday’s Spending Review, and I’m a bit loath to add to it. None of it is likely to match the eloquence of this superb piece by Johann Hari in the Independent.

He gets to the heart of the matter here:

It can’t be coincidental that this is being done to us by three men – Cameron, Osborne, and Nick Clegg – who have never worried about a bill in their lives. On a basic level, they do not understand the effects of these decisions on real people. Remember, Cameron said before the election: “The papers keep writing that [my wife, Samantha] comes from a very blue-blooded background”, but “she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school.” Osborne is a beneficiary of a £4m trust fund he did nothing whatsoever to earn and which is stashed offshore to avoid tax. Clegg actually thought the state pension was £30 a week, a level that would kill pensioners.

These attitudes have real consequences. We’re not in this together. Who isn’t in it with us? Them, their friends, and their families. They were asked to pay nothing more in this CSR. On the contrary: they are being let off left, right and centre. To pluck a random example, one of the richest corporations in Britain, Vodafone, had an outstanding tax bill of £6bn – but Osborne simply cancelled it this year. If he had made them pay, he could have prevented nearly all the cuts to all the welfare recipients in Britain. You try refusing to pay your taxes next time, and see if George Osborne shows the same generosity to you as he does to the super-rich.

There is one stark symbol of how unjust the response to this economic disaster caused by bankers is. They have just paid themselves £7bn in bonuses – much of it our money – to reward themselves for failure. That’s the same sum Osborne took from the benefits of the British poor yesterday, who did nothing to cause this crash. And he has the chutzpah to brag about “fairness.”

Britain just became a colder and crueller country. And for what? To pantingly follow a disproven ideology over a cliff. On the eve of the general election, Cameron told us: “There’ll be no cuts to frontline services,” “we’re not talking about swingeing cuts,” and “all cuts will be fair”. Is it possible to call him anything but a liar and an ideologue today?

You can enjoy a long rest, Baroness Thatcher – your successors have embarked on a mephedrone-charged imitation that exceeds your most fantastical dreams.

And of course there’s a whole second wave of cuts – the ones that will really hit the vulnerable – when the huge cuts to local government funding take effect.

But there is a hugely important secondary issue here about the role of the Liberal Democrats. It’s not just that they’ve acquiesced fully and totally in this – Nick Clegg has described them as “fair”. Because there is a coalition, it’s that much easier for the Tories to make sonorous statements about the national interest. It’s pure ideology, of course, but the coalition gives the cover needed to promulgate the lie that we’re all in this together. Can anyone imagine Osborne being so brazen, so aggressive, so cruel without a cadre of middle-aged empty-headed men in yellow ties nodding like the dog in the Churchill car commercials?

The CSR is the Tories’ triumph. This is what Tories are in politics for, and it’s what they do. It’s also the Liberal Democrats’ moment of abject shame.





Always with us?

21 05 2010

Sometimes the most interesting news stories are hidden away in the odd recesses of newspapers, especially when they sit uneasily with conventional narratives

This story from today’s Guardian seems to me to fit into that category – it points out that poverty in Britain is on the increase among those in work as well as those out of it; partly because the recession has meant more part-time working, but also implying that even with Labour’s minimum wage it is becoming increasingly difficult for those in work to survive financially.

And I think there’s a much bigger story here – one to which I aim to return in future posts.  There is a lot of rhetoric about economic growth and high living standards, and how progress has been made in recent years; but I believe there is considerable evidence to suggest that more than thirty years of free market economics has had precisely the opposite effect.  Not only has the gap between rich and poor got larger, but most people, on middle as well as low incomes, have in real terms got poorer.  The presence of a lot of shiny toys – TVs with larger, flatter screens, holidays in increasingly remote places – hides the fact that many of the essentials of life have become more difficult for an increasing proportion of people to obtain.

The most obvious one is housing.  Quite how massive house price inflation can be seen as a symptom of wealth completely beats me.  In precisely what way can a vast increase in the price of the most basic commodity of life – a roof over one’s head – be a sign of prosperity?  How can the increasingly desperate struggle of many people to find decent housing possibly be something that should be regarded as a good thing?

Of course, those people who already own houses have seen their assets increase on paper, but the difficulties for those looking to buy a family home for the first time are obvious.  It’s a huge form of redistribution from the young and poor to the old and rich, in other words towards the people for whom the media in general look to cater.

But there are other things too – what in the 1970s used to be described as the social wage.  Pensions, for example – increasing numbers of people find their pension provision being gambled away by the city, or diminished by corporate pension holidays.  Education – it’s  not so long since higher education was free, and now Government is preparing to allow British universities to start charging fees of Ivy League proportions, without the generously-endowed scholarships of the American elite universities.  The cost of travel for those who do not own a car has soared; for the privileged car owners (and it’s worth remembering that a third of the population has no access to a car), it has fallen.

I could go on,  There are innumerable examples of ways in which for the average individual, life has become more expensive, more uncertain, less secure.

And to return to the Guardian article, there’s a message that Government is missing.  We hear quite a lot from politicians about getting people into work as the way out of poverty.  We’re going to hear quite a lot more, I’d guess, from our new Government about the workshy on benefits.  But the research quoted in this piece shows that this rhetoric doesn’t survive scrutiny.  At a stroke it rewrites market ideology, and demonstrates poverty is far more pervasive than politicians of all parties are prepared to admit.  Low-paid jobs are the key to poverty, not unemployment.  Outsourcing, privatisation, the decline of trade unionism, the pathologising of solidarity.  That’s where the blame lies.

Where is the politician who is campaigning to change this?








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers