So They Say: Heads or Tails? (1977)

The So They Say column from the November 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Heads or Tails?

The Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Benn, is quite a revolutionary—or so he would have us believe. He has been looking at the position in which the government find themselves and has discovered that the Chancellor faces a “dilemma.” The Chancellor does not stand alone, however; alongside him are the entire Labour government including Mr. Benn. The dilemma they face is a fundamental one, and Mr. Benn will no doubt receive a great deal of praise from his colleagues for mentioning it.

Socialists, as opposed to Labourites, have always taken care to point out that the means of wealth production and distribution are owned and controlled by a minority in capitalist society. This minority have interests which are opposed to those of the majority who must work for a wage in order to live.

The Labour Party, along with the other major political parties, is not unaware of the class division between owners and non-owners, but they put forward the view that the opposing interests can in some way be reconciled while retaining the existing basis. It should come as no surprise to Benn, then, to discover they face a dilemma—their entire approach is founded on a contradiction.

If any Labour Chancellor ever chose to reflate to bring down unemployment and the balance of payments went into deficit, investors would lose confidence and the country’s financial security would be in peril. If, on the other hand, the Chancellor held down public spending to create financial security and production fell, there would be a loss of jobs, investment would cease and unemployment would rise even higher.

The Times, 4th October 77

Send him victorious

Ministers do not usually make it so clear that whichever government policy is adopted the result will be a mess; it must be a new sort of election pledge. But Benn seems to think he can stand back from the dilemma as if it is nothing at all to do with him. He wants a structural change in society: no more should decisions be governed by “market forces, the monopoly of the banks and by big business monopolies.” What then does he propose?

There was no need for the people of Britain to live forever without hope of escape from either mass unemployment or inflation. To implement the policies needed for this structural change, he added, the Government must get it across that what was needed was an overall majority in Parliament.

Simple isn’t it? Three hundred or so Labour MPs could go about their business of running capitalism and at the first sign of “market forces” rearing their ugly head, Benn and his colleagues could pass legislation to their hearts content outlawing them all.

China and Marx

A palimpsest is a parchment on which the original writing was rubbed out and something else written in its place. Scholars find them among mediaeval manuscripts, but they are produced in profusion in modern times. On 29th September a Guardian editorial gave the following information.

The official newspaper in Peking, the People’s Daily, has been taking a closer look at what Karl Marx really meant rather than simply at what he said. It has proved a fruitful exercise. Marx’s own words, in a critical essay published in 1875, were "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen." This has generally been taken to mean “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. . . The small but possibly crucial change is to substitute the notion of work for the notion of need. “To each according to his work is by origin a Socialist principle”, the People’s Daily says, “and belongs to the Socialist economic system . . . Let us firmly implement the Socialist principle of ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his work'.” Those who work harder should earn more: all else is “idealism run wild and metaphysics rampant”.

The Guardian goes on to make some snide suggestions for other alterations to Marx’s well-known phrases, implying that this is what you get in Communist countries. So it is, of course: in fact the change of wording brought forward by the People's Daily was made many years ago in Russia. What the Guardian failed to point out is that “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work” is simply the law of capitalism: with the Guardian’s full support, it has long operated here.

Change of View

The monopoly of credit, to borrow one of Major Douglas’s phrases, for throwing bricks at the National Front march in Lewisham on 13th August has been claimed by the Socialist Workers’ Party. The September issue of Grassroots Black Community News had a two-page illustrated article on the affair that gave a surprisingly different version.

The writer, Dilip Khan, said he noticed the absence of newspaper sellers (“I mean the lefty ones”) and “the number of Black youth making their way to the arena.”

The people had really come to fight . . . I have expected to hear Tariq Ali’s Oxford accent when instead up popped General Darcus Howe on top of the public toilet with a microphone in his hand. The crowd however was in no mood for speeches . . .

The article describes how when the march came along “the scene exploded with bricks, sticks, pink flour bombs, tiles, slates, being hurled on the Front and Babylon [the police] alike”. It ends:

I made my way back to New Cross tired but happy. Happy at the tremendous fight put up by Black youth. Happy to see local white youths or rather children passing bricks along to the brothers and pleased to see that for once the long hair, dirty jean lefty brigade stopped intellectualizing and analysing began to act.

I am sure the NF will have to think twice before displaying similar imprudence in a Black area. The youth and more and more older Black people have shown that they are prepared to come out and stone these racist vermin back into their holes.

So were the SWP the vanguard—or, as in the above version, half-despised accessories?

Alan D'Arcy

Blogger's Note:

The September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard carried an article on 'The Battle of Lewisham' by Robert Barltrop.

So They Say: Saving Grace (1976)

The So They Say Column from the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Saving Grace

Readers will have noticed the Prime Minister’s decree about high unemployment: “Quite simply and unequivocally it is caused by paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce.” We had been under the impression that it is caused when the owners of capital no longer find it profitable to employ workers in such great numbers. Some people seem to have taken his judgment personally. One who has volunteered for a degree of “self-sacrifice” is Mr. Horace Cutler, Conservative leader to the Greater London Council. He has made a “Save Britain” gesture (his term) — putting his money where his mouth is, and is giving up his £10 a day councillor’s allowance.

Considering the size of the governments debts, they could do with quite a few more of Mr. Cutler’s calibre, although his generous action will last for only one year “because he did not want to create an awkward precedent for other Tory leaders”. However, the government should not count the benefits too hastily.

How ridiculous for the GLC to pay me £2,700 of which I get only 12½ per cent [after tax]. All it means is that the ratepayers are pouring money into the State coffers. I just do not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should get their money.

London Evening Standard, 5th October ’76

Pouring it into Mr. Cutler’s pockets he regards as fair enough no doubt, but that’s another thing. But before readers feel impelled to initiate a "Save Mr. Cutler fund” they will take into consideration that 12½ per cent of £2,700 is in the region of £350. Mr. Cutler draws £20,000 a year as managing director of various property and finance companies. Thus we learn why he wants “Britain” saved.

Capital Fellows

Mr. Callaghan informed the Labour Party Conference that he “did not become a member of our party even less its leader, to propound shallow analyses and false remedies for the fundamental economic and social problems”, which as the phrase goes, takes away all his best punches. However it became clear that intentions are to fall short of the performance. His proposition to deal with the social problems of capitalist society seems to be bending the knee to capital’s requirements.

When I say that they [industries] must have sufficient funds, I mean that they must be able to earn a surplus — that is a euphemism for saying that they must be able to make a profit. Whether it was called surplus or profit, it was necessary for a healthy industrial system whether in a socialist economy, a mixed economy or a capitalist economy.

London Evening Standard, 28th September ’76

Confirmation that all three, in Mr. Callaghan’s mind, are the same thing. The fundamental sameness of Labour and Conservative was made even clearer when Lord Thorneycroft, the Conservative Party Chairman, remarked that Callaghan had made “a brave speech.” Mrs. Thatcher conceded that he “seems to be saying much the same thing” as she was. Which goes to show that, when it comes to running capitalism, great minds can tinker alike.

Scum Clearance

The anti-pollution supporters may take heart from the development of electroflotation. This, essentially, involves the passing of a low electric current through “dirty” water which splits the hydrogen and oxygen elements, forming gas bubbles. These help to bring foreign particles in the water to the surface. Once there, the particles of scum can be made to cling together chemically, then scooped off or collected in special fibrous materials designed to attract them. ICI are marketing the process in Britain, and approach potential users with more than the welfare of the environment in mind.

It has taken two baking summers for us to appreciate that we have been undervaluing water, and that there is a strong case for treating it with a respect more usually reserved for the metallic minerals.

Daily Telegraph, 4th October ’76

Therefore the strength of the case is an economic one, and some industries may find it worthwhile from two angles. Firstly polluted water (the industries themselves cause this) becomes re-useable, and secondly the extracted pollutants may have value.

A road tanker firm which carries cooking oil, and whose tankers have to be cleaned after every load has been using the flotation technique to clean up the washing water. As a bonus the firm has succeeded in reclaiming about 30 tons of vegetable oil a month with a commercial value of about £6,500.

Astounding to think that this sort of wealth was simply being pumped away into the rivers, the seas and other unimportant places, until someone realised that there was money in it.

Stand-by Flight

Figures popularly given at the time of the death of Mr. Howard Hughes concerning his assets, appear to have been slightly inaccurate. On the 29th of September the Daily Telegraph made the discovery of a plane owned by Hughes which cost £1m. in 1971. He had kept the plane secretly in a hangar in Cheshire, and it had been ready for take-off over the last five years. Over that period it had logged only five hours flying time — presumably on routine test flights. Hughes had never used it.

Pleading Ignorance

Politicians at home seem more than willing to give all manner of explanations for inflation; have treasury officials been instructed to play possum while abroad? Sir Douglas Wass, permanent secretary to the Treasury, was recently in Manila applying to the International Monetary Fund for a loan on behalf of the government, when he remarked:

Inflation does not have a unique cause and none of us can claim to understand the casual mechanism.

London Evening Standard, 5th October ’76

In spite of his rank it seems that the government must have been keeping something from him. It is they, after all, who have been printing what Mr. Healey and Mr. Callaghan now refer to as “confetti money”.

Alan D'Arcy

So They Say: Revolutionary Prophet (1976)

The So They Say Column from the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Revolutionary Prophet

It had to come. The logical counter to revolutionary Socialism has been launched—“revolutionary capitalism.” Its arrival in Britain was announced by Dr. Khalil Osman Mahmoud who styles himself the most successful private industrialist in the Middle East. In spite of the “revolutionary” label, he affectionately retains certain features of what we suppose must now be called old-fashioned capitalism. For example he made the announcement "from the headquarters of his company, Gulf International, above Christian Dior’s plush London establishment in the heart of Mayfair.” As a partner in Gulf International, he, and his “revolutionary” associates, decided some years ago to enlarge the empire and contacted the equally "revolutionary” Lonrho Group. Readers will recall that so revolutionary was this company that a Conservative Prime Minister (Mr. Heath), described certain of its practices as representing “the unacceptable face of capitalism,” however, that is one of the prices of success. The link was made with the Lonrho chief, Tiny Rowland after certain basic facts had been established.

We smelled this was a man who could produce. We watched him for three years before we did a single deal with him. Now we never stop buying Lonrho shares—34m. at last count.

Sunday Times, 15th August 76

At the beginning of September, Lonrho industrial shares were quoted on the stock market at 64p each which would value the shareholding in the region of £22m. The uninitiated may be excused for thinking that Dr. Osman—who incidentally is now a Lonrho director—is just an old-fashioned capitalist after all. Where does the revolution come in?

That Certain Smile

Oh, but it does. Following Lonrho’s acquisition of the bankrupt Brentford Nylon Group, Dr. Osman underwent a unique experience and visited the newly completed Newcastle nylon factory. He expanded on the object of his trip:

To bridge the gap between workers and management from the start and to show “revolutionary capitalism” in practice. Dr. Osman’s first visit was to the union office. “I had the day of my life. I met the workers and managers. It was the first time I had met the working people of Britain. I said to them Let us all pray for the man who built this factory but could not complete it.”

It seems sincerity pays off in the end. After prayers for the dearly departed, some philosophy.

“A businessman lives to get pleasure from the smile of his working people. I got it that day in Newcastle. I went back to London and next day I met with my colleagues. I told them, we can do lots more with this factory and with people like this. If a businessman is not interested in that smile, if he goes off and spends his time on the Riviera, he’s finished.”

This is something new: Up to now the owners have lived to get surplus value from their workers. Clearly the £22m. which Osman has so far accumulated off the backs of his workers has been more by accident than design. These workers may have been smiling, the owners are positively rubbing their hands together.

Busy Doing Nothing

An American professor of neurological surgery and psychology recently concluded after a year’s research that the size of a woman’s bust influences her chances of getting lifts while hitchhiking. Fascinating stuff, and more could be on the way. Messrs. Heidrick and Struggles, an American “headhunting” company is about to conduct a survey among selected British public companies to learn how part-time (sleeping) directors got on to their particular boards, and what work they do in the boardroom to earn their fees. One City editor expressed approval of the scheme, but felt that there may be some reluctance on the part of those surveyed.

Whether the part-timers are ready to answer such questions is another matter. A good many of the questionnaires sent out by Heidrick and Struggles will, I suspect, end up in the boardroom waste paper baskets.

London Evening Standard, 31st August 76

That makes sense at least. We could have told them that these chaps are far too busy doing other things, to bother with silly questionnaires—and about work of all things!

Party Tricks

It was hard to tell if the writer of the following letter, published in the Daily Telegraph on 28th August, did not have her tongue in her cheek. She directed some stinging facts against the “lefties.”

After reading your editorial comment about Mr. Auberon Waugh and the perpetuation of the “Tory twits” myth (Aug. 25), I feel it is a pity that it is not better known that by far the greater number of members of Mensa (the high IQ society) lean politically to the Conservatives. This also holds true of members of other countries, and in fact it seems the higher a person’s intelligence the more likely is he to hold so-called "Right-wing” views.

What has escaped her attention is that IQ tests examine the individual’s ability to do IQ tests—she refers to intelligence which is something else. However it matters not a jot whether “Tory twits” are better at such tests than “Labour loonies”. Both groups are ignorant, or profess to be, of the need for the working class internationally to take control of the means of wealth production and distribution. While Mensa’s members may “lean” in every direction but the right one, this should not dissuade members of the working class from doing some thinking on their own account.

Allies in Wonderland

The London Evening Standard of 31st August reported the comments of Joseph Kraft “one of Washington’s most widely read syndicated columnists” who described Ford’s opponent, Carter, as “inexperienced, even naive” in matters of foreign policy. Carter is “an amateur who treats foreign affairs as a kind of wonderland.” Telling points no doubt, until it is recalled that even Presidents have suffered from similar deficiencies. When the pound was ‘floated’ in 1972, the matter was brought to President Nixon’s attention.

Mr. Haldeman offered the President a report from one of his economic advisers outlining the effect of the British float on the world monetary system. Mr. Nixon brushed it aside saying: ‘It’s too complicated for me to get into.' Haldeman said that Dr. Arthur Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, expected the British move to result in a five per cent devaluation of sterling against the dollar.

The President: ‘Yeah. OK. Fine.’

Haldeman: Burns is concerned about speculation about the lira.

The President: ‘Well I don’t give a (expletive deleted) about the lira (unintelligible).’

The discussion turned briefly to legislative matters before the President asked Haldeman: ‘OK. What else have you got that’s amusing today?’ 

Transcript of White House tape recording of June 23rd, 1972. Reported in the Daily Telegraph.

Nixon of course could argue that he was far too involved in fooling the American people over his part in a burglary to pay much attention. Carter’s line of defence is clear therefore—he must tell his critics that he is far too involved in fooling Americans that he can make capitalism work.

Goldwater on Democracy

Following Gerald Ford’s success in obtaining the Republican Party’s nomination for presidential candidate, the Daily Mail of 20th August carried a centre page spread on the forthcoming us election. The headline read “Now every punch a dirty one” and the article predicts that the respective camps will be taking part in “a raucous and possibly unedifying campaign.” If the words of Senator Barry Goldwater are anything to go by, the Mail has understated it. Ford’s running mate, Robert Dole, caught his attention :

Senator Barry Goldwater, no pansy himself, says admiringly of Dole: “Thank God we finally have someone who will grab the other side by the hair and drag them down the hill.”

And having done so, will then declare himself for freedom, fair play and law and order.

Getting the Priorities Right

The government published a white paper toward the end of August in response to the 1974 all-Party Expenditure Committee’s suggestion that loans, rather than grants be made to postgraduate students. These currently number 33,000.

The Government do not consider it possible to achieve worthwhile public expenditure savings in the near future by a loans scheme which spread the repayments over a reasonable period.

Daily Telegraph, 25th August 76

Although they argue that the loan scheme could be “potentially damaging in terms of social equity,” they go on to say that they will “continue to bear in mind the possibility of achieving savings in the long run through such a change.” The “social equity” will be more resilient then, no doubt. For the time being, they are in agreement with the Expenditure Committee’s main recommendation that resources should be provided “Primarily in order to meet the country’s need for trained manpower.”

One of the other guidelines for expenditure on postgraduate education “the satisfaction of the demands from students (individual demands)” was considered to be “too haphazard.”

Alan D'Arcy

So They Say: Short Memory (1975)

The So They Say Column from the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Short Memory

While a large number of Tory MPs are now reflecting on just how Mrs. Thatcher ever came to be elected as Conservative leader, the deposed Mr. Heath seems to be fostering the vision of a triumphant return. He has been making speeches. And he made one recently in Edinburgh which evoked from The Guardian the description “a fierce attack on Labour Ministers.” The form of attack was on orthodox lines — he chose a particularly glaring social problem and proceeded to lay the blame for it at the door of the Labour Party. He spoke of the Government’s attitude towards the current unemployment figure of one-and-a-quarter million in the following manner.

‘Where have all the Labour consciences gone ?’ he asked. 'Gone to graveyards every one.’ And with them had gone Labour’s care and compassion, to be replaced by what he described as ‘a cold stony callousness towards those whose lives had now lost all sense of purpose.’

(Guardian, 6th September, 1975)

The implication being that with a warm-hearted leadership in power (who does he have in mind?) things would be very different. To add point to the callousness of the Labour Party, he asked:

But have Labour Ministers been resigning in droves in protest? Hardly. Has any Labour Minister resigned because of this massive unemployment? Not a single solitary Minister.

That may be Mr. Heath’s idea of a solution, but only for preaching — not practising. Unemployment rose to one million in 1972. He was Prime Minister then — when exactly the same irrelevant gibes were directed at him from the Labour benches. Of course that was all of three years ago: Mr. Heath “did not intend to go back over the past in any detail.” Which is just as well for him — members of the working class might begin to suspect that unemployment is just one of the several cancers upon what was once described by someone as "the unacceptable face of capitalism.”

Woolly Waffle

The Labour party has never polled as much as 50 per cent. of the votes at any general election, says Mr. Bryan Magee, and having considered this point — goes on to pose the following question:

The truth only too clearly is that whatever the Labour Party may think, the masses do not, most of the time, regard it as representing them. And if that is the case, by what right can it claim to speak for them ?

(Guardian, 2nd September 1975)

Mr. Magee is clearly not inhibited himself — he is Labour MP for Waltham Forest. As a result of recent scares among Labour MPs that small “activist” groups within certain constituencies can shape so-called revolutionary policies, he feels free to criticize these rebellious reformers for being "quite untypical” of the Labour Party — which by his own token has only a dubious right to speak for "the masses.”

He describes these factions as "the left of the Left” which we understand he means to be a left-handed compliment. Magee feels that the “activists” adopt an intellectually pretentious stand — “élitist to the narrow of its bones”.

As his article attempts to provide an explanation for Labour’s failure to take as much as 50 per cent. of votes, we look to his own intellect for the answer:

The British people . . . are known throughout the world, and justly, for being tradition bound, past bound. They do not like change. Therefore they want it only when times are unusually bad. That is why it is usually in unusually bad times that Labour is elected to office.

This might be offered as a phoney excuse for Labour’s inability to deal with social problems — things were so bad when they were elected, that they were unable . . . etc. — but it doesn’t explain why they ever leave office. Or does Mr. Magee think that Labour, to use their phrase, gets things moving, and at the first sight of improvement the Conservatives are returned only to mess it all up again?

State Capitalism

The Russians are due to complete their Kama River industrial project (Kamaz) in March 1976. It is currently two years behind schedule, but when finished the complex will become the world’s largest truck-manufacturing centre. It is estimated that lorries of between 8 and 11 tons will be coming off the assembly line at the rate of one every 90 seconds. Although the Russians were unable to interest "western firms” in the construction, they have used a considerable amount of foreign assistance in design and the supply of machinery.

The dimensions of Kamaz are staggering: A $5 billions budget, three million square metres of factory space, a new city to house 250,000 workers and their families, 155 miles of highway, 75 miles of railroad tracks and 150 buildings. All this has been built on a 40 square mile tract of country side in the Tartar Republic, 600 miles east of Moscow.

(Guardian, 11th September 1975)

Such a development requires a large amount of capital to be fixed in it, but where has it come from? If we listened to Mr. Malik, the Russian delegate to the UN, the answer could be that it just dropped from the sky.

In a debate in which member countries attempted to find agreement on what was picturesquely described as “an attempt to reconcile the conflicting interests of the rich and poor nations by negotiation” Malik tried to wash his hands of the “greedy West.” He blamed

the capitalist states who plunder and exploit the developing nations for the disparities in world economic relation.

(Guardian, 4th September 1975)

But facts belie the jargon. Russia is not adverse to dealing with the “capitalist states,” of which it is one:

Nearly every advanced Western Country, as well as the Eastern European countries, has an interest in the Kamaz project. There are 40 US firms alone involved in the project, with contracts valued at $400 millions. To pay for all this the Russians looked to the West. The US Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) and Chase-Manhattan concluded in 1973-4 credit agreements with the Soviet Bank of Foreign Trade totalling $322.9 millions. Moscow is to pay 10 per cent down to US suppliers with the remaining 90 per cent financed by Eximbank and Chase. The latter says it is charging “market rates” while the Eximbank has set a fixed rate of 6 per cent interest.

Interest? We know the “capitalist states” derive their interest through surplus value. Have the Russians found a new source for it?

Daily Bread

A Paddington vicar, the Rev. Michael Stephenson, has been forced to make some less than Christian remarks concerning his governors, the Church Commissioners. That august body had set pay targets for vicars of £1800 for 1974, and £2100 for 1975. Being mere targets, and recalling the inaccuracy of the Church in other fields, it seems hardly surprising that they have been missed. An irate Rev. Stephenson disclosed that his income in the year ending May 1975 was, in fact, only £1487.

The Church Commissioners have agreed that he is “quite right” and will be recommending that Stephenson, and others in his position, should receive the Government maximum of £6 a week increase.

While we have a certain sympathy for Rev. Stephenson, our eyebrows were raised when he remarked:

It would have been far more honest of them to pledge themselves to meet a previous target which has not yet been met, than to set a new target which is sheer pie in the sky when compared to reality.

(Marylebone Mercury, 12th September 1975)

It may be “sheer pie in the sky,” but surely, Reverend, a classic case of “whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap.”

Students need Knowledge

Among a number of other proposals which it is fighting against, the National Union of Students now has a new one to oppose. A Commons Select Committee on science and technology has just recommended that postgraduate science students should receive bigger grants than students studying “arts” subjects. The NUS quite rightly saw this proposal as “divisive” but this is no secret. The committee is not in the least worried by some vague ideas of the unity of students — it has been examining the requirements of capitalism tomorrow. The committee gave their own points of reference used when drawing up their report:

We believe that a system of differential grants for science postgraduates would provide the research councils with a practical and valuable tool to assist in the encouragement of research in priority areas. We are aware that such a scheme may create jealousies between different groups. We believe however that this is a price which may have to be paid if national needs are to play any part in the manpower training functions of the universities.

(Daily Telegraph, 12th September 1975)

If the NUS thought that universities were for "education,” they may now see what “education” is for. But this is not to say that knowledge is an irrelevance. The study of Socialist knowledge is the task which students and workers must attend. When this is done the cries of “divisive” will end.

Alan D'Arcy

So They Say: Labour's guidelines for Capitalism (1975)

The So They Say Column from the March 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour's guidelines for Capitalism

Following his meeting with the Chairman of the Confederation of British Industry in January, the well- known non-Socialist, Mr. Denis Healey, has been increasingly forcing some of the facts about capitalism and how the Labour Party proposes to run it down the throats of the working class. Speaking at the Electrical Contractors’ Association in London on 11th February, he said:

If we price ourselves out of jobs by excessive wage increases, there will also be even greater cut-backs in new plant and machinery. That too means more men and women out of work, both now and in the future. None of this need happen. It will not happen if workers, not just in the union headquarters but on the shop floor too, stick strictly to the guidelines for wage negotiation laid down by their own leaders in the TUC last year.

We recall the uproar in the House of Commons not long ago when Labour MPs were clamouring for remedial action to be taken after British companies were found to be paying black South African workers below “officially recognized” levels. The Labour Party has consistently subscribed to the utopian view that wages can be fixed at some “fair” level which will be mutually beneficial to both capitalist and worker. Such a view has nothing to do with Socialism and we advise members of the working class to examine and reject the concept that a system of exploitation can be run “fairly.”

Closing his eyes and opening his mouth

Before Mr. Heath reluctantly vacated his position as leader of the Conservative Party in February, he put forward as neat a piece of mumbo-jumbo as one might expect. In a desperate attempt to appeal to all men everywhere, he undertook a dazzling rebuttal of the view that capitalist society is divided into two classes. Speaking on his ability to lead the Conservative Party he said:

It is not just a question of looking after the middle class, which of course has very great problems particularly under this Government, and we should do our utmost to help it. But it is not just a question of class at all. I loathe the word class. I do not believe in class. It is a question of ensuring the prosperity of the nation in which everyone can share.

(Financial Times, 31st Jan. 75)

Well, Mr. Heath may not believe in it, although after almost ten years as leader of the Conservative Party he has had as good an opportunity as most to realize that the interests of the workers and capitalists are opposed, but his beliefs are neither here nor there. The class position of the individual is not determined by the beliefs of anyone, but by the relationship between that individual and the means of production. Whatever aspirations some individuals may hold to the contrary, those members of society who do not own any of the means of production or distribution form the working class. This is the vast majority of the population and it is through their efforts alone that the “prosperity” Mr. Heath refers to is created, not for the benefit of “everyone” as he would have it, but for the benefit of those individuals who do own the means of production and distribution, the capitalist class.

A Goodly Wizard

One of the inevitable reactions to the continuing barrage of propaganda from the capitalists that Britain is going bankrupt, that this crisis must be surmounted, that we must all make sacrifices — ad nauseam, is that the heavenly thoughts of the Christian sorcerers get another outing. They are always at hand to tell us that “God moves in mysterious ways”, but the reality is that whichever way he moves, it always seems to serve the need of the capitalist class. This is no accident, there being a clear link between the scriptural injunction “Servants obey your masters” and its application to the working class.

The Very Rev. Horace Dammers, the Dean of Bristol, has recently launched a movement entitled “Life Style” which apparently already has several hundred members. The Dean underlined the Christian ethic of frugality (for the workers) so much beloved by the ruling class through the ages:

I think we have found a realistic way for ordinary people to make a positive contribution to the good of mankind.

Apart from monthly meetings where the members get together in order to “analyze each other’s incomes” or discuss ways of “using their money in ways which they consider to be less socially harmful”, some members are

planning to share cars and lawnmowers, and to cut down on food and insurance, and are thinking twice before buying new clothes, and even pets.

(Sunday Telegraph, 2nd Feb. 75)

If the Dean genuinely wishes to make a “positive contribution to the good of mankind” he should exorcise this bogus brotherhood, and start to study Socialism.

Honest Profit

It is usually advantageous for capitalists and the politicians representing their interests to refer as little as possible (in public) to the mainspring of capitalist production — Profit. Some appear to view its mention with a hurt concern, preferring to talk about the “creation of prosperity,” or “economic growth.” Others are more brazen:

No-one now believes that profit is a dirty word, if profit is honestly earned and put to proper use.

(Mr. Denis Healey speaking at the CBI’s annual dinner at the Hilton Hotel on 14th May 74.)

However, according to a report in the Financial Times on 11th February, ICI is one company which is afflicted with a certain "self-consciousness” in this regard. The fact that the company had produced a profit of £375m. over nine months caused the Public Relations Dept, of ICI to commission a survey from Documentary Research of Bristol, in order to gauge possible public hostility toward profit announcements. The survey team interviewed 1437 people and one of its findings was:

There appeared to be no understanding of the fact that a very high percentage of profit was paid out by companies in tax; only 6 per cent acknowledged that tax was paid at all.

As a result of these findings ICI laid new emphasis on tax in its financial advertising both internally in the company newspapers, and in the National Press.

All good stuff for the Public Relations men to play up at every opportunity. We can imagine the copy now — "Yes the profits may look big, but you want to see the size of our tax demand.” Nevertheless we place no importance on the amount of tax a company pays. The report went on to say:

There is no great antipathy towards profits. ‘We might not have put profits at the top of our advertisements before,’ said ICI. But the survey has shown up some other areas of misunderstanding and mistrust which will take more than simplified advertising campaigns to overcome. There are strong suspicions that results are not presented honestly.

The newspaper report concludes:

One wonders, would the results (of the survey) have been different if the respondents had been less ill- informed about the ultimate destination of profits?

Its ultimate destination is irrelevant to the working class who have created this surplus-value. By the time Profit is counted, the worker has been paid. What workers should usually do is not concern themselves where Profit goes, but to examine where it originated.

Specialist Purposes

An explanatory note on the Times report of 6th February regarding the Ingram 9mm. sub-machine guns recently purchased from the USA by the Ministry of Defence is required:

The Ingram is said to be well suited to undercover operations. But the ministry is emphatic that the guns, bought for “specialist purposes” have not been used in Northern Ireland. The silencer differs from the conventional kind. Instead of slowing the bullet as it leaves the muzzle it allows it to reach full supersonic speed. The enemy would hear a crack as the bullet passed him, but it would be impossible to tell where it came from.

We can reveal that the “specialist purposes” to which the Ministry vaguely refers are that the guns will be issued to those members of the working class within the British armed forces so that they may fire them at other members of the international working class when the interests of two groups of capitalists collide. The report is misleading in suggesting that “the enemy would hear a crack as the bullet passed him”. This defeats the purpose of the bullet — the truth is that the “enemy” would hear nothing as the bullet passed through him.

Alan D'Arcy

So They Say: New Book — Old Story (1976)

The So They Say Column from the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

New Book — Old Story

In an interview published by the Times on 2nd August, Sir Harold Wilson let it be known that he has completed the first draft of a book called The Government of Britain. Apparently the work has much to commend it. “Every sentence was an intellectual challenge to try to remember things which will be useful as a kind of text-book, which in the past have been mainly written by academics from outside.” Such a description suggests a semi-autobiographical account of the attempts to administer capitalism over recent decades, and as such it can only be a commentary on the various acts of expediency employed in order to paper over the basic contradictions. Acts of expediency in our description, governments choose to call them “policies.”

Even Wilson appears to acknowledge that the “Governance” in his title is only alleged when he remarks “In the compulsions of taking decisions, of course, you cannot forecast whether this decision will come off.” Of course. Capitalism is a system of society in which there is no social control over the means of wealth production and distribution. The owners, a non-working minority, allow production to take place only when there is a likelihood of a profit. Wilson and the Labour Party have preferred to tinker with the effects of such a system and shy clear of the revolutionary solution — hence the never-ending “compulsions” they have been faced with. The frequency of the calls upon Wilson’s juggling ability meant that among other things his reading suffered.

I have never even read Marx, couldn’t get past the second page because of that whacking great footnote which bores me every time I ever try to read it. Although I think I have a vague idea of what he was after in his concept, it is not what I understand by British socialism.

Were Marx alive, we feel sure he would concur with the conclusion.

The Devil You Know

George Bernard Shaw wrote somewhat sarcastically that “the reasonable man adapts himself to the world.” Recently those most reasonable of men, the Labour Party Tribune Group, have been giving an excellent display of their adaptability. The Conservatives tabled a motion in Parliament for the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s salary (£15,000) to be halved. This amounted, in the words of the Times report of 2nd August, to “a criticism of the public expenditure cuts announced on July 22nd, and a condemnation of the Government’s economic and financial policies in general.” Amid the hot air and other gaseous emissions in that Palace, Tribune group members have been loud in their criticism of the cuts. Consequently the possibility of their abstention from the vote with a resultant government defeat was raised. The time for these men of principle had come.

However, adaptability prevailed. First they issued what we have come to expect from Tribune Group MPs — “a token protest.” The “left” pulls no punches, their amendment called for a reduction in Healey’s salary of £5.00 per annum. Next Mr. Norman Atkinson, one of their leading if somewhat dim lights, explained why his group should not risk a government defeat.

The Government have made it clear that they support the central banks about the use of international credits . . . It seems logical therefore, that all those who seek to sustain the Government in office must accept the bankers' cuts in principle, not in their entirety, but in principle. The only alternative was to force the Government to go to the country for a general election. But such action would make little sense . . . because if Labour won it would be taken as an endorsement of the bankers’ policies and it would mute the left for a long time to come.

This, we understand, is known as keeping all the options open. The Tribune Group wish to preserve the Labour Government because they prefer to mouth disagreement from the government benches. In this way their posturing attracts more attention than it otherwise would. Mr. Atkinson was simply overflowing with sweet reason and “left-wing” principle:

Only the 2 per cent levy on employers through national insurance contributions will attract combined opposition from the Tories, the nationalists and the Liberals, he said. Because the measure must mean at least 50,000 sackings in addition to those already announced, the left must face the sacrifice of jobs to keep the Government in office. We have no alternative, and neither has the Trades Union Congress in four week’s time, that is the brutal reality.

Facing reality must necessarily strike the Tribune Group as brutal, they are more used to dealing in hypocrisy.

Con on Class

While giving a public pep-talk to fellow conservatives in the columns of the Daily Telegraph, Sir Geoffrey Howe MP indicated that times are a-changing. He argued that changes had to be made to the Conservative Party image if the electorate was to be persuaded that the party did not stand “only for bosses, rich people, upper classes.” Unless the common man discarded such misapprehensions, Howe ominously concludes, “This could bode ill for the future.” Apparently he has been inspired to speak out following numerous reports that the typical response to Conservative canvassers has been “We re all Labour voters in this house. We’ve got to be haven’t we? We’re a working class family you see.” We do not deal with this ill-founded statement here, but note the politician’s attitude to it.

It makes it difficult to argue that class is not a significant factor in British politics.

Daily Telegraph, 2nd August ’76

Which is extremely tiresome for politicians no doubt. A class-divided society necessarily produces such handicaps for them. However, Mr. Howe, who thinks that there are several classes rather than two, is ready to throw one of them overboard in his search for conservative voters.

The son of a successful entrepreneur — even the grand daughter of a Prime Minister — is bound to acquire knowledge and experience that will confer advantage in the next generation. But let us certainly reject the suggestion that we favour the concept of a ruling class or anything like it.

But wait, he would only reject the suggestion that they favour the concept. The ruling class, no doubt rattled, can breathe again.

Will He, Wont He?

A glittering exchange took place between Mrs. Thatcher and the Prime Minister shortly before the parliamentary recess. The Conservative leader asked what the Prime Minister expected to be the maximum number of people unemployed in 1976. Mr. Callaghan replied:

The Chancellor has said he expects unemployment to begin to go down by the end of the year. I cannot improve on that forecast. I have come without the figures in any case.

Times, 6th August ’76

After other remarks, Mrs. Thatcher rose again.

The Chancellor did not give any figures. He refused to give figures when cross-examined by both sides of the House. I would have thought that the Prime Minister would automatically have informed himself about one of the main figures, which is the maximum unemployment expected during the next year. Is he saying he has not?

With considerable politeness, Mr. Callaghan informed the enquirer “Yes, I am saying that because I find these forecasts often cancel out . . .” He also had some advice for her.

I would beg her not to take too much notice of forecasts. So many of them often proved wrong over the last six months . . .

The performance and the show (the longest-running in the west and) will continue after the interval.

From Bad to Bad

However there is a time and place for everything, and Mr. Callaghan is not adverse to making forecasts when it suits him. In October 1975 he informed us that over the (then) oncoming year “British families will suffer a sharp drop in their living standards.” His description was “a temporary sacrifice.” We ventured to suggest then that the “temporary” label might be forgotten and apparently it has.

I think industry can say the conditions are present to enable us to have a reasonable bet on the prospects of viable expansion that will continue. I don’t want to boom and bust. The real traumatic period for this country is between now and 1980 and this is the period we’ve got to concentrate on.

Daily Telegraph, 9th August ’76

Members of the working class take note, the traumas will be yours. Unless you are prepared to study Socialist ideas and work for the abolition of the private property system, the only “reasonable bet” to be had here is that shortly before the end of 1980, Mr. Callaghan or his equivalent (we include conservatives) will be telling us that the forecasts had been wrong; the real traumatic period was to be extended until the mid-1980s. In the meantime working-class poverty will continue.

Alan D'Arcy

So They Say: Fair Play in War (1976)

The So They Say Column from the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fair Play in War

A certain mental agility, not to say an outright contortion of sanity, is part of the stock-in-trade which our “superiors” find necessary to employ in order to explain (away) the irritatingly persistent difficulties which arise from the private-property system and what they intend to do about them. We say agility, because that is what it takes to face several directions at one time. The progress of Mr. Jimmy Carter in the US primary elections for example, is surely evidence enough that the days of the two-faced politician are over: now it is essential for them to display at least three or four.

However, fleet footwork is not the sole preserve of the professional shadow boxers; the affliction spreads further afield. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute produced a recent report — Medical Protection Against Chemical Warfare Agents — dealing with nerve gases. We put aside for the moment the fundamental flaw in its viewing “protection against” as of greater importance than the reasons for the existence and development of killer gas. The Institute has been investigating “a non-woven synthetic textile, coated on the outside with a repellant, and has a layer of activated charcoal on the inside” which may offer protection. Such treated material could be used in “gas masks and combat jackets.” They acknowledge some drawbacks.

Even if some of the new drugs could be incorporated into military auto-injectors [protective clothing], all that can realistically be said of the new methods of treatment is that they will provide more time than is available with the existing treatment to move poisoned individuals to medical facilities. While this is a valuable step forward, in times of war, it is unlikely that medical facilities would be able to cope with the vast number of casualties.

Daily Telegraph 5th June 76

Capitalism turning the knife in the wound; insufficient medical facilities on one side struggling to cope with the over-efficient work of other “medical facilities” who have been developing the gas. However the monster has its scientific counter-balance, the problem being

Clothing capable of giving full bodily protection to the skin and to the respiratory system, is so cumbersome that soldiers wearing it would be brought to the point of military uselessness.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute seem to be waiting for the day when “our boys” in the improved carbon jackets can withstand nerve gas for long enough to become militarily useful. This is what they appear to project but these “peace artists” paint a gloomy picture. The answer to the techniques of killing does not lie in double, or triple-think, but in the abolition of the social system which produces war. That is a solution within the realms of possibility.

Divide & Rule

Five members of the Felixstowe Conservative Association face expulsion from their local Conservative club because they campaigned for an Independent Labour candidate at the local elections in May. Their story is that they wanted to divide the Labour vote, allowing a Conservative candidate to top the poll in a previous Labour stronghold. Although the plan succeeded, their local treasurer was not impressed, “as far as we’re concerned they’ve worked for the opposition”. However the five are unrepentant:

We’ve succeeded in getting a Conservative elected in Labour’s safest ward in the only way that it could be done . . . and believe there was the strongest justification for what we did.

Daily Telegraph, 1st June 76

No doubt they all threw up their hands in horror and shouted “Cheat!” with the rest of their cronies some days later when Labour MPs broke “pairs” and entered the lobby to avoid a government defeat in the Commons.

Virtue of Necessity

Disquiet is growing among both teachers and students over the contradictions which face them when trying to apply a “text-book” analysis to capitalism in the expectation of a logical answer. On the one hand there are student teachers who are occupying their colleges, or marching, in protest against the likely failure of an estimated 15,000 of them to find teaching jobs. Against this there is the President of the Association of Head Teachers (Scotland) referring to “overlarge classes” and concluding: “We need these extra (not “surplus”) teachers.”

On the other hand there will be, according to figures given at the annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers, the likelihood of 250,000 school leavers without jobs this summer, while the Lord Privy Seal, among other notable onlookers, is calling for “more sheer hard work before we are anywhere near out of the wood” in the Times of 10th June. The contradictions have encouraged the self- styled experts to exhibit some of their “departmental” reasoning in the letter columns. The President of the National Union of Students writing to the Daily Telegraph on 5th June argued that the government had “a golden opportunity to improve the pupil-teacher ratio.”

The Government has already spent £50 million training this year’s jobless student teachers for the dole queue. How can our economy benefit from miscalculation and wastage of human resources on such a massive scale?

“Our economy” and “wastage of human resources” gives away the extent of the NUS’s ‘“revolutionary leanings.” These refrains are music to the ears of the ruling class — it is only the tempo upon which they disagree. However the difficulty may be overcome according to the Headmaster at University College School, London. Unemployed teachers and unemployed school leavers? Apply a little thought and you come up with the following:

Here, surely, is a great opportunity for unemployed teachers to set an example giving themselves experience of the kind of work which many of their future pupils will have to do. Industries, businesses, hospitals, hotels, schools and institutions of one kind or another ail have vacancies for what is mis-termed “menial employment” . . . If unemployed teachers give a lead showing that a job well done, however “menial” can be rewarding and satisfying then the unemployed school leaver might be inspired to follow.

Times 10th June 76

We had a fancy that the man of learning may have been glancing through “The Charge of the Light Brigade” shortly before penning his letter, but there is a difference. He sees the officers turning home before long in order to continue the good work. Having gained an experience of “menial” jobs, he argues, “in the long run they would be much better teachers.” And what of the others? The school leavers who were “inspired to follow.” Ah yes, with luck wage slaves also — but that is what capitalist education is about.

Dear Sir

Reinforcing this last point was the response to the new GCE examination in the “business use of English.” The Managing Director of Adpower Ltd., a “specialist staff consultancy,” had some pertinent observations to make.

Many (school leavers) are unable to get a job in the professions or in industry because they are incapable of filling in a job application form (even ours which are deliberately kept simple) . . . College leavers have simply not been prepared for the next stage in their lives — getting a job. If this new GCE examination lives up to its expectation of training young hopefuls how to speak and write commercial English, then the Associated Examining Board must surely have the backing of everyone in commerce.

Times 10th June 76

Dear Capital, Assuring you of our best attention at all times the “young hopefuls” remain therefore your most obedient servants, etc. etc.

Alan D'Arcy

This is Socialism ! (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a common occurrence at an SPGB meeting for a member of the audience to say: “Look, you may be right about capitalism, but what exactly will Socialism be like?” The SPGBer will preface his reply by pointing out that he can give no specific blueprint of Socialism. The questioner may jeer in greater or lesser degrees at such an admission and turn to leave the meeting. He cannot wait for Socialism: Socialism then must wait for him. And it does.

The man or woman who is prepared to listen will realize that such a question asks the Socialist to reveal some clairvoyant abilities far beyond those required even to predict what Capitalism will be like next week. The astrologers earn a lucrative living in this way, and yet our member is asked to predict further ahead — and for free! We can only speak in general terms, but it can at least be seen that our predictions relating to capitalism are being constantly proved accurate. This is not because we have mysterious contacts with another world. It is because we have analyzed the way in which this world works.

To make any sort of predictions about Socialism it is necessary to recognize how it is to be introduced. We maintain that once the members of the working class internationally recognize that capitalism is at root a system of society organized and run by themselves, yet which creates problems in direct opposition to their interests, they will recognize that a social system, like any other system, is capable of change. That change will result from their own coordinated efforts and they will take political action to organize a system of society which will operate in their own interests — Socialism.

“Ah now”, says the patient listener, “who does all this co-ordinating of effort and organizing? Surely a leader of some kind?” We refer him to the structure of the SPGB itself. Socialists are aware that each man has a variety of abilities, each in differing proportions, and these may be applied to a variety of work. A considerable control of hand movement is required by both the surgeon and the watch-maker, but it is obvious which one would be chosen to remove an appendix. Similarly, a leader is one who decides for others which path they will take, and then proceeds to lead them up that path. We have no leaders in the SPGB.

Our organizers are those who have some ability to arrange the wishes of members into a cohesive effort to achieve an aim. They are delegated for their abilities in this respect. Should one choose to ignore the wishes of members, he is replaced by another delegate and is left with no-one to organize. This is the way in which a Socialist working class will appoint representatives. And once Socialism has been established, it seems likely that this will be the way adopted in choosing those who will carry out such forms of administration as will exist.

As the supply of goods and services will be freely available to all, it will be necessary for representatives to ensure that a balance is struck between those articles which are required, and those produced. These representatives may meet in local, regional and interregional assemblies, but unlike the awesome meetings of (alleged) mental giants to be witnessed daily in the Houses of Parliament, Socialist delegates will meet with one object in common — the satisfaction of human needs.

Bodies similar to the present-day Egg or Milk Marketing Boards may be of use to Socialists in coordinating the supply of eggs and milk to those areas in which they are needed. It is worth noting that this year the Egg Marketing Board has failed disastrously to arrange the production of eggs. It has managed to creative a massive surplus. Socialists will not be worried by such calamities!

The search for profit which today determines the level of production will be removed, and the incentive for production will become the welfare of all members of society. The disbanding of the armed forces, financial and legal institutions and so on, will mean that many millions of men and women will be free to perform work which is necessary to society. Assuming that some members of Socialist society would choose to carry out work of a similar nature to what they perform today, the scientist engaged in germ-warfare techniques can be of use in research to combat disease. The accountant useful in collating statistics — to gauge social requirements. The Company Rep. as a long distance lorry driver (although it is debatable that the internal combustion engine will be used for power). Bishops and capitalist politicians could further enrich the acting profession. The possibilities are endless.

The condition and location of houses and workplaces would be designed for the maximum of comfort and safety. No longer would the old cry go up: “It’s a good idea, but we can’t afford it.” Machinery will be employed, particularly in work which is dangerous. Men and women will recognize labour, not as an undesirable chore, but as an interesting, satisfying and necessary event. It is likely that less time will be spent engaged in work, and every individual will be free to decide the nature and duration of his or her activity, and to pursue other interests as fully as they wish. The possibilities in life will truly be unfettered.

“Ah. But will anyone work?” A reasonable question? Hardly. It implies a derisive conception of the working man’s mentality. It implies that those who have consciously organized to bring Socialism into being have, in fact, been deliberately false, each one relying on the fact that the other will perform the necessary work while fully intending to perform none himself. We do not accept that the working class is, or that the Socialist working class will be, false to its beliefs. History has shown that no-one has suffered shabbier treatment at the hands of the ruling class than workers, and yet they are willing, even proud, to enter suicidal battlefields on behalf of their masters in time of war. It is not lack of conviction which perpetuates these sacrifices, it is a surfeit of conviction — in Capitalism.

Alan D'Arcy

SPGB Meetings (1981)

Party News from the November 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

So They Say: Ungrateful Lot (1976)

The So They Say Column from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ungrateful Lot

Much play has been made recently by both Labour and Conservative! groups on their various schemes to allow Council tenants to purchase the properties they occupy. The Southwark Community Development Project and the Joint Docklands Action Group of Newington decided to conduct a survey to discover the appeal of such schemes to those concerned, and came up with the conclusion that “few are interested in buying a typical council flat.” The report in The Times of 29th June seemed to have regarded the findings as something of a foregone conclusion. It argued:

While new houses with gardens on suburban estates or in new towns, for example, would attract ready buyers flats in inner city tower blocks would have little or no appeal.

While surveys like this never cease to amaze us, it shows just, how unreasonable workers can be. Who else but the members of the working class would express disapproval at the prospect of spending their lives, and paying for the privilege at that, packed together well above ground level in noisy and uncomfortable cells of concrete (often, as in the case of Ronan Point, with no visible means of support, or lifts—even if installed), albeit with magnificent views over the previously erected low-rise slums? Come to that, who else but the workers would be offered such a glorious opportunity to join "the property owning democracy”?

O Brother!

"We should not destroy or split or seek to destroy in any way the Labour Government” said Mr. Benn on the 4th July, and no doubt the Labour government gave three cheers for Benn and said "Amen”. He was speaking at the Institute for Workers’ Control in Keele University, in his capacity as Labour’s Energy Secretary, when he also revealed to his audience the information that capitalism was in "irreversible decline.” We do not know if he was standing on his head at the time.

Now we who advocate the abolition of the capitalist system were naturally agog with excitement at a “leak” of this magnitude. Was there to be a surprise announcement from the government? We scanned the newspapers. Yes, there was an announcement from Healey. No, it was not a surprise—except perhaps for his fellow minister Benn.

Britain would be one of the few countries which could look forward to a rapid recovery over the next 18

months . . .

The Times, 7th July 1976

Followed presumably by three more cheers and back-slapping. Considering that both these men are “united” in a political party which expresses the view that a system of exploitation is the only one to which workers are entitled, and capable apparently of both declining and recovering at the same time, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that were they to pool their respective talents and issue a joint statement, it would prove twice as ignorant as either of their individual efforts.

Sir Willie?

The fanaticism with which William Hamilton attacks the Royal Family appeared to have abated somewhat when he voiced “concern” over a motion from other Labour MPs—themselves expressing “surprise” over the Queen’s purchase of Gatcombe Park for her well- breeched offspring Princess Anne. The price was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 12th June as £500,000. No, No, said the microscopically-minded Hamilton, the Monarch should spend her money as she saw fit. What was wrong was that “the Royal wealth which makes such expenditure possible has been due to the failure of successive governments to tax that wealth in the same way as that of all other citizens.”

Can it be that he is angling for something? Considering his immense publicity services to the Crown, he must surely be deserving of some appropriate medal or title. This would be no more than he deserves. We note incidentally that in the Register of MPs’ Interests, he gives one source of income under the appropriate heading of “royalties”—a reference to the money from his literary masterpiece on the Royal Family. While he, and others, spend so much of their time and effort in expressing a petty outrage at the size of the molehills, they have missed the mountains—capitalism rumbles on. But then Labour MPs could hardly be expected to think about anything as fundamental as that.

What could be fairer ?

It is usually the practice, after being led up the garden path by one man, to find at the end of it another who then exhibits a bag from which he releases a cat. Although capable of fulfilling both rôles, Eric Varley, Secretary of State for Industry, has been releasing the cat.

The dictionary definition of a scientist is given as: “A person learned in one or more of the natural sciences” and science as: “Systematic and formulated knowledge.” Now Mr. Varley has not so much altered the definition, but put it into perspective! within the context of capitalism—where, like all other members of the working class, scientists must live by selling their mental and physical energy to the ruling class. He was bemoaning the fact that “to be a technologist or a manager in industry is considered to be a pretty lousy job” and from this erudite premise, drew the conclusion that potential but reluctant scientists just did not know what they were missing:

Qualified scientists and engineers, although numerically a small category, have a particularly significant role. They have the innovative capacity to generate and translate the technology into competitive and saleable products and the responsibility for managing the production processes.

Daily Telegraph, 7th July 76

A significant role therefore, not in an abstract sense of the pursuit of Knowledge, but in the real economic field where the owning class is in pursuit of something else, the accumulation of capital.

Class Distinction

“More than 1000 London dockers, who are being paid £57 a week for doing nothing, at a cost to the Port of London of between £6 million and £7 million a year, are ‘moonlighting’ to double their earnings”, reported the Daily Telegraph of 30th June. “A scandal” is their description. They do however concede that the men, on average 1,250, do no work for the reason that there is often no work for them to do. The men are protected, however, under the National Dock Labour Scheme from sacking on this ground alone, and even the inducement of a £5,250 “golden handshake” to accept redundancy has failed to shift them. Considering the apparently universal exhortations from the press for workers to pull out their respective fingers and earn themselves a living, we would have thought that the taking of a second job would have merited praise. Apparently not, so “a scandal” it remains.

Surprising then to note that the moral indignation of the Telegraph respectfully faded to nothing when it reported on the twelve, no doubt “just”, women whom Paul Getty “richly remembered in his Will” (10th June 76). Among others they noted that Lady Ursula D’abo, sister of the Duke of Rutland, was to receive 1000 of his shares, worth £93,361, and how she was duly “surprised by the gift. The shares will remain in Getty Oil until I die, as he would have wished.”

All highly commendable; no mention here of a “scandal.” No mention, incidentally, of what happen to the share dividends either—we refer to the large cheque which drops through the letter box from time to time. Work for a living? My dear, who do you think opens the envelope!

Idle-ized

Who was Eric Singer? If you never heard of him— Snap! But on 30th June The Times published an obituary of him. What were his achievements? Take note.

According to the article, he was “an early, though later disenchanted” member of the German Communist Party. In Britain he became “a planning consultant”. To illuminate that, he was able to do his day’s work “before most people had roused themselves from their beds”, which clearly means it was a very small day’s work. What did he do after the rest got up? “He left behind an uncompleted book on inflation and an unpublished work on architecture.” He spent the war “at the roulette tables in Lisbon”, and became “a purveyor of gallantries to ladies, snuff and gossip to men”. “He greeted each day with his freshly-plucked button-hole, his stick and his joie de vivre”.

This reminds us strongly of Fred Bloggs. In his teens Fred joined the Balls Pond Road Libertarian Society, resigning when he discovered he had mistaken its name for “Libertine”. He was widely known in all four corners of the betting shop, while his élan and the je ne sais quoi with which he rolled a Nosegay cigarette made him a favourite of barmaids everywhere. He always alluded to his lifelong redundancy with the characteristic epigram: “Never done a stroke and don’t intend to, mate.”

What a curious world where a man is praised for having had political delusions and spending his life as a fashionable idler.

Alan D'Arcy

So They Say: Non-starters (1977)

The So They Say Column from the July 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Non-starters

The Labour Party is always assuring us that they stand for a “fairer and more just society” (Mr. Ron Hayward, General Secretary of the Labour Party, 15th March) but we think it reasonable to add that all of the parties who try to run capitalism would claim the same. Circumstances however always seem to intervene before they, or the others, can actually put their words into action. As unemployment and prices rise, as they have done under the Labour Government, and wages and public services fall, there are the men like Mr. Hayward talking about the unfortunate circumstances which newly confront us and so prevent “the fairer and more just” from taking immediate effect.

Were a bookmaker to assure his clients that he stood for “fairer and more just” racing results so that all of them would win, they would know that something was up. When the Labour Party does it, and explains the inevitable losses in terms of circumstances—the going as usual got rougher than we thought and you’ve all lost again—it should signal the time to stop betting on these three-legged creatures.

Winning

To be fair to Mr. Hayward and other members of the Labour Party, they do not give pride of place to this notion of a “fairer and more just society.” This is usually thrown in as an after-thought, and Labour supporters should not put too much weight on it. They would be best advised to put none at all, which would at least make honest men and women of them. Mr. Hayward has identified the fundamental objective of Labour.

Membership of the Party involves joining an organisation whose objective is to win and retain power in order to reform our society in the direction of our democratic socialist beliefs and ideals. Let me emphasise that objective—to win and retain power.

News Release:  Party Information Dept. 15th March 77

And having won and retained it, to let the workers face the circumstances.

The Self-Interest Thing

The director of the US Office of Population is concerned about “over-population”—a term used in capitalist society to justify the starvation, or near starvation, of millions, while alongside them exist the privately owned means to meet their requirements of food, clothing and shelter. Overpopulation to the capitalist and his well-fed entourage refers to those who cannot be used in the process of accumulating wealth. Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, the aforementioned Director, describes as his office’s aim the creation of medical technology to render infertile 100 million women in developing countries. This they call “advanced fertility management” and the programme they have launched will operate over the next nine years.

Although different people will draw different moral conclusions on the correctness of the programme, this should be seen for what it is, a capitalist “solution” to a “problem” which has arisen because the capitalist mode of production denies access to the means of life, unless it makes a profit for someone. That the means of life are in existence, or could be readily brought into existence, is irrelevant in this society.

The US Office of Population does not plan to limit future generations in an attempt to curtail misery from any moral standpoint however, their Director was most explicit on the intentions: Population control was needed to maintain

the normal operation of US commercial interests around the world. Without our trying to help these countries with their economic and social development, the world would rebel against the strong US commercial presence. The self-interest thing is a compelling element. If the population explosion proceeds unchecked, said Dr. Ravenholt, it will cause such terrible economic conditions abroad that revolution will ensue.

London Evening Standard, 11th May 77

Confessions

There is a strange figure who occasionally appears in detective stories and radio plays, best described as "the innocent man who proclaims his guilt.” Inevitably towards the end, this gallant red-herring is discovered, and receives a minor ticking-off because he had acted from the best intentions. How then are we to take India’s Prime Minister, Mr. Maraji Desai, who gave a press-conference on his way to the Commonwealth Conference.

Would India sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Certainly, he replied, when those asking me decide to give up nuclear weapons. Those who commit thefts have no business to tell me not to be a thief.

The Times, 8th June 77

Mr. Desai, it will be remembered, is not a character in a radio play.

Of his own colour too

One of the more colourful scientific debates centres around the probability of 100 chimpanzees, who are confined in a roomful of typewriters together with an endless supply of paper, being able to bang out by accident the entire works of Shakespeare within a given period. Although highly improbable, it is generally conceded that the task is not impossible. The odds of success for the chimps are in fact infinitely higher than those of the eight international economists who have been confined for some time deep within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s centre in an attempt to find “a path out of the economic quagmire which threatened to end more than two decades of growth and high employment.” They have been working on the premise that it is possible to remove capitalism’s problems, without removing capitalism 

The chief primate in the group, Mr. Paul McCracken, has offered their version of “the complete works” after only two years confinement, which, as far as probability goes, is stretching belief. We do not know how many typewriters they had at their disposal, but this is the result.

Fitting budgetary targets into regularly revised medium term projections would provide the required flexibility to adjust the longer-run budget posture to unexpected events and changing public preferences with regard to longer-term economic and social priorities.

The Times, 10th June 77

Roughly translated this means that their solution, in Shakespeare’s words “is shaped sir, like itself, and it is as broad as it hath breadth; it is just so high as it is and moves with its own organs; it lives by that which nourishes it; and the elements once out of it, it transmigrates.” These economists are learned men indeed.

Alan D'Arcy