Letter: Taxes and Labour (1978)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Taxes and Labour

Thank you very much for your stimulating reply to my letter which was published in your January, 1978 issue. In order to clarify my ideas, I should like the opportunity to answer the criticisms made of my theories.

Firstly, you asserted that, where my hypothesis assumes a retrenchment in the rate of direct taxation (and, ergo, a fall in government revenue from paye), unless the total cost of administration also decreases, then the government has to make an equal increase in the amount of tax collected directly from the capitalists (I presume that here you allude to Corporation Tax). However, if we assume that the cost of administration has remained the same, are there not other sources of government revenue which would obviate the need for more tax to be collected directly from the capitalists. For example, indirect taxation and loans which are not collected from the capitalists.

Secondly, you maintain that it cannot be assumed that a reduction of PAYE can enable the workers to improve their bargaining power increasing their net pay. But if you accept the above explanation of alternative sources of government revenue, which enable the total outlay of the capitalist to remain the same, then perhaps you will also agree that the capitalist will not be concerned about the in creased net pay of his workers since his aggregate outlay on tax and wages has not increased. In fact, he may be pleased if the fall in the rate of tax, by increasing the net pay of his workers, forestalls pressure for higher gross wages, which, if successful, would increase his total disbursements on wages and tax.

P. S. Maloney, 

Palmers Green

 

Reply:

In your earlier letter (SS January 1978) you accepted the proposition "that taxes are paid by the employing class", but argued that a reduction of PAYE would benefit the workers without costing the employers anything. You forgot that if government total expenditure remained the same (which was assumed in your letter) they would have to raise additional tax revenue to meet it. Our reply took the simplest case, that of additional taxes on profits.

You now accept that you had overlooked that if government expenditure remained the same they would need to raise additional revenue following the reduction of PAYE, but you say the government could increase indirect taxation or raise revenue by loans.

Without wishing to go into the complex question of the effect that indirect taxes have on the price level, we can take both cases, i.e. that prices remain the same, or that they rise.

If the capitalists' selling prices remain the same but indirect taxes go up his profits are reduced. If prices go up then the workers have an additional inducement to press for higher wages—and again his profits are affected.

About loans you also overlook the fact that government borrowing via the banks goes along with the persistent increase of the note issue with its effect in raising the price level.

The more important issue is whether the struggle that workers have to engage in to maintain or increase real wages can somehow be avoided by a reduction of PAYE; the implication being that if workers' wages did not come into the scope of Income Tax at all they would be better off. In the 19th century hardly any workers came into the Income Tax range. Are we to suppose that this made it easier for them to maintain or increase real wages?

The fact is that any concession received by the workers lessens the urgency with which they will press for more, as is shown in every strike settlement. Mr. Healey's strategy clearly lecognises this. He has told the Unions that if he succeeds in limiting the increase of money wages to 10 per cent he will make tax concessions, but will not give both a higher increase of money wages and a reduction of PAYE.

The one weapon the workers have on the industrial field is the strike. It is a dangerous illusion that the class struggle can somehow be side-stepped by campaigning for tax reductions.

Editors.

SPGB Meetings (1995)

Party News from the March 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1995)

Party News from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: Taxes and Labour (1978)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Taxes and Labour

Firstly, i refer to your correspondence columns in the Oct. 1976 and Dec. 1976 issues of the Socialist Standard. It was said in one of your replies that wages are what workers actually receive (net pay) and that taxes are paid by the employing class.

Notwithstanding the incontrovertibility of this assertion, I suggest that the rate of the impost on income is, caeteris paribus, of more interest to the worker than to the capitalist in the short term. If, for example, gross wages remain the same, while the rate of tax falls, then the total outlay of the capitalist remains the same (net pay plus taxation equalling the same gross pay as before the alteration of the impost rate) whilst the net pay of the workers increases at the expense of the tax paid; the reverse being the case if the rate of tax rises.

In the long term, however, an accretion to or a deduction from net wages as a result of a variation in the tax levels has repercussions on the employer. For instance, should net wages diminish as a result of an increase in the rate of tax, workers may then press, successfully, for higher gross pay which would entail an additional payment by the capitalist. Conversely, if net wages rise as a result of a fall in the tax on income, workers would be less likely to seek wage increases and so the capitalist avoids having to make additional payments to workers.

Secondly, the Spring-Summer 1977 Western Socialist contained a reply to a letter. The reply stated that the division of labour will be the basis of world Socialism. However, in The German Ideology Marx wrote ". . . while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow.”

Do you agree with the Western Socialist or with Marx?

P. S. Maloney

London N13

Reply:

Your proposition about tax is fallacious because, while you say that you are accepting that “other things are equal”, in fact ycur proposition is based on the assumption that two other vital factors have also been varied.

Our case is that in reality the burden of taxation (cost of the administrative machine of capitalism) falls on the capitalist class and comes out of surplus-value. Nominally, however, the cost is met partly out of PAYE, deducted from workers’ wages.

Your proposition assumes that the government revenue from PAYE is reduced, but unless you also assume (while giving no reason) that the total cost of administration has been correspondingly reduced, the government has to make an equal increase in the amount of tax collected directly from the capitalists. Your assumption that the total outlay of the capitalist remains the same is therefore untrue.

Your argument further requires (though without saying so) that simultaneously with the reduction of PAYE, the bargaining position of the workers against the capitalists has improved. (What Marx called "the respective powers of the combatants”.) If, before the reduction of PAYE, the bargaining power of the workers enables them to maintain net pay of £x, it cannot be assumed that when PAYE is reduced by £y the workers’ bargaining power is so increased that they can now achieve net pay of £x + £y.

In view of these errors in your proposition, it is not necessary to go into any difference there may be between short- and long-term.

The statement in the Western Socialist is in reply to a critic who argues that "division of labour and private property are equally” the cause of the evils of capitalism. The reply says that in Socialism there will be free access, and "without division of labour this would hardly be possible”.

Marx distinguished between social division of labour, i.e. the existence of separate industries, and the workshop division of labour, i.e. workers being forced to get their living by doing detailed processes. (See Capital Vol. 1, “Division of Labour and Manufacture”, particularly the last paragraph in Section 4.) The latter, but not the former, is peculiar to capitalism.

The Western Socialist’s critic does not make clear whether he is referring to the latter, or both. We do not imagine that the reply meant anything other than the social division of labour. Various industries under capitalism (particularly the motor industry) have already abandoned detail work and gone over to teams producing a whole car, because it gives greater output and better quality.

Anyway, how, in Socialist society, could any worker be compelled to do deadly repetitive work against his will? Marx made that point in The German Ideology. He said it is only under capitalism that a worker has to do it "if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood”. In the well-known passage where Marx spoke of man being “a hunter in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening”, etc., he was talking about "whole” jobs not detailed division of labour (though his examples are not much related to modern conditions). Marx also recognized that to do this the individual has to take advantage of the facilities “to become accomplished in any branch he wishes”, i.e. he has to get knowledge and training—no self-appointed surgeons or airline pilots, as anarchists have sometimes claimed there will be.

Editors.

Letters: Democracy and Socialism (1979)

Letters to the Editors from the March 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Democracy and Socialism

I concur with your exposure of Russia, China and similar countries as slate capitalist. However, I wonder if at times your attitude on this matter is not too negative, if not contradictory. For example, in the August 1978 edition of the Socialist Standard, in an article entitled 'State capitalism and the Russian dissidents', you stated that you could not support the Russian dissidents in their strivings for political democracy and. by implication, for private capitalism. Yet, in the September Socialist Standard you featured tracts on the power of the vote. One of these declared that socialists must capture control of the slate machine through Parliament. If socialism is to be achieved by democratic means, how can you refrain from supporting the fight for democracy (a prerequisite for socialism) in any country? Do you expect the Russians to stagnate and temporise until a socialist government is elected in Britain?

Secondly, as you made clear at the time, the Bolshevik revolution was not a socialist one and could not have been, because Russia was a predominantly peasant country and needed to industrialise. However, can you explain why, if it was not the intention of Lenin and the Bolsheviks to introduce socialism, the socialist ideology was adapted and persists today, even if it is based on the assumption that socialism is a prelude to communism? Further, if you accept that Russia had to continue to develop and progress (under capitalism) and you have stated in past copies of the Socialist Standard that capitalism has served the purpose of providing us with the potential to fulfil everyone’s needs, would you have been happier if Russia had developed more along the lines of the capitalist countries of the West, that is. with a greater degree of private enterprise?

P. S. Maloney

Palmers Green London N13

Reply:

The article ‘State Capitalism and the Russian Dissidents' showed how some opponents of the present Russian dictatorship, while struggling for some measure of political democracy there, envisage replacing Russian state capitalism with private capitalism. Socialists cannot support such a struggle; we oppose capitalism whatever form it takes. Where then do we stand on the issue?

Political democracy—in the sense of freedom of expression, the right to organise into parties, possession of the vole and so on — is essential for the establishment of socialism. But if socialists drop their uncompromising stand for socialism and instead campaign for some reform — including the vote — they cease to be socialists. They end up, like the Russian dissidents, standing for capitalism, which would in the end hamper the struggle for democracy, since capitalism’s “democracy" is anything but stable.

So what should workers in Russia, or any similarly repressive regime, do? Wherever possible they should struggle for socialism, which is a society of common ownership and democratic control of th. means of wealth production and distribution. The most effective, and enduring, struggle for democracy is the struggle for socialism.

The ideology of socialism was used fraudulently to justify the Bolshevik revolution. which marked the birth of capitalism in Russia. That fraud continues; while claiming to be socialist, Russia has a privileged class, a powerful military machine and a repressive state apparatus. The words socialism and communism mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Socialism is not a prelude to communism; this is another example of historical confusion used to explain away the existence of state capitalism in Russia. When capitalism is abolished it can be succeeded by only one social system, which can be called either socialism or communism.

Socialists are not particularly concerned about how capitalism develops; this will vary from time to time and from place to place. Neither do we argue that every country must pass through the same process of developing capitalism before socialism can be established. One country can learn from another and compress its development, as happened in Japan after 1857. Overall, society moves towards socialism and the job of workers everywhere is to help it by spreading socialist propaganda.

The important thing is that, in terms of resources, the world is capable of setting up socialism now. All that is needed is for the working class to stop supporting capitalism and to opt for socialism. Workers in Russia are not immune to socialist ideas and we look forward to the day when we can welcome a companion socialist party there.

Editors.

Parliament Does Matter

Dear Comrades,

B. J. Clifton in his letter (February Socialist Standard rejects the SPGB view that it is mistaken to believe that class rule is based upon economic power. Perhaps he should consider the implications of the alternative view that class rule (control of the state) IS based upon economic pow'er (command over the means of living) which would imply, of course, that irrespective of whether workers support capitalism, as long as capitalists have economic power, they will rule. What this means can be demonstrated by the following formula;

Capitalist class rule ensures the existence of capitalism. Capitalist class rule is based upon capitalist economic power. Capitalist economic power is an inherent and inevitable feature of capitalism. Therefore, capitalism can never be abolished because the condition that enables the capitalists to successfully defend their system — their economic power—is an inherent aspect of the system they are successfully defending thanks (ultimately) to their economic power! Apparently then, capitalist economic power is both the cause and the result of the same thing; their class rule. Looks like they’ve got a foolproof guarantee for perpetual existence so all we workers can do is glumly resign ourselves to an eternity of wage slavery!

If that sounds like one of those awful metaphysical riddles that must have a catch somewhere I would suggest you would not be wrong in thinking so. The point is that capitalist class rule does not exist irrespective of whether workers support capitalism but because workers support capitalism. As the article, "The Parliamentary Road to Socialism” pointed out, capitalist economic power cannot be separated from the massive support, expressed by the election of capitalist parties to Parliament for the system which enables the capitalists to have this economic power. The exercise of power implies the ability to coerce which depends, in the final analysis, on the active or passive willingness of those coerced, to be coerced. Take away the political support for the capitalist system provided by the working class—and the only effective and democratic method of doing this is through parliament where political power is legitimised in the first place — then the economic power of the capitalists will disappear with capitalism itself.

Fraternally,

Robin Cox, 

Haslemere, Surrey.

Letters: What is our IQ? (1977)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is our IQ? 

The article “Question of Intelligence” (December 1976) has been brought to my attention. It arises from the announcement in the Sunday Times that Professor Cyril Burt had “published false data and invented crucial facts to support his controversial theory that intelligence is largely inherited”. It quotes a reference to Burt in a pamphlet by Harold Walsby, SPGB—Utopian or Scientific, published by the Social Science Association in 1949, and says: “The ‘evidence’ Walsby thought conclusive was emotion wrapped up as science, and whoever used it to illuminate ‘the psychology of the workers’ would now be in the dark.”

The evidence to which Walsby refers is “the actual statistical-psychological investigations by Prof Burt, Thompson, Cattel and many others . . .” This evidence, as a whole, has not been invalidated, and the work of the other investigators stands as firmly as before.

I must draw attention to something else in the article likely to mislead people not familiar with Walsby’s work. It mentions the view “that a large proportion of the population were constitutionally incapable of learning much or running their own lives”, and says “Typical examples of this appeared in writings by Harold Walsby”. I challenge you to provide even one example of Walsby saying this. The implication is that Walsby regarded the working class as being mentally inferior. He did not.

Walsby held that the majority of people, workers and capitalists alike, would reject the Socialist case. The SPGB holds that the majority of the workers will accept it— if not, what is the point of presenting it to them? Since 1904 the evidence has been consistently in Walsby’s favour. According to the SPGB the material conditions are ripe for Socialism and the workers are capable of understanding Socialism. But we don’t get Socialism. Harold Walsby’s theory explains how it comes about that the overwhelming majority of those who have heard the Socialist case have rejected it in the past, persist in rejecting it, and will continue to reject it in the future. Also—and this is a harder task—Walsby’s theory explains how it is that a tiny minority comes to accept the Socialist case.

Geo. W. Walford 

London N1

Reply:

Your letter presents not arguments but heads-I-win-tails-you-lose propositions. You say (a) that the evidence used by Walsby from Burt and others "has not been invalidated”, and (b) Walsby never held that view anyway.

It is quite incorrect that “the work of the other investigators stands as firmly as before”. If this were so, Professor H. J. Eysenck (one of Burt’s supporters) would not have said in The Times of 8th Nov. 1976 :

  Perhaps it is time that society devoted more money to this important area . . . The issue is an important one, and should be taken beyond the range of simple argument and assertion.

L. J. Kamin, Professor of Psychology at Princeton University, called this plea “grotesque”.

The relationship between Burt’s work and that of other investigators seems to be a matter of widely differing opinion. According to the Sunday Times of 28th Nov., 1976, in 1973 Eysenck spoke of the “outstanding quality” of Burt’s work, but after the discrediting of Burt said his data were “useless”. Sir P. B. Medawar (The Times, 3rd Nov. 1976) contended that “the expression ‘innate intelligence’ should now be dropped from the language”. This was supported by Professor C. B. Hindley; and Professor J. Tizard said (The Times 25th Oct.) that the Burt case “would have the same effect on that branch of science as the finding that the Piltdown Skull was a forgery had on palaeontology”.

Regarding Walsby’s own views, a review of the Social Science Association pamphlet Science, Politics and the Masses by Richard Tatham appeared in the New Leader on 14th April 1945. The reviewer was F. A. Ridley. The pamphlet set forth the conclusions of Harold Walsby. Under the heading “Can the Masses Think?” the article said it was “clearly against the democratic assumption on the question of a rational approach to the masses”, and “the masses have usually only been used as pawns on title political chess-board by ruling — or would-be ruling — classes”.

Elsewhere Harold Walsby was quoted as saying "Anyone who understands the public knows that they like trash.” (Sunday Chronicle, 11th April 1954). If Ridley’s statements misrepresented Walsby’s views, did he repudiate them? If these and the statements in SPGB—Utopian or Scientific do not say the working class is mentally inferior, what the devil are they supposed to mean?

Finally, we are unaware what basis can exist for a prediction that the majority of workers will always reject the Socialist case. You say it has been rejected by “the overwhelming majority” of those who have heard it. But the overwhelming majority of the working class have not heard it, and more often than not it is heard under disadvantageous conditions. Walsby’s theory consists of trying to persuade us that these obstacles are of no consequence. You should try it. 

Editors.

Things to come

I would be grateful if you could clarify two points arising from one of your meetings which I recently attended.

1. What are the grounds of your conviction that when the capitalist system collapses a Marxist society is bound to take its place?
2. I cannot see why it would be presumptuous to produce a blueprint of the new society. Surely an examination of the practical problems involved must be undertaken firstly in order to prove that the system could be successful, and secondly to demonstrate to a sceptical electorate that there is a viable alternative to the present system.

S. Bettaney

Edgware

Reply:

Your first point is based on a misconception. Contrary to the vapid wafflings of other parties, both long ago and now, we have always held that capitalism will not collapse. The working class cannot sit back and wait for that to happen: they must organize consciously to get rid of capitalism and put Socialism in its place.

On your second point, we are unable to give you a blue-print for several reasons. You will appreciate that Socialism was feasible in 1904 when the SPGB was founded. Had the working class been ready then, the new society would have been established in an era of horse traffic when the burning question was “who will sweep the crossings?” Clearly the blue-print will look different in the age of jet engines and atomic power. Unless you can tell us when the workers—this means you!—will join us, how can we know what marvels will have emerged? As you say, there are practical problems.

Suppose that a would-be manufacturer tried to convince others in, say, the year 1600 that capitalism would be a good idea. Can you imagine the mind-boggling notions of banking, insurance, capital gains and all the multitudinous problems suggested by a society aiming to produce goods for sale instead of for use? The practical problems of Socialism would seem simple by comparison. If you have particular problems in mind, please let us know.

Editors.

More impact please

Socialism as the SPGB defines it has never been a motivating force in British working-class politics. From the formulation of the party in 1904 to the present day, it has made no movement in British politics worth talking about, because the working-class of Britain have never taken the SPGB’s case against capitalism as being the best way to get rid of capitalism, and the establishment of Socialism. The workers today still vote Labour, Liberal, and Scottish Nationalist. And in the economic field all the worker’s main drives are centred on work, full employment and the right to work.

If according to the doctrine of historical materialism capitalism produces the material and economic condition which turns the workers into Socialists there has been no real evidence for holding this point of view since Marx’s publication of The Communist Manifesto of 1848. Whether Socialism is inevitable or not is not a major question for Socialists. The major question for Socialists is: Why has not Socialism ever had even the slightest impact on the working class of Great Britain? Can the SPGB answer that one?

Ian Campbell 

Dundee

Reply:

It would be a wonderful thing if the material and economic conditions of capitalism did indeed “turn the workers into socialists”, for Socialism would then have been established long ago. Men turn themselves into Socialists, however, by developing their concept of what society should be, while material conditions supply the background and stimulus for this change.

History shows us that before there can be a fundamental change in society there is a long period during which the ideas and attitudes necessary for the change are fully developed. The establishment of Socialism will also require this maturity of ideas, although with the means of communication available today we can expect the development period to be much shorter. You say Socialist ideas have had no impact: but labour and social-democratic parties adopted (and so perverted) the word Socialism because it is attractive to large numbers of workers. Many of these parties have access to far greater resources to be used for propaganda purposes than does the SPGB.

In the meantime the workers still vote, as you say, for the Labour, Liberal and Scottish Nationalist parties. However, their propaganda often wears thin; the “anti” vote (“I’ll vote for this lot because the other lot are even worse”) is a recurrent common feature. The parties supporting capitalism, whether they label themselves Socialist or not, lose their credibility because at the end of the day they cannot produce results. When the working class sees the futility of capitalism, the SPGB will be there to be used by them for the establishment of Socialism.

Incidentally, we are pleased to see that the Socialist case has had sufficient impact on your own thinking to prompt you to write to us.

Editors.

Parties and profits

I subscribe to the Socialist Standard and, in the main, I find your articles to be both lucid and irrefragable. However, there are several points which in my opinion require elucidation.

Firstly, on more than one occasion you have asseverated that the Labour Party represents one section of the capitalist class whilst the Conservative Party represents another. Please identify these two sections of the capitalist class.

Secondly, in your answer to Robin Cox’s letter (March 1977) you pointed out that although consumer expenditure increased by 80 per cent between 1970 and 1975, the Index of Production rose by 0.6 in the same period. Could it not be that a part, at least, of the extra consumer expenditure was on imported goods not included in the Index of Production statistics, and that had British goods been more competitive there would have been an increase in the Index of Production?

Thirdly, as you adhere to Marx’s version of the Labour Theory of Value, can you explain how it is that retail organizations make profits if goods are sold at their value? Is it by exploiting their own employees?

P. S. Maloney

London N13

Reply:

1. In the first half of the 19th century there was a clear-cut division of representation—the landed interests by the Tories and the industrial capitalists by the Liberals. Now that 85 per cent of the electors are working-class and British capitalism’s problems have become more complex, the lines are blurred and shifting capitalist interests are being served by Tory and Labour.

In the first place, the parties have to win elections by making the kinds of promises on social reforms, prices, wages, unemployment, housing etc. that will appeal to a mass electorate; so that in this field there is little to choose between the programmes of the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties. But as governments they have to deal with capitalism’s problems as they arise. Each party, having received representations from the CBI, TUC, farmers, retailers, self-employed etc., and after consulting its economic advisers, formulates its taxation and other policies. These are bound to help some sections of the capitalist class and damage others, and sections of the capitalist class give their support to one or other party accordingly: as when the Labour Party (like the Liberals) was standing for free trade and the Tories protectionist.

The same sort of division arose over entry into the European Economic Community because at the beginning of consideration of the question, majority Labour Party opinion was against it. At one time the Labour Party backed the small firms against the big ones; a Labour Party spokesman said that they “preferred a large number of small capitalists to a small number of large ones". But when the Labour government came to office in 1964, they adopted the policy of encouraging company mergers through the Industrial Reorganization Corporation.

In 1945 the Labour, Tory and Liberal parties were agreed on adopting inflation as a policy (to prevent unemployment as they supposed). In the 1970s increasing numbers of capitalists were turning against it, leading to a swing against inflation in the Tory Party but with, so far, the Labour Party and its TUC backers basically unchanged in their attitudes. Those capitalists who still favour inflation will look to the Labour Party.

The parties have traditional commitments and “images”. For example the Labour Party’s fervent commitment to nationalization while the Tories and Liberals have adopted it only when circumstances required it in the interest of the dominant section of the capitalist class; and the Labour Party’s commitment to the trade unions who supply its funds. But in practice the urgent need to try to solve capitalism’s problems forces governments to act, if necessary, in opposition to the views of their own members. At the 1970 general election the Labour, Tory and Liberal parties were all pledged to legislation to control trade unions; though, as it turned out, opposition was so great that the Labour “In Place of Strife” was dropped and the Tory Industrial Relations Act repealed. And it was a Tory minister in a coalition government, in 1915, who first introduced rent restriction.

Also, policies change with circumstances, and from time to time the capitalist class find their interests being served by the Labour Party — as for example, when it appears that unpopular policies can be put over more easily by Labour than by the Tories. (Several Tory newspapers favour keeping the Callaghan government in office until the third stage of the Social Contract has been negotiated with the TUC).

Government intervention in industry and nationalization present striking examples. The Tory government, against its declared policy on “lame ducks”, was forced to nationalize Rolls Royce. And with much of industry in financial difficulties, many shipbuilding and other companies welcomed nationalization or government aid accompanied by the government becoming a shareholder. (But it is a Labour government which is selling part of its holding in British Petroleum.) In a similar situation in Italy a year or two back it was reported that companies “were queueing up to be taken over”.

An article published in Management Today (December 1976) dealt with the Labour governments Industrial Reorganization Corporation. It was set up for the purpose of encouraging companies to combine and thus increase efficiency, the government providing advice and finance. The writers, who worked on IRC, say:

What surprised us most while at the IRC, however, was the willingness of private sector individual companies to discuss their problems with a government organization and to seek its help and assistance. It appears to be quite wrong to take the view that in the UK private sector capitalists are opposed to government help. Whatever they may say, in practice their opposition does not exist.

(The IRC was scrapped by the Tories, its work having been largely completed.)

When the present depression passes and it again becomes easy to make profits, the Labour Party’s leaning towards nationalization and government intervention in industry will lose the attraction it has at present for “lame duck” companies. The Tory traditional attitude may find favour again with that section of the capitalist class.

(To be continued) 

R. W. Clayton (London SW7): Part of your letter was dealt with some months ago under another name. As regards the remainder, if you care to offer an argument in support of your statements we will consider it.

Editors.