No debate by the Economic League (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

A short while ago the Economic League, an organisation which opposes Socialism and defends capitalism, accepted a challenge to debate, subject to certain conditions laid down by the League. When arrangements came to be discussed, we learned that the League was only prepared to debate subject to still further conditions, which included reserving admission to ticket holders, and having no literature sold or distributed in the hall, or advertising matter or announcements. As our policy has always been that our meetings and debates shall be free and open to any member of the public who cares to attend, and as we enter into debates in order that our principles and policy shall be publicly contrasted with those of our opponents, we were not prepared to accept these restrictions. It is evident, as indeed was made clear during the negotiations, that the Economic League does not consider that any very useful purpose to.itself is served by the public presentation of its case against the Socialist case.

Who Owns “Our” Country? (1930)

From the November 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Runciman answered.

Periodically, Mr. Walter Runciman and the Economic League compile impressive-looking figures of the total amount saved by workers and other small investors and deposited in the Post Office Savings Banks, Building Societies, Registered Provident Societies, etc. On the basis of this, the Economic League coined a slogan, “Every man a capitalist.” The total amount looks considerable until it is remembered how many people there are among whom the ownership of it is divided. The true position has now been analysed and explained by Mr. Hargreaves Parkinson, of The Economist, in his book, “The Small Investor” (Blackie & Son, Ltd., 4s.). He points out in Chapter XIII that the total amount of savings in all kinds of institutions, and including an estimate of the amount of small investments in Stock Exchange securities, represents only from 10 per cent. to 14 per cent. of the total wealth of Great Britain.

This means that over 75 per cent. of the population own between them only from one-tenth to one-seventh of the total wealth. The remaining 86 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the national wealth is the private property of less than one-quarter of the population (see pages 108-110).

It may also be remarked that Mr. Parkinson’s estimate of the amount of small investors’ savings errs decidedly on the liberal side. He assumes, for example, that the £290 millions in the Post Office Savings Banks and the £130 millions in the Trustee Saving’s Banks belong wholly to small depositors, whereas investigation has shown that to a very large extent these totals are the property of a few relatively large depositors.

However, his conclusions are sufficient to show that Mr. Runciman’s figures prove the exact opposite of what he contends. They illustrate not that there is a high degree of equality, but that there is a staggering inequality as between the 25 per cent. of wealthy persons and their families, and the 75 per cent. who make up the rest of the population.

Edgar Hardcastle

SPGB Meetings, Debates and Lectures. (1927)

 Party News from the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The Economic League's Major H. J. Gillespie D.S.O. was an ex-Fabian who'd recanted his longstanding Labourism and was now taking the Economic League's shilling. It happens. Ken Weller mentions in his excellent book, 'Don't Be A Soldier', that Frank Grainger left the SPGB in the late 1930s whilst he was the prospective parliamentary candidate for the SPGB in the East Ham North constituency, and later turned up as a lecturer for the Economic League. 

The December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard gives a brief report of some of the meetings listed above.

The Comrade Jacobs mentioned above who was lecturing at Bethnal Green Library on the subject of 'Political versus Industrial Action' was either longstanding SPGB outdoor speaker Alf Jacobs, or it was Dick Jacobs, the secretary of the Bethnal Green branch of the SPGB. Alf Jacobs joined the SPGB in its earliest days and was known in the East End of London as a popular SPGB outdoor speaker. (Especially at the outdoor speaking pitch in Victoria Park, where in 1914 he repeatedly took to the outdoor platform to denounce the war.) Dick Jacobs had only just joined the SPGB in January 1927 (he'd formerly been a member of the Labour Party), but was to remain a member of the SPGB until his death in 1977. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the speaker was Alf Jacobs.

Party Activities. (1927)

Party News from the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard  

A well-attended debate took place with the Battersea Conservatives at the Town Hall on October 9th, when Comrade Fitzgerald easily disposed of the “arguments" of his opponent. Sales of literature and collection were good. Another debate took place at Stratford Town Hall with the Economic League on November 13th. Comrade Hardy took up every point of Major Gillespie and showed the emptiness of the Capitalist case.

Battersea (Lower) Town Hall was filled at the lecture on November 6th on “Socialism and Dictatorship," and the questions and opposition of Communists and others were well dealt with.

A good attendance was made at Friars Hall on November 20th, at Comrade Fitzgerald’s lecture on “Anti-Parliamentarism.” The case for political action was amply stated, to the discomfiture of our critics. Lectures at Bethnal Green Library and the Engineers’ Institute, Stratford, have also been carried on. °

Some future lectures are announced in this issue.

Not in front of the workers (1984)

Illustration by George Meddemmen.

From the May 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism can never be an open society. Trade rivalries, international competition and battling class interests necessitate secrecy on the part of those who hold power. There is not a single government in the world which does not keep secrets from those it claims to represent. Even the most liberal of so-called constitutional democracies have elaborate mechanisms of secrecy and deception. The minority class which monopolises the means of wealth production and distribution also dominates the means of information. Class-controlled channels of information transform knowledge about society, full and free access to which is vital to democracy, into propaganda which gives a false sense of what is going on around them to those being "informed”.

According to the liberal illusion, which is much cherished by Western political commentators, there exists a fundamental division between totalitarian and "free” states. Under totalitarian governments, it is argued, the state is virtually free from accountability to the working class and the ruling class run the country as they please. "Free states”, on the other hand, are supposed to have rulers who are accountable to “the people". In fact, the supposed division is far less clear. Even the most ruthless dictatorship does not survive long if it fails to spend huge fortunes indoctrinating workers and responding (through violent repression or reform) to workers’ discontent. The “free state” is also a constitutional hallucination: the defence of class privilege and the existence of real democratic freedom are incompatible and, however sincerely governments may adhere to liberal ideology, the state is always a weapon of class rule. Indeed, the very existence of the state which is ultimately the executive committee of the ruling class precludes the possibility of real freedom. This is not to deny that significant differences exist between the position of workers in different parts of capitalism: there are degrees of democracy and we would be foolish not to concede that workers in Britain enjoy more than those in Poland — that a Dutch worker who can join a trade union and vote in an election is in a more politically advantageous position than their counterpart in Chile or China or Turkey. The point is not that workers have no power whatsoever but that as long as the state exists, whatever its form, effective political power, including the right to use violent force, belongs to the capitalist minority in whose interests the state functions.

Consider the activities of the state in Britain in 1984. A “democratic state”, we are told. Police erect road-blocks at county boundaries to stop workers moving from one part of the country to another in order to engage in industrial action. Mine workers are stopped by police and asked how they voted in the last election and how they propose to vote in the next one. The Home Secretary refuses to answer questions in parliament about how many telephones are being tapped. Thousands of workers’ names are filed on police computers. An organisation called The Economic League compiles blacklists of trade union activists which are passed on to employers. The government bans trade unions at its spy centre, telling workers that they must accept a bribe of £1,000 or get out. The next election for the Greater London Council is abolished and unelected councillors are to be appointed to sit on the GLC. A worker in the civil service is sentenced to six months in prison for telling the press about the date of the arrival of weapons which we are told are being installed to defend, among other things, the freedom of the press. A "democratic state”?

The state has always kept secrets from the workers. This is particularly so in relation to its military activities, in which workers are permitted the liberty to slaughter and be slaughtered, but not the right to know what the bosses are negotiating and why. At the Tehran Conference in November 1943 Winston Churchill (addressing his comment to his war-time ally, Stalin) summed up the capitalist attitude to freedom of information when he remarked that “In wartime truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies". Stalin seems to have learnt the lesson, and it does not seem to have been lost on Michael Heseltine and his fellow residents at the Ministry of Truth.

The Official Secrets Act was passed in 1889, largely as a result of the activities of a Foreign Office employee called Charles Marvin who leaked information to the press about the secret negotiations which had surrounded the Treaty of Berlin in 1878. Lord Halsbury, who moved it, stated:

  The Bill provides for the punishment of those persons who either give information to the enemies of the country, or who act as spies, or make or communicate plans or sketches of fortresses and like places, or disclose official secrets.

So if, when you are next on a fortnight’s package tour to sunny Bulgaria and the bouncer in the disco asks you casual questions about where your missile bases are or how many scientists are employed by the British government on developing germ warfare, beware. As a worker, however, you need have no fear, because you are likely to be just as excluded from knowledge about “our” secrets as workers in other countries are left ignorant of "theirs”. National secrets are secrets from the majority of people who live within the nation: the state has an interest in keeping secrets from both the national enemy and the class enemy. That is why the arrival of American nuclear missiles at Greenham Common was supposed to be kept secret from the British workers whose “democratic way of life” the Cruise weapons are alleged to be defending. It is because she tried to tell other people about a matter which she thought concerned us that Sarah Tisdall is now sitting in a “democratic" prison cell. Under capitalism it is often a crime to tell the truth.

In Nazi Germany reports of the atrocities being committed inside the concentration camps were illegal. It is against the law for South African police to speak to the press about the mysterious deaths of political prisoners. The greater the ugliness of the state’s actions in defence of class privilege, the greater is the secrecy surrounding such activities and the more severe is the penalty to be paid by those who commit the crime of telling forbidden tales.

What about the incarceration of Sarah Tisdall? Unlike certain deluded liberals, we do not throw up our hands in horror that so vicious a sentence has been handed out in so democratic a country as Britain. What’s new about British capitalism turning democratic behaviour into a crime? The British ruling class is the oldest in the world and, in its time, has committed some of the dirtiest tricks and enacted some of the most repressive measures. The modern state has tended to maintain a liberal facade, but those of us who know what the state exists for can hardly be shocked when it comes out into the open and exhibits the power of undemocratic oppression. Unlike reformists, socialists will not be pleading with the government to do the decent thing and let the poor girl free. When the prison gates are opened it will not be as a result of the oppressors bowing to the moral pleas of the oppressed. but will be a consequence of the class which is robbed and deceived (all quite legally, of course) realising that the real robbers and frauds are not the inhabitants of the prison cells. Workers have nothing to gain by holding processions to place pressure on the exploiting class to behave with goodwill. Our task is to rip off their democratic masks and to expose the disgusting fraudulence which enables power to belong to a minority in the name of democracy. Socialists could not but admire the courage of Ms Tisdall and those like her, throughout the world, who have defied the assertion that telling the truth is an act of criminality. We may sympathise, but that will not change society — indeed, it will not in itself make any difference if there were a thousand or ten thousand workers with access to secret information who were willing to reveal it unless the working class start to make real use of the knowledge which is available.

Will there be secrets in a socialist society? Without doubt socialism, because of its feature of democratic control, will allow no possibility for secret information to exist in relation to matters of collective social significance. Whatever information society has will be available to everyone, without any administrators or bureaucrats being allowed to keep certain knowledge for their own privileged use. On the assumption that knowledge is power, socialism will not allow social groups to exist whose access to information is greater than that available to all other members of society. Modern communication technology, which is currently used for the perverse purpose of storing secrets, can be used in socialism to make realistic the democratic aim of having the widest dissemination of information which is technologically feasible. Free access to information, which can only happen when there is free access to all goods and services. is a far more realisable and democratic change than the modest demand for limited access to state information which is advocated by the reformist proponents of a Freedom of Information Act.

One of the greatest examples of capitalist hypocrisy is its claim that capitalism provides freedom for the individual, whereas social equality would eradicate such liberty. Those who now dwell in prison cells because they took the pretence of capitalist liberty at its face value would not agree. Those who claim that socialism, with its feature of social equality, will destroy liberty, would do well to read what Marx had to say on the matter:

  We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic work-house. There certainly are some communists who, with an easy conscience, refuse to countenance personal liberty and would like to shuffle it out of the world because they consider that it is a hindrance to complete harmony. But we have no desire to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced . . . that in no social order will personal freedom be so assured as in a society based upon communal ownership. (Marx, Communist Journal, September 1847)

For a society without secrets, states, elites and prisoners of truth, workers must unite consciously, democratically and without compromise.

Steve Coleman

No Class-Struggle Here (1936)

Editorial from the April 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the autumn of 1935 many illustrious readers of the Times amused themselves by proving that capitalism is a myth. Either there is no such thing at all, or alternatively, all human societies have always been, and always will be, capitalistic. Professor Hearnshaw took up the story in the Daily Telegraph, telling us that Socialists have “imagined" the capitalist system. The Economic League and the Times, on other occasions, maintain that in England the Socialist conception must be false because they profess not to be able to see a well-defined capitalist class and working class; we are all capitalists, they say, because of the deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks.

That is the story served out as regards this country, but when the same people look at capitalist further afield a remarkable change takes place. The Times, in its Editorial on the Tokyo murders, could not find any explanation of the political movements in Japan, except one based on class interests: -

 There is little labour agitation in Japan; but there is a general disillusionment over the result of industrialisation, a disillusionment which is felt most strongly among the agricultural classes, from whom the officers are mainly recruited. Some of the patriotic societies, while fiercely opposed to Communism, demand that profit-making in finance, industry, and trade should be curbed by methods which are practically indistinguishable from Communism. They all resent the contrast between the great fortunes made in business and the poverty and austerity of life which is traditional among the military classes in Japan. —(February 27th.)

So, in abstract discussion, capitalism and capitalists are myths, figments of the Socialist imagination, but in faraway Japan the army movement is led mostly by “younger men drawn from the small landowning class," who resent “the exploitation of the peasantry by financiers and industrialists, with the connivance of corrupt politicians." (Times, March 5th.) They object to Japan's Government being controlled by “capitalists, politicians and bureaucrats."

At home in England the Times cannot see the poverty and misery wrought by capitalism, but in Japan the Army movement, in the words of the Times' own correspondent, is “A protest against the obvious fact that the mass of Japanese remain poor amid the country’s vaunted progress, while a few families have amassed colossal fortunes.  . . .  (Times, March 3rd.)

Similarly, Beaverbrook’s Evening Standard, in its Editorial (February 26th), describes the Japanese Cabinet as being dependent “on the goodwill of the Minseito Party, and this party, in its turn, dependent on industrial capitalist influences, which are not especially concerned about the Japanese farmer, and oppose militarism because it arouses prejudices adverse to Japanese foreign trade." 

An even more frank reference was made by the Observer to the capitalist nature of British control in Shanghai. Their Shanghai correspondent wrote (March 1): 

  Shanghai is essentially a capitalistic structure designed to protect vested interests.

Perhaps if these various newspapers were to get their Far-Eastern correspondents to take a telescopic view of Great Britain the Editors might begin to understand that early 19th-century England is mirrored in modern capitalistic Japan, and that movements here are to be explained only by the same kind of class-interests as operate there. But then, of course, the proprietors would hardly allow such articles to be printed.

The Piper and the Tune (1964)

From the March 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are now, ladies and gentlemen, approaching the period of mud-slinging, evasions and lies which goes under the name of a general election.

The campaigns which the two main parties carry out cost them both a lot of money and this in itself promises to be one of the smaller issues in the election. For the Conservatives, and some of their supporters, spend much more on their propaganda than the Labour Party does. This has given the Labour Party the chance to pull out of the cupboard one of their favourite bogymen—the corrupt Tory in the pay of rich industrialists who expect some legislative favours in return for the money they have lashed out on Central Oflice propaganda.

In the two years up to the last election the Conservatives spent about £468,000 on advertising and during the campaign itself £475,915. (These figures, and some of the others in this article, are taken from some contributions to The Guardian by its Labour correspondent, Mark Arnold Foster.) A Labour candidate recently estimated, in Socialist Commentary, that the Tories put about £1 million a year into all forms of central expenditure The pre-election spending goes into the sort of campaign which Colman, Prentis and Varley waged so successfully for the Macmillan government and into the sort of posters which are now dominating so many hoardings, with Douglas-Home's head tilting massively into a goofy smile, promising us Straight Talk and Action. (Even if we did not already know it, all the emphasis on action and energy among politicians would tell us that an election was near.)

Apart from their own spending, the Tories are supported by some industrial groups, and some companies, who donate to their funds (Fisons gave £2,320 in 1962) and who push out anti-nationalisation propaganda. Before the last election these groups spent £1,435,000 on this sort of activity.

The Labour Party are also supported by outside contributions which we shall deal with later. But even so, their expenditure does not come anywhere near that of the Conservatives. In 1959, every Tory vote cost the party 3s. 6d., against the 1s. 8d. which every one of their votes cost the Labour Party.

The amount which a candidate may spend on his campaign is limited by the Representation of the Peoples Act to £450 plus 1½d. or 2d. per elector, depending on whether the constituency is town or country. But the Act only applies to the period of the campaign itself. Money which is spent on propaganda before the election is announced escapes the Act's restrictions. That is why we are now being treated to press advertisements which innocently tell us how efficiently the steel industry is being run under private enterprise and to others less innocently worded, which are outright attacks on nationalisation. All of these are paid for by the steel companies or by groups like Aims of Industry.

Any business man who wants to make an anonymous contribution to the fight against nationalisation can send his money to Aims of Industry, or to other groups like British United Industrialists or the Economic League. All three of these have some impressively rich and powerful chiefs of commerce and industry among their sponsors. In many ways, the Economic League is different from the other two; it is more of a storm troopers' organisation, running its little green vans all over the country, holding meetings at factory gates and street corners, offering a lecture service to apprentices and supervisors.

The Labour Party say that they want these organisations brought out into the open. They want them to publish their accounts; they want all the companies who donate to political parties to say so. They also think that the Tories should publish their accounts. They hint darkly about rich men secretly master-minding the Tory government. This may be fruitful propaganda for the Labour Party; it may also be a useful excuse if they lose the election. Nothing so soothes the disappointment of a defeated Labour man as the conviction that, although the common people are solidly behind him, he has been robbed by the underhanded intervention of the unscrupulous rich.

The Conservatives like to say that the hand outs they receive from the industrialists are no different from the support which Labour gets from its affiliated Trade Unions. Certainly, trade union money is important to the Labour Party; in 1962 the Transport and General Workers gave them £37,500, the AEU £29,047, the mineworkers £20,124. Apart from this, there are the sponsored candidates who are financed by their unions. But the big difference is that the unions publish the details of their contributions and that any member who does not want to pay the political levy (and none of them should want to) can quite easily contract out of it. This is in contrast to the secrecy which surrounds the donations to the Tory Party.

We can expect the Labour Party to plug the line that it is undemocratic for a political party to be financed by outside organisations and to spend a lot of money on its campaigns. Expensive propaganda is popularly supposed to obscure the issues in an election and to undermine the simple voter's ability to see clearly through to the heart of things. This, incidentally, was said a few years ago about the last electoral campaign of Dr. Adenauer, when his Christian Democratic Party swept back to power in West Germany and some political observers professed to see a threat to democracy in the costly campaign which the CDU had waged. This idea is important—and importantly wrong—enough to be dealt with in stages.

First of all, is it true that political parties are dominated by the organisations who donate funds to them? Has the Conservative government gone out of its way not to upset its supporters in industry and commerce? Far from it. Its 1962 Budget, for example, was criticised by the journal of the National Association of British Manufacturers as giving assistance to the car, television and radio industries

 . . .  at the expense of other industries notably furniture and clothing which are in no position to help others. The injustice to the users of heavy hydrocarbon oils remains. The concession on estate duties is too small to be significant for small, privately owned businesses and the 10 per cent surcharge on revenue and purchase tax has, in most cases been consolidated, becoming a permanency with the possibility of a further 10 per cent addition.

The same government has forced large scale amalgamation among aircraft firms. It has imposed vast cuts in the cotton industry and in its intention to abolish resale price maintenance has upset many of the small shopkeepers who, we are told, have faithfully supported it for years.

Similarly, it is wrong to say that the Labour Party is dominated by the Trade Unions and that a Labour government would therefore knuckle under to strikes and other industrial action. The last Labour government fought wage claims all the way along the line and took a much tougher line with unofficial strikes (official ones were hardly heard of in those days) than the Tories have done. In fact, although they were formally linked with the Trade Unions, the 1945/51 Labour government opposed every attempt to apply the object—the improvement of working class conditions—which every union should have.

This can all be put into perspective. Political parties do not get power in order to pay off electoral debts nor to favour any industry or group of industries. Whatever may have been true in the past, modern parties in this country want power simply to run British capitalism in the overall interest of its capitalist class. Sometimes this means — as it did in 1945 — that some basic industries must b: nationalised. Sometimes — as it did later — that others must be amalgamated. Or—as it does now—that there must be some control on the speculative development of land. Both Labour and Conservative parties broadly agree on what British capitalism needs to have done and both are prepared to do it.

If, that is, enough people vote for them. That is why they spend so much money in trying to persuade us to do just that.

There is nothing intrinsically undemocratic in expensive election campaigns. It is no empty truism to say that democracy depends upon the existence of democrats. That fact is too often ignored; the Labour Party are ignoring it when they say that the donations to Tory funds are undemocratic. For what sort of a democrat is it who can be swayed by expensive publicity into voting against his convictions? Who falls for Douglas-Home’s smile? Or for Wilson’s thumbs- up? Or Grimond’s lock of hair?

Only the politically ignorant will be impressed by such things. And since the Labour Party, like all the other capitalist parties, exploits political ignorance, it can hardly complain if the person who blindly voted Labour yesterday just as blindly votes Tory tomorrow. It cannot even complain when the same person follows the racist or some other demagogue and blindly votes to abolish what little democracy he has— and abolish, perhaps, the Labour Party along with it.

Capitalism itself rests upon ignorance, and its political parties, with their symbols and slogans, their banners and big drums, are all up to their necks in it. The mass of the people are taken in by the ballyhoo. They support the system of private property for the flimsiest of reasons and never seriously consider the proposition that there is a better way of running the world. As long as such ideas keep their grip, the world will remain in confusion. Apart from anything else, democracy will always be unsafe.

Both Labour and Conservative parties support this chaos of ignorance. Beside that momentous fact, what does it really matter which has the bigger posters, or the more press advertisements, or bangs the bigger drum?

Ivan

The Economic League On Capital. (1929)

From the February 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our January issue I dealt sympathetically with "Some Socialist Fallacies Exploded”—a leaflet issued by that gifted but much misunderstood body, the Economic League, and it was shown how successfully they had blown sky-high the first "fallacy” they had dealt with. Here follows the second "Socialist” fallacy on their list for combustion :—

Fallacy No. 2.—The interests of Capital and Labour are essentially antagonistic. Therefore, class warfare is necessary and inevitable.

Not bad for a translation by such busy people! If you would prefer the original, however, it reads as follows:—

  That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master class, and the consequent enslavement of the working class by whose labour alone wealth is produced.
  That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle, between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess.

Now you will hardly credit it, but these wild Socialists actually believe that this eccentric notion has historical justification to support it! Indeed, Engels, for example, in the preface to the "Communist Manifesto," has the impudence to assert:—

  That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes: that the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolution in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class— proletariat—cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class—the bourgeoise—without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class-distinctions and class struggles.

Class struggles, indeed ! But the leaflet has different stuff from this to offer:—

   This is another of the principles in the Socialist Manifesto. It is based on apparent ignorance of the facts that operative labour itself is actually a form of capital, and that the so-called class war or conflict between Labour and Capital is really nothing but a suicidal sort of contest between two members of the same family. In evidence of the fact that labour is a form of capital, we have only to ask ourselves. What was man’s original capital before he had any tools or plant to work with? The answer undoubtedly is that it was his innate capacity to invent and create, or, in other words, his labour, mental and physical; and so we arrive at the fundamental economic truth that operative labour is capital in its truest and most original sense, and that the interests of the two are, therefore, naturally and necessarily identical.

Could clarity be more pellucid? After sorting this out I arrive at the following conclusions: (1) Labour is a form of Capital, therefore presumably Capital has other forms; (2) "Man’s original Capital" was labour, and therefore this and the other forms of Capital not here specified must have been derived from Labour; and (3) because Labour is a form of Capital, and Capital is a form of Labour, therefore the interests of Capital, of which Labour is a form, are "naturally and necessarily identical” with the interests of Labour, which is a form of Capital. Do you get that? ("Yes,” he lied glibly.)

One need not be an inmate of Banstead to believe that Capital and Labour are one as the law stands at present, but I admit a slight difficulty in comprehending how they can both be the same and yet, oh so different ! However, perhaps the next passage may enlighten us :—

   Mr. Dane tells us that “a workman’s character, skill and experience,” which constitute his labour, are "as truly capital” as the tools and plant and machinery with which he works; and that fact teaches us another fundamental truth, that it is Labour which employs Capital, and not the other way about, as so many seem to think. The worker in a factory employs not only his own capital, but that of the owner of the factory as well, without, be it noted, any of the latter’s financial risk. He is entirely dependent on both, and it is suicidal folly on his part to quarrel with his bread and butter, or, in other words, to wage war on what, after all, is his sole and only means of existence. It is perfectly true that one form of capital may refuse to employ the other, if, on the one hand, the financial risk is considered too great, or if, on the other hand, the remuneration is considered insufficient; but these differences of opinion are surely matters for amicable negotiation rather than for conflict. In any case, the fact remains that both forms of capital are absolutely dependent on each other.

For the first time, 1 now realise that "a workman’s character, skill and experience constitute his labour,” though obviously he has sometimes to take these attributes to bed with him ! (In this case perhaps the "labour” is done by proxy or correspondence.) One should always be careful, however, not to be vulgar, like Karl Marx, and include such qualities with physical and mental energy in what he calls labour-power. This is simply not done in the best economic circles. But I must agree that this unperformed labour of the worker is "as truly Capital as the tools and plant and machinery with which he works." We must take the word of such recondite "economists” as the Economic League that machinery, plant and tools are Capital. Even before their installation in the factory, even when the factory is "closed down,” and most decidedly when they are thrown out of the factory on to a dust heap—they are still “Capital.” I can almost understand this, but I confess to a wee difficulty in being able to comprehend (1) just when the machine, etc., becomes Capital, and (2) exactly what thickness of cobwebs or rust on a disused or unworked machine is necessary to accumulate before the machine ceases to be Capital—is it twelve inches or only six? You see, these Socialists have no respect at all for economic truths, and they guffaw rudely when people say that machinery, plant and tools are in themselves Capital. That Karl Marx of theirs can be very trying on this subject:—

  Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labour, and all kinds of means of life which are used to produce new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of life. All these component parts of capital are created by labour, products of labour, stored-up labour. Stored-up labour which serves as a means of new production is capital.
   So say the economists.
   What is a negro-slave? A man of the black race. The one definition is worthy of the other.
   A negro is a negro. He only becomes a slave under certain conditions. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn from those conditions it is no more capital than gold itself is money, or sugar the price of sugar. (Wage-Labour and Capital.)

In other words, they say that these things (machinery, etc.) are only Capital during the time wage-labour is employed to operate them. But most diabolically of all, they claim that under Socialism even more and better machinery, plant and tools will be in use than at present, but they will be socially owned and will produce wealth for use only.

I was glad to find from this last-quoted passage that the Economic League make it clear that when they state that the interests of Capital and Labour are identical they mean the interests of the owners of Capital and the owners of wage-labour (i. e., workers), for this helps me to grasp their meaning when they state that "it is Labour which employs Capital, and not the other way about, as so many seem to think.” If our capitalist wage-worker readers will bear this in mind, they should have little difficulty in recognising the aftcoming episode as an everyday experience of this simple fact:—

  Scene: Dejected looking Capitalist diffidently approaching the sanctum of his prospective employer—an obese, complacent, prosperous looking Wage-worker. Holding a cloth cap in his hand and looking down furtively at a big toe protruding from an aged boot, he musters up enough courage to tap upon the massive oak portal.

Voice of Wage-Worker from within: Come in!

Capitalist: Got a job, guv’nor? I bin sent by the Capiterlist Buroo. ’Ere’s me perticlers, sir!

Wage-Worker: H'm ! What can you do, my man?

Capitalist: I can own factories, plant and machinery, get you to work for me, pay you good money but not much of it, and keep all you produce for myself.

Wage-Worker : Good. Can you do anything else?

Capitalist: Well, you can’t expect me to do anything else, guv’nor, now, can you? I ain’t got much time to spend in this country, you know. I shall have to do the job from Cannes or Madeira, and perhaps sometimes from "Monty.”

Wage-Worker: Right, you’re engaged. I’ll ring for my manager to start you at once, but see that I’m allowed to make plenty of profit for you or you and I will fall out. You get me?

Our sapient leafleteer then reminds us that Capital is Labour’s bread and butter (no, not “marge” !) and it is silly for the worker to quarrel with his portion thereof. Well, as Capital and Labour are one, this dictum appears to apply equally to the Capitalist. This horrid spectacle of two slices of bread and butter engaging in a fratricidal struggle may be highly diverting to untutored minds, but I regard it as reprehensible in the extreme. Further, we are told the Capitalist is not only the “sole” but the “only” means of existence for the worker. (When he has finished the sole, apparently he cornea on to the "only” !) Even the most perverse Socialists do not deny this fact. Indeed, Marx himself says something similar:—

  To say that the interests of capital and the interests of labour are identical means merely this: capital and wage labour are two sides of one and the same relation.
  The one conditions the other, just as the usurer and the borrower mutually condition each other.
  So long as the wage-worker remains a wageworker, his lot is dependent upon capital. That is what the alleged identity of interests between worker and capitalist amounts to.
  If capital grows, the mass of wage-labour grows, the number of wage-workers increases. In a word, the dominion of capital extends over a greater number of individuals. (Wage-Labour and Capital.)

Of course, the qualification is quite unnecessary !

Next we are told that the one form of Capital may refuse to employ the other. As, for example, when all the workers in an industry have simultaneously conferred upon them the freedom to enjoy the jollities of the kerbstone, whilst “the other form of Capital” is enduring the anguish of "financial risk” and sunstroke at Madeira. Of course, the worker does not incur "financial risk.” When he asks for more wages—the suggestion is absurd ! The million-and-a-half unemployed workers ought to feel more sympathy than they appear to express for the sorry plight of their capitalist brothers, brought on by "financial risk.” The terrible ravages of the malady of "financial risk” may be only partially gauged by the perusal of the under-stated facts :—

   About one-half of the entire income of the United Kingdom is enjoyed by about 12 per cent, of its population.
   More than one-third of the entire income of the United Kingdom is enjoyed by about 3 per cent, of its population. (From Chiozza-Money’s “The Nation’s Wealth,” pp. 110-111.)
   Let us take one of the main features of existing society—its division into two classes; a propertied class and a propertyless class. This is obviously the result of the ownership of the wealth of society by some of the people, to the exclusion of the others, for this alone produces a class of possessors and a class of non-possessors.
  With regard to the ownership of property, Mr. Zorn has shown (Daily News, November 29th, 1919) that 10 per cent. of the population owns 99 per cent. of the wealth, while the remaining 1 per cent, is divided among nine-tenths of the people. And Professor Clay tells us that—

it is probably safe to say that over two-thirds of the national capital is held by less than 2 per cent, of the people.—Times, 24th March, ! 1925.

  So the two-class nature of the present social scheme is directly traceable to that form of private property which excludes one class from ownership. (From Socialism, p. 28.)

I trust the recital of these facts will enlighten the reader as to the identity of interests between the wage-slaves and their masters, and that he will point out the selfishness of the workers in allowing their capitalist brothers to suffer in silence these agonies of "financial risk.”

I regret my space ration forbids me to do justice to the admirable way in which the Economic League view Capital and Labour in all its aspects and in all historical epochs. The primitive tools of the communistic tribesman, the implements of the handicraftsman, the merchant’s capital, the mediaeval usurer’s money capital, the giant machines, factories, etc., of to-day, the great financial corporations, labour under all conditions (of the communistic savage, the chattel slave, the feudal serf, the handicraftsman and the wage-worker)—all these are Capital in the eyes of the Economic League. Their argument seems, therefore, to be: As mines, mills, workshops, etc., are Capital, and as Socialists mean to abolish Capital, therefore there cannot be mines, mills, workshops, etc., under Socialism. Which, 1 think, is quite good, don’t you, reader?

There are still three more explosions of "fallacies” in the leaflet, so, all being well, there should be a real "Brock’s benefit” for our next issue.

Sarcastigator.

The Economic League Discover Some "Socialist" Fallacies. (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why should blue papers cause us trepidation Why do we look upon them with suspicion? Seidlitz powders? Possibly. A pink wrapper would be an affront both to human intelligence and to medical science. Or is it that we associate blue papers with somewhat peremptory requests to show cause why, etc., or with polite invitations to appear at certain not greatly sought after institutions? Whatever the reason may be, I must say that the blue paper which was thrust into my hands recently, though possessing the conventional aspect of terror, did not justify the fears aroused by its presentment. But, like most productions of the “Economic League”—for it proved to be one of' their efforts—it was not only harmless, but a really fine piece of imaginative literature, which fully excuses the existence of this obscure but very “well breached” body of “economists." (What they actually economise with will be shown later.)

The title of this leaflet intrigued me greatly—“Some Socialist Fallacies Exploded"—and I was astounded to find that the perpetrator was none other than (well, guess—wrong first time!) the great C. E. Ross, whose name should be a household word, but who is unfortunately unknown to the writer. Of the Indian Finance Department, too—think of that! (Whether of the League of Nations or Woolworth's, we are left to wonder.) Retired, of course. After reading a little, I discovered that the title was most apt, except perhaps in one trifling particular—due to a printer's error, I assume. (With these delicate penny-a-liner-linotype machines, the tiddy-pin occasionally jams in the collychuff, thus disconnecting the caggle-waggle—and hence misprints occur.) In this case it is apparent that the word “Socialist’' has got substituted for "Capitalist"—not that such a detail should inconvenience the Economic League, who can always plead their innocence to any charge of being fastidious with regard to such meticulous, hair-splitting distinctions.

The first item on the menu contains real mental pabulum :—

   Fallacy No. I.—All wealth is created by the labour of the working-class alone. Therefore it should be owned and controlled by that class. This is the first of the fundamental principles laid down in the Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It is the real foundation of the whole Socialist creed, as all the other principles and objects of Socialism are more or less dependent upon it. It has often been called “the great Socialist Lie," but I prefer to call it a grossly misleading half-truth. It is perfectly true that labour is a most important factor in the creation of wealth, but it is not the only factor, and the principle, as laid down, is misleading for two reasons. In the first place, because it ignores the other two factors, viz., Natural Resources and Capital

I patiently waded through the “Manifesto" referred to, but I was most annoyed to find the printer had left this “ first of the fundamental principles " out of my copy, and in fact the Socialist Party has never “laid down" any such principle. To a well-attuned ear (not a cabbage-leaf flap like my own) the word “Manifesto" is acoustically synonymous with “Declaration of Principles,” and possibly would look the same to a member of the Economic League. On this assumption, therefore, the reader is invited to compare this Fallacy No. 1 with what is stated in the Declaration of Principles on the back page of this Journal. Comparisons are odious, of course, but I have no doubt the reader will note how punctilious the Economic League have been in rendering an exact replica of our principles. On the other hand, if he is of a perverse disposition, he may not! Except for the fact that the principles state that the working-class have not the spook-like quality of being able to “create” wealth, but merely “produce” wealth by expending their labour upon “natural resources” (implied by the use of the term “land"), the fact that no ethical deductions are drawn as to what the working-class should or should not own and control, and the further fact that the principles very definitely and emphatically state how the working-class can abolish classes altogether and bring into being a classless society, which will democratically own and control the “means of living" in the interest of the whole community—not in the interest of a class which has ceased to exist; except for these paltry differences, the Economic League has "edited” our principles in the pleasing fashion usually associated with their propaganda, which invariably subordinates mere expediency to unequivocal expression of the truth. It may be excusable, however, on their part to refrain from adding difficulty to their case by taking the Socialist principles too literally.

That the Socialist dog may be beaten by any old stick—and quite jolly right, too!— is again ably demonstrated in the passage which follows on from the one last quoted:

  And, secondly, because it defines labour as that of the working-class alone, by which is implied, and evidently intended to imply for the delusion of the uninitiated, the labour of the so-called wage slave only, to the exclusion of mental (i.e. inventive and administrative) labour. The omission of natural resources as a factor in the creation of wealth is significant. Without natural resources there could be no wealth, and it is to be noted that, in the creation of this essential factor, neither industrial capital nor labour had any part or lot whatsoever. Many people, besides Socialists, do not seem to realise the importance and significance of the fact that the word "Capital” is derived from caput, the head, and this, coupled with the physiological fact that all physical actions emanate from the brain, clearly demonstrates that, in the creation of wealth, the work of caput, the head, is of infinitely greater importance than that of manus, the hand.

I should hate to presume, but might j not the term "Capital” be derived from “capio—I take ”? If this should be the case, "capital” would apparently mean "I take all,” but such an expression could only have significance in games of cards, so this derivation does not seem to fill the bill.

Obviously caput, the head, is of far more importance than manus, the hand, though both might be of equal utility in, say, knocking a nail in a wall—with a hammer, I mean! But these Capitalists have developed their heads to such a degree that they could knock screws into the sides of battleships with them, and in the event of a coal dispute they would be able to provide all the necessary fuel simply by meeting and putting, their heads together, wooden they? (Steady!)

Whilst I might agree with the Economic League that the Capitalist is far too brainy to indulge in such a coarse expedient as WORK while he can buy working-class brains to perform the functions of inventors, managers, supervisors, agents, administrators, foremen, and indeed every function necessary to the effective running of the Capitalist system, yet I think they are somewhat unkind to saddle the poor chap with the responsibility for the "direction” of industry. Take the coal industry, for example. The remarks of Lord Melchett (Alf Mond to myself and other intimates) in his presidential address to the Institute of Fuel (“Daily Herald,” November 22nd), if they refer to the Capitalist in the coal industry, do not accord them the justice they deserve.

  The present methods of coal distribution in this country arc in a shockingly primitive condition.
 Coal was being dragged in small quantities, and in a quite unsystematic manner, about the towns. Two or three coal carts could often be seen in one street, each delivering a few hundredweights at a time.
  Then they had the so-called “qualities” of coal, which scientifically they knew did not exist.
  If all this could be standardised, simplified and unified, everybody would do much better. Whatever corner one touched there was an entire waste going on.
  Turning to the productive side, Lord Melchett professed to see efforts made by the colliery owners towards peace in industry. He expressed his pleasure, and added: "If they had only done one-tenth of what they are doing now two years ago, we should never have had the strike." The coal trade was faced with the problem of tiding over the present period of disorganisation and over-production in such a way that the world's output of coal when used with the greatest economy would satisfy its needs.
  Nearly 300,000 miners were unemployed, and it was said that between 200,000 and 250,000 were a permanent unemployable surplus in the industry. It was a desperate load for an industry to assume, and the general desolation caused was almost too dreadful to think about.
  Internal reorganisation should take place promptly. In what other industry would unproductive units be tolerated, such as were seen in the coal trade the world over?

One would almost think that that was said by a naughty Socialist, wouldn’t one? It may be, however, that the Capitalist "directs” in every industry but the coal industry, and the Economic League may be right after all!

But how refreshing it is to find that the Economic League can agree with us that sunshine, rain, the ocean, land, etc. (or "natural resources” so called) were not "created” by the Capitalist, and that this "is significant.” They do not state, however, whether the significance lies in the fact that the Capitalist draws most of the advantages from them, or in the fact that wealth is produced from them by the labour of the working-class alone—the Capitalist is far too busy with other amusements to bother about this one. If the Economic League can afford the sum of 2d. from their coffers for the pamphlet “Socialism,” they will find additional evidence of the subtle manner in which these Socialists “exclude” “mental” labour from their calculations. On page 2, for instance, it states :—

  The essential thing is that the member of the working-class has to sell his labour-power in order to live. Beside this salient fact all else pales into insignificance. The differences of dress, pay, education, habits, work, and so on that are to be observed among those who have to sell their working power in order to live are as nothing compared with the differences which mark them off from the capitalists. No matter how well paid the former is, or how many have to obey his commands, he himself has a master. He has to render obedience to another, to someone who can send him adrift to endure the torments of unemployment. Because he has to sell his labour-power, his whole life must be lived within prescribed limits. His release from labour is short and seldom; he has no security of livelihood; he has always to fear that a rival may displace him.

No! We have not noticed that the “abilities" of the Capitalist are used to "blackleg" on the working-class, who appear to have the monopoly of WORK, mental or physical—he does not keep dogs and bark himself.

Well, reader, the first “Socialist" fallacy having gone off with an appropriate bang, the consideration of the others can be left over for our next issue.

Sarcastigator.

Another View (1967)

From the September 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

We wrote to three opponents of Marxism, asking them to contribute their criticism to this centenary issue. Mr. Raymond V. McNally, a regular correspondent to the "Financial Times", sent me a letter which we publish, with our comments, and we are grateful to him for doing so. The Economic League thanked us for our letter but said: "We do not wish to avail ourselves of the offer made therein". Enoch Powell, M.P., wrote: "I confess I cannot recollect having written or stated my views on Marx anywhere, and I do not feel competent to do so."

Dear Sir,

It seems fitting for the centenary of the publication of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital to be commemorated by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, for it was in this country that Marx did the bulk of his research and writing.

Since first studying this monumental work over 30 years ago, my continuing interest in it has stemmed chiefly from the impact it has had on the quality of modern thought. In Britain alone, the activities and attitudes of the trade unions, and the increasing intervention of government in economic and social life unmistakably bear the stamp of Marxist influence, which therefore, must bear considerable responsibility for the steady decline in this country’s economic and political power during the last 50 years.

Although Das Kapital reveals occasional flashes of real insight, unfortunately it never succeeds in putting them together in one integrated whole. As a result, it never arrives at a true understanding of the nature and functioning of capitalism. Whether Marx would be pleased by what has transpired since his death in 1883 is a big question. Certainly what has replaced capitalism in Soviet Russia can scarcely be called a ‘higher’ social organism. Indeed, Marx was quite aware of what ‘makes production by slave labour such a costly process.’ Doubtless, if he were alive today, he would suffer some mental agony over the spectacle of Marxist Russia relying on capitalistic America to feed her starving people — a striking example of a country that combines industrialism and famine.

But Marx's work (even including Karl Kautsky’s three volumes entitled Theories of Surplus-value prepared from Marx's own notes) always struck me as a kind of ‘unfinished symphony.’ There is too big a gap between fact and theory. Factually (in his more objective moments) he has the capitalist-employer appear as a very busy and important person — initiating, financing, organising, employing and directing labour, keeping the books, seeking out markets, and buying and selling. In fact, he makes it quite clear that the worker left to his own devices would scarcely be any better off than he was in feudal times. Yet, theoretically, the capitalist appears to be a disembodied spirit, no longer the brains and spark-plug of the enterprise who makes such a valuable contribution to the production of wealth. Instead, it is the lowly worker who creates all values, saves the capitalist from starvation by providing him with an ‘unearned’ income and gives him the means for accumulating capital, in the form of Surplus-value.

In vain one seeks an explanation from Marx for this vast disparity between fact and theory. For the truth is that he has become the victim of his own dialectics that leave no room for introducing realities into his various theories, even if he were so disposed. In borrowing the worst from the classical economists and leaving the best, and making manual labour the sole source of value, he cannot include the labour-power of the capitalist-employer in any category of values except as an expropriator. Thus, unlike the classical school, he is compelled, not only to oppose the intelligence and genius of the innovator, but even to deny their existence.

But since Marx knows that it is the results of this muscular exercise of labour-power and not the labour-power itself that is of value to the capitalist, he must now perform a semantic convulsion and turn the worker into a commodity. In this way he gives the labour-power a value based on ‘the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the labourer,’ akin to the value of any commodity ’that lies hidden behind' its exchange-value. Thus, he has the capitalist pay wages for the worker’s subsistence (‘hidden’ value) and not for the results of the exercise of his labour-power.

These results, says Marx, the capitalist gets for nothing! This then is the sum and substance of the famous Surplus-value theory, the very core of his entire thesis. But instead of the worker being ‘tricked’ by the capitalist and the capitalist mode of production, it is the capitalist and society that have been tricked by Marx’s dialectics, thus earning him from an American economist in the nineteenth century the title of ‘Prince of Muddleheads.’

It seems tragic that in this ‘enlightened’ age, so much human energy is wasted squabbling over a mythical Surplus and striving with increasing futility to divide it up, while capitalism, buffeted on all sides by abuse, excessive taxation, government regulations and intransigent trade unions, tries to carry an ungrateful world on its weary shoulders. Such are the fruits of Marxism.

Yet a final word. In one of his more lucid moments, Marx seemed to glimpse, as through a rift in the clouds, the true nature of capitalist production when he wrote that commodities ‘cannot go to market and make exchanges of their own account’ but ‘must, therefore, have recourse to their guardians, who are also their owners.’ Further, that these owners ‘whose will resides in these objects’ (italics mine) ‘must make the exchange by means of an act of mutual consent’ and ‘must, therefore, mutually recognise in each other the right of private proprietors (italics mine; Vol. I, Book I, Part I, Chap. II)’.

Here Marx seems to recognise that the value of any property ultimately lies in its private administration, that is, at the point of exchange, thus ensuring its equitable, civilised distribution. By contrast — since it takes two to make an exchange — the so-called common ownership and administration of property can distribute wealth, not fairly on the basis of values freely arrived at, but only arbitrarily and erratically by a sort of tribal technique.

Yours faithfully,

Raymond V. McNally

65 Eaton Square,

London, S.W.1.

Reply: 

Mr. McNally seems to think that the surplus over and above what people get as wages and salaries is “mythical’’. No doubt this is news to those who live off rent, interest and profit — a property income they receive even if they do no work. As far as we know, the only way in which wealth can be produced is by work, by human beings applying their mental and physical energies to the materials found in nature. It follows therefore that non-work incomes like rent, interest and profit can only come out of the wealth produced by those who do work.

Nor did Marx say that manual work was the only work that counted. A little thought will show that it doesn’t make sense to separate so-called brain and so-called manual work; both are necessary for any work.

‘Marxist’ Russia is, of course, just a myth.

Editorial Committee.

Filing a Complaint (1987)

From the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Access to Personal Files Bill which is going through Parliament at the moment, is intended to give individuals the right of access to files which contain personal information about them. However, the extreme reluctance of the state to loosen its grip on information has meant that the Bill has been steadily diluted as it has gone through Parliament. It is not a government Bill and so cannot command the automatic support of a majority in the House of Commons as a result of MPs being told how to vote by the Party Whips. So although the Bill is supported by back-bench MPs from all parties, its sponsor. Liberal MP Archie Kirkwood, has had to do a deal with the government to ensure Tory support and the Bill's safe passage. As a result, the legislation will only provide right of access to housing, education and social work files and not medical, employment and immigration files or credit records, as was originally intended. It is proposed to establish, in addition to access to paper records, the right to amend files where information is shown to be incorrect and to provide payment in compensation for any hardship which might have been caused by the holding of the inaccurate information.

For anyone concerned about the use and abuse of information this must represent a (very small) step forward. However there are good reasons for believing that the impact of the new legislation will be even less than is commonly thought. Firstly, in order to gain access to information about yourself you must be aware that a particular agency has a file on you. This is by no means always the case. For example, some employers pay money to a right wing organisation called the Economic League which provides information about prospective employees. In particular they will inform the employer of a worker's trade union activities and political views. If an applicant for a job. whose name is passed to the Economic League for vetting, is thought to be "subversive" or an active trade unionist, then the League will recommend to the employer that that person should not be employed.

Where does the Economic League get its information from? Some of it is passed to them by police in the Special Branch; some is rumour and hearsay; much of it is inaccurate, defamatory and highly damaging. In most cases people will be completely unaware that an organisation like the Economic League has a file on them. They might simply be mystified at their continual failure to get jobs that they apply for. But even if they did know such a file was being held they would have no right of access to see that file, since the Economic League is not covered by the new legislation.

Some computerised files containing personal information are already covered by the Data Protection Act which comes into operation later this year. This Act. passed under duress in order to comply with European standards on data protection, provides minimal access to computer files on payment of a fee. (The Access to Personal Files Bill also requires individuals seeking access to files to pay a fee to the local authority holding the information). It was partly to plug the gaps left by the Data Protection Act that the new legislation was introduced. If not. the absurd situation would have existed where, if a housing authority had computerised its filing system then individuals would have a right to see their files (under the Data Protection Act) whereas, if records were kept on paper they would have no right of access. However, because of the limited categories of files covered by the Access to Personal Files Bill, such anomalies will continue to exist especially in relation to medical records.

Why should this be of any concern to workers? Why does it matter that the state and various private agencies collect information on us which they put into files? After all much of the information collected is intended to benefit us: by enabling the NHS to give us better health care; to enable a local authority to assess our housing needs; to allow a social security officer to assess our entitlement to benefit. It may be true that much of the information which we pass on about ourselves is collated by agencies whose main purpose is apparently benign — providing welfare, education. health care and so on. But this is not the only reason it’s collected. After all, just think for a moment how much information about yourself you are obliged to provide simply in order to claim housing benefit for example: how many rooms there are in your home; who lives with you and what the relationship is between you. details of your income and employment; what kind of heating you have and so on. Why is it all necessary?

It's necessary because housing benefit, like many other benefits, is means-tested. This means that you have no right to benefit but instead you've got to prove that you are a genuinely ' deserving'' case —that you fall within a certain category of claimant. It's not enough for you to say that you don't earn enough to pay the rent; you've got to prove it. So that's one reason why state agencies collect so much information — so that they can ration benefits in such a way that only certain groups get it. In other words giving all this information about yourself might help you to get benefit, but on the other hand, if you give the "wrong" answers then you will get nothing.

What is more worrying than the use of information to ration scarce resources is the fact that in many cases you may think you are supplying information for one purpose — getting a driving licence for example — when in fact that information is also being passed on to other agencies without your knowledge. So the information which you supply to the DVLC to get your driving licence may well find its way back on to the Police National Computer or Special Branch files and then on to the files of organisations like the Economic League. Similarly information given to the NHS or a housing authority might be passed to immigration officials looking for people who they believe have stayed in the country longer than for the period stipulated on their entry visa. So, while it is extremely difficult for us to gain access to information about ourselves held on official files, there may be few qualms on the part of state agencies about passing on personal information to others without our knowledge.


More information could lead to better provision of services designed to meet our needs. As anyone who has tried to claim housing benefit will know, this is very far from the case at the moment since the aim of the system is not meeting people's needs but rationing resources. The fact that countless officials collect information about us to which we have no right of access is worrying because we know that it can be used in such a way as to enable the state at least to control us and at worst to coerce, threaten or punish us. This is not surprising. In capitalism much of this information is collected by the state, and the main function of the state is to protect the interests of the capitalist class. One way of doing this is to exercise social control through apparently benign state agencies — schools, social services, social security. . .  A necessary precondition for the exercise of social control is information — knowing what the working class is up to, especially those labelled as "deviant " or “subversive". If effective control cannot be exercised through these "soft" control methods then there are still the more punitive methods of the police, prisons and security services. There is nothing new about these forms of state coercion. What is new is the effectiveness of information technology and surveillance methods which permit more people to be controlled in more areas of their lives. Neither the Access to Personal Files Bill, nor the Data Protection Act will do anything to alter the fundamental inequality of power that exists between individuals and the state in capitalism.

Janie Percy-Smith

Dirty Tricks Department (1997)

Book Review from the October 1997 issue of the Socialist Standard

In Defence of the Party: The Secret State, the Conservative Party and Dirty Tricks by Colin Challen & Mike Hughes. Medium Publishing Co., I Main St, East Ardsley, Wakefield. £3.95.

The authors of this 60-page booklet are largely sympathetic to the Labour Party which they consider to be socialist or social democratic and is concerned with "dirty tricks" by the Conservative Party and its "front" organisations against the Labour Party.

It contains much useful information on generally little- known aspects, and activities, of the Tories, not just against the Labour Party but against whom the Conservatives consider to be subversive to the Nation and the State. The authors also comment upon the traditionally close connections of the Conservative Party with the British state, secret and open.

Hughes traces the career of Admiral "Blinker" Hall, former Director of Naval Intelligence, who leaked the infamous Zimmermann Telegram and Roger Casement's diaries to the press, assisted in the founding of the Economic League, became a Tory MP. and was involved in the publishing of the forged Zinoviev Letter. And much more besides.

Colin Challen writes of the large number of top Tories (and mentions that there were also a few Labourites) involved during, and after, the Second World War with MI5. the SAS. MI6 and other agencies of the British State; and how they, and members of these agencies, were used against their opponents, again not just in the Labour Party, but against other groups and individuals. The infamous Charles Elwell. former head of MI5's F Branch, Brian Crozier, and onetime pet of Mrs Thatcher. David Hart, who campaigned against the National Union of Mine Workers during the 1980s, are mentioned for their various "Dirty Tricks" on behalf of the Tories and, of course, British capitalism.

There is a particularly interesting, but too brief, account of how the Tories secretly and, therefore, undemocratically, raised millions of pounds through various fronts such as the "River” companies. British United Industrialists and other organisations, although, surprisingly, no mention is made of the millions of pounds donated to the Conservative Party by rich, and sometimes crooked, capitalists in Hong Kong. Northern Cyprus and elsewhere.

The Conservative Party is the traditional party of British capitalism. Nevertheless, every so often, despite the "Dirty Tricks", the British Labour Party (now called New Labour) wins power to attempt to run capitalism. Maybe it will become the "natural" party of government in Britain; and then we shall get books by Tory journalists listing all Labour's "Dirty Tricks". Who knows?

Peter E. Newell

Sting in the Tail: Left Wing Futility (1989)

The Sting in the Tail Column from the July 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Left Wing Futility

Denis Canavan, Labour MP for Falkirk, is refusing to pay his £50 fine for not registering for the poll tax which came into effect in Scotland in April.

His response to a sheriff officer's threat to impound some of his property was to refer him to a 15 stone unemployed miner with two large greyhounds who will be looking after his house when he is at Westminster.

So eat your hearts out, you left wingers. Here's a guy who will take on the forces of the state without your workers' militia, barricades, etc. He only needs a man and two dogs. Of course Canavan knows there will be no aggro of that sort because the authorities can collect the fine plus expenses by simply arresting wages or freezing bank accounts and this is what the Labour controlled Central Regional Council have done with 130 people who haven't registered.

Canavan's show of bravado is therefore seen for what it is—empty political posturing, and there ought to be a fine for that.

Right Wing Duplicity

The much vaunted impartiality of the BBC and the ITV takes a severe knock when you discover the dirty tricks brigade that are involved in broadcasting.

In his book A Decade of Decline the author Peter Thornton tells us:

In September 1987 It was reported that MI5 tried to have Anna Ford, the broadcaster, blacklisted from the BBC in the mid-1970s on the grounds that a former boyfriend had once been a communist. It is believed that in that period local Special Branch officers recruited journalists in the BBC and ITV companies to pass on information about colleagues.

Economic League Stupidity

One of the more poisonous organisations in Britain today has got to be the Economic League. A crowd of creeps and snoopers who compile lists of workers that they consider to be subversive.

Active trade unionists, CNDers or just anyone who has taken part in any sort of demonstration or protest goes into their malevolent little black book.

Employers use this information to black list workers from getting jobs.

Attempts to legislate against this organisation were defeated in Parliament last year when a spokesman for the Home Office stated: "This organisation has been investigated twice - once by the Data Processing Register and once by the police. It is doing nothing illegal".

Michael Noar, director general of the League is reported recently as saying: "I agree that the political climate has changed. Class struggle is no longer an issue".

This piece of nonsense from the head snooper of an organisation whose sole reason for existing is to provide information to the bosses in their struggle against workers.

No class struggle? Tell that to the nurses, teachers, university lecturers and more recently the dockers who are engaged in this "non-existent" struggle.

Christian Lunacy

We learn from The Independent that a group of religious nut cases have recently been having a seminar to discuss such weighty matters as God's intervention in the affairs of we mere mortals.

Among the participants were the Archbishop of York, the most Reverend John Hapgood and the theologian John Polkingbourne.

One of the weighty matters given consideration by this learned body was prediction in science and J.R. Lucas illustrated the strength of Christian philosophy when he stated:

... it might have been reasonable for him to say an hour before that he was going to give this talk, but he could not have known he was: I might instead have become an existentialist, flown to Paris, and mounted an art exhibition in a public lavatory.

But if you think he was a star turn . . . he doesn't hold a candle to some of the other plonkers.

Much time was spent discussing parking spaces. This may seem odd, but one member of the group had been much exercised by a priest he'd heard on the radio who claimed that when he was in a hurry to a meeting in town God would always find him a parking place.

But for our natural compassion for the workers in Paris, going for a leak, we would wish Lucas and the rest of his Crazy Gang had flown to Paris and held their seminar in a public toilet.

Best place to talk crap!

The Logic of the Market Place

Futility, Duplicity, Stupidity and Lunacy: perhaps you think we exaggerate the shortcomings of capitalism?

Well how about this piece of information from The Glasgow Herald (17 May):

Brussels bureaucrats are destroying mountains of fruit and vegetables worth tens of millions of pounds. Figures released yesterday show the EC spent £67m getting rid of fruit and vegetables in the four months up to February this year.

Who is to blame for this shameful situation? The Glasgow Euro MP Janey Buchan has no doubts about the matter.

Mrs. Thatcher should stop trying to browbeat everybody else and help to find a way of getting this food free of charge to the people who need it.

What crass hypocrisy from a member of the Labour Party!

Does she imagine that the Labour Governments of Wilson and Callaghan favoured the free distribution of food? Does she imagine that a future Labour Government headed by Kinnock would do so? His recent praise of the market economy should leave no one in any doubt on that score.

Everything inside capitalism is produced for only one purpose - to make a PROFIT!

People starving while food is destroyed is the logical outcome of a society based on production for profit.

Only inside a socialist society can you have the free distribution of food.