The Row About Overseas Students (1976)

From the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Students who come to the UK from abroad to study make another part of the education pot that is at boiling point. But as with the reasons for the cuts in the education system (discussed last month) so also with the explanation of the row about overseas students. The causes have nothing to do with so-called academic freedom, or colour prejudice, or the duty to help developing countries. The cause of the dispute is within the economics of capitalism itself in one of its periodic crises.

Cuts are demanded in state expenditure by the capitalist class and in education in particular. One of the things which have been cut back on is the “subsidy” to overseas students. This so-called subsidy relates to the fact that the fees paid by all students to universities and colleges of higher education do not in fact represent the true cost of the course they will be attending. The real cost will be many times higher and the balance comes from central and local government grants to the universities and colleges, together with whatever else they can squeeze from private sources. Overseas students (estimated to be about 95,000 for the academic year 1973/4) therefore apparently cost the capitalist class considerable amounts.

For example the “price” of one year of a 3-year course in science at University College London, for the academic year 1975/76 was £157. But this figure probably represents no more than 10 per cent of the true cost of providing the services and equipment available to each student on a science course at UCL. So the call grows from the politicians (the mouthpieces of the capitalist class) and others involved to make students who come here to study from abroad pay the market price.

Material Reasons

The facilities for overseas students are claimed to be given on the basis of the moral duty of the country to help educate those of poorer countries where an education system is not provided. At times it almost gets down to the level of the charitable good souls of the do-gooders’ camp versus the mean lot of the other side This is all window-dressing with as much relationship to the real issues involved as blow-football to an FA cup final. Cheap or cut-price education for people from other countries is merely part of what is known as overseas aid, something which most of the advanced capitalist countries have been doing for years. Overseas aid has never been given for other than purely material reasons—how much will the “giving” country make on it at the end of the day? It is the same with overseas students.

The furore really began when a Cabinet committee recommended an increase in the fees to overseas students of between 2 and 5 times to bring them up to more than £2000 p.a. for advanced students in the year 1976/77 (see The Times, 11th February 1976). This provoked Mr. Alan Phillips, General Secretary of the World University Service, to say that the suggested increase would destroy Britain’s reputation as a haven for academic refugees (The Times, 12th February). Whether he himself really believes that the UK is a “haven” for refugees, academic or otherwise, only he knows. But when education is regarded as merely the best way to train man-power for the production line (as it is under capitalism), it does seem stretching it a little to make such wild statements! Is it a haven for those refugees that come to this country and cannot afford to keep themselves without doing a full time job, making studying if not impossible, at the least a most difficult task?

The arguments of the side supporting the move to increase the fees are equally spurious and at times nauseating. A letter was written to The Times (17th January 1976) by the Medical Officer of Warwick University, asserting that it is not only the fees that these students get on the cheap, since they also use resources other than academic ones. They are a drain on the National Health Service (he claimed) and they have different diseases and psychiatric problems from those of their British counterparts, costing considerable sums to treat. Worst crime of all “not only do the students themselves use the NHS but also they may bring their wives and even children.” What will he say to General Gowan (the butcher of the Biafrans but now respectably studying at Warwick University itself) when he comes in to see the medical department asking for some aspirin? It is often quite unbelievable to see the length the working class will go in defending their masters’ interests, or what they take to be their masters’ interests.

Profitable Investment

But capitalism does not need university medical officers to tell the workers the amount it has to pay to provide education as a form of aid. It has august bodies who will do some proper research for it, such as the British Council. They reported on 20th January this year that in the long term the overseas students were of great economic value to what the council called the country but of course means the capitalist class. And in a long analysis by The Times education correspondent (10th February 1976) the facts and figures to back this up are given.

He starts by saying that his initial reaction to the proposals for increasing the fees charged to overseas students is “one of guts abhorrence” to anything which would threaten the free movement and international concept of university and college education. There has never been any such freedom; but let us pass on to the more serious part of his report which, as even the most ill-educated member of the capitalist class (and there are plenty of those) will tell you, means money. The Times correspondent goes on to give some very sound reasons why it would not, paradoxical though it may seem, be in the interests of the capitalist class to raise the fees charged to overseas students, thus causing some of them to look for their studies elsewhere. He draws up the equivalent of a balance sheet showing the profit and loss from the overseas students trade. The cost is some £83 million p.a. But on the credit side, it is estimated that overseas students spend something like £75 million p.a. whilst they are over here. Add to that the fact that it is estimated that £40 million p.a. is spent at private schools which get some of the academic backwash of the so called “free movement” of students to the country. The capitalist class as a whole are already in credit. But the best is yet to come:

Add to all this the intangible, unquantifiable, but logical advantage to British exports. Students highly trained in this country who then proceed to important posts in their own country can exert great influence on contracts entered into with Britain for equipment, buildings and technical skills . . . And Lord Caradon, Britain’s former representative at the United Nations, said: ‘It is unanswerable that the foreign students who come to the country contribute in the money they bring with them far more than anything that is paid by this country on their education.’ The millions of pounds we spend on foreign students each year should be recognised as a considerable investment in the future prosperity of our country as well as a cheap and effective form of aid programme.

One can only add: “Q.E.D.”

Free Learning

Education is of course a carrot which can be used when the representatives of the British capitalist class are trying to sell goods abroad. "Buy British and get some education on the cheap.” One of the Professors of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine recognised that when he wrote to The Times (18th February 1976) discussing Barbara Castle’s visit to Kuwait for the purposes of expanding the British export trade to that country. What better way to sell your goods has been invented? What was all that about academic havens and free movements . . .?

However, despite the fact that it obviously not profitable in the long-term interests of the capitalist class to increase fees, the increase took place. As explained last month, capitalism is not capable of being a rational efficient system, even within the confines of its own interests. Either short-term exigencies do not permit it, or those advising the capitalist class get it wrong. Either way it is haphazard and no “right” answers are possible.

Education under capitalism is not “free” and never has been. Freedom is a concept which is almost completely debased by its users within the confines of capitalist society. One of the most important aspects of Socialist society will be free access. This does not only mean unrestricted ability to take from what is produced and to be able to use and enjoy the means of production. In a Socialist society (and only in such a society) knowledge will be freely available for the benefit of all. Studying and education will merely be a part of a life-long process of physical and mental enrichment; not as now, a drudgery to be suffered when young. And in case anyone has missed the point, as there will be no countries but only one world society in Socialism, so the problems of the overseas student will quickly be placed in the dustbin of the problems of a previous society.

Ronnie Warrington

Communism, Religion and the USSR (1976)

From the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lord Donald Soper, the Methodist leader, has acquired the reputation of being a great orator. Those of us who have heard him speaking at Tower Hill and Hyde Park are always impressed by the flow of fine phrases, but on closer examination these turn out to mean precisely nothing. There is no doubt whatever as to his great entertainment value. However his virtues else, be they as pure as grace, when it comes to making a contribution to political thought Lord Donald has been decidedly unsuccessful. Good Labourite that he is, he has been a regular contributor to Tribune, the left-wing journal of utopian reformers who want to retain capitalism on working-class terms. Consequently his writings, tailored as they must be to the needs of this clearing house for malcontents, have little to offer by way of a solution to the problems of the real world of capitalism. How could they, when the ultimate authority which lies behind all Lord Soper’s prognostications on the state of the world is God and religion?

It is this type of religious rubbish which gives the name “Christian Socialist” to religious critics of capitalism, and encourages them to make the nonsensical claim that Socialism and religion are quite compatible, and that Jesus Christ was a Socialist. The Labour Party and the Trade Union movement is full of these “Christian Socialists”, Baptists, Methodists, lay preachers, Salvationists, lesson-readers, and all the other dreary joyless characters who provide religion on the cheap for the godless industrial masses. As long as there are votes to be had from those workers who hold religious ideas no capitalist party, and here we include the Communist Party, will repudiate religion, the churches and other forms of religious organization. Most workers are easy-going on the subject of religion and its social importance has receded but has not yet vanished. The capitalist class can still find a role for religion to play in support of the system when the occasion arises.

True to form, Lord Soper has just made a fresh statement which is as stupid as it is incorrect. Addressing the Annual Methodist Conference at Preston during a discussion on religious education in schools, he claimed that Communism is a religion:

It is unquestionably a religious faith. We shall get into trouble if we try and distinguish between what we call religion and ideology.

(Daily Telegraph, 1st July 1976)

We certainly shall if we don’t. Religion deals with fiction and Communism, or Socialism, deals with facts. All religions are united on the principle of supernatural phenomena and life after death in a spiritual world — Hell or Heaven, as the case merits. Socialism, or Communism, is based on materialism, which means that we can know nothing outside of the senses, and that all natural and social phenomena must be interpreted through the human agency without divine intervention. Materialism also means that men are in command of society and science, and “acts of God” are nothing more than a term used on insurance policies for material reasons.

Perhaps Lord Soper was getting a bit confused over the term “Communism”. He obviously meant the system prevailing in the Soviet Union, but which bears no resemblance to communism. There, undoubtedly, religious attitudes are indoctrinated but with the difference that the state and the leadership replace the God and saints of the old Russian Orthodox Church — but not quite. There is certainly very little to choose between the religion of the old world and its uncritical adulation of God, and the claim of infallibility of the Communist Party leadership, based as it is on the exploitation of superstition and ignorance of the Russian masses. That type of communist superstition, coupled with the myth that common ownership exists and the worship of the god of productivity, is certainly taught in the Russian schools, but this is the worship of capital, albeit state capital. The Soviet Union has proved that you can have religion with or without God — a belief in the supernatural has various applications. It is not subject to any laws of logic, reason or science — the world of fantasy is a great place for those who can live on dreams for the future which never arrives, or has not arrived after sixty years.

Officially the Soviet Union is godless, but millions of people still have religious views and take part in the ceremonies and ritual of the Russian Orthodox Church. The main religious festival is Easter; Good Friday and Saturday being the big market days. “At Moscow Yelokhovsky Cathedral, Pimen, Patriarch of all the Russians, officiated . . . the packed congregation included a sizeable number of foreign diplomats admitted through a side door to avoid the crush. Others drove 40 miles to the Sergei Trinity Abbey, one of Russia’s holiest places. All day there were long lines, mostly of women, outside churches each with Easter cake slung in a napkin waiting to have it blessed”. (The Times, 26th April 1976.)

Lenin and the old Bolsheviks denounced religious institutions because the Russian Orthodox Church was a pillar of the Czarist regime. They claimed they would abolish religious influences by separating the church and the state, and making religious societies and institutions dependent on those who adhered to the faith. However, Lenin was astute enough to realize that you cannot abolish religion by decree, as was attempted in the French Revolution. He knew that he was dealing with masses of superstitious and ignorant peasants, and he wanted their support. Consequently, the “socialist atheism” of the Bolsheviks was played down in favour of “religious freedom”. “Everyone must be absolutely free to profess whatever religion he likes, or to profess no religion; i.e. be an atheist as every socialist usually is.” (p. 12, Lenin on Religion, Martin Lawrence.) This was not opposition to religion but pandering to it.

One thing is certain and that is that Socialism is not compatible with religious ideas. The Communist Parties of Europe, including the British party, have faithfully taken up a high-sounding attitude of religious freedom. Consider how much support the Communist parties in Italy and France would get were they to attack religion. In any case, the Soviet Union are no longer interested in abolishing religion, particularly as the church is now under the thumb of the Communist Party. When it suits them they will use religion in its customary rôle to maintain their position by befuddling the workers.

The Sunday Times of 27th April 1975 reported that Russia was using priests as emissaries to Israel to discuss certain property questions. “Two Moscow churchmen visited Israel at the end of last month officially for talks on a legal dispute over Russian Church property . . . Further talks are expected in May when Metropolitan Nicodemus, foreign relations secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate visits Jerusalem as a pilgrim to the Orthodox Churches Easter ceremonies. The Patriarch of Soviet Armenia is also due . . .”. No doubt the Russian capitalist class wants the priests and bishops to work for their keep, and for that very reason they will keep the religious institutions going by recognizing their use value. The fact that Church property still exists contradicts the claim made repeatedly that the communists would confiscate the property.

The Communist Party in Russia is a capitalist party and has the responsibility of running capitalism in that country. Fundamentally there is little difference between Russian capitalism and Western capitalism. The dominant relations of production are wage-labour and capital, and the prevailing ideology is one of support for the institution of private property, with all the trimmings of religion, mock-morality and hypocrisy. A Communist society cannot exist where one section of the population is exploited by another, and the term “Russian Communism” is the ignorant man’s way of describing state capitalism.

Jim D'Arcy

About Socialism (1976)

From the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

After trying to explain Socialism to friends I often find them suddenly asking, “But how much would a manual worker get?” or something equally startling. I suppose it must be partly my fault for advocating “production for use” and “common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution” etc., without always getting across even the major implications of such Socialist fundamentals. (It’s also partly the fault of Labour, Communist, Conservative and other political parties who intentionally propagate the idea that the nationalization in the UK and the capitalism in Russia have something to do with Socialism; and that wage-earners, money and armed forces etc. can or do exist in a Socialist society. Some of the members of these parties genuinely believe these ideas out of ignorance —others, better-read and “knowing the score” deliberately preserve the deception out of self-interest.)

And so, for the benefit of readers not long acquainted with the Socialist Standard or other Socialist literature, here are some of the physical implications of a Socialist society.

There will be no money. The necessities and good things of life will be produced by the community and owned by it, so no one will be in a position to sell anything to anybody. Each individual will take (literally) freely what he or she needs—no buying, no selling, no stealing—all impossible, and money superfluous. Each person will work because he or she is a human being to whom useful work is natural and each will eat, and enjoy leisure for the same reason. There will be no “If you don’t work you don’t eat” threats. The only “punishment” for consuming without producing will be the pity and possible “patronage” of one’s fellow beings. (Which is probably worse than it sounds!) Stealing having disappeared — so will prisons, policemen and armed forces. Likewise there will be no vested interests, power groups, nations or nationalism. The motive for war will cease to exist.

Because of the advanced state of material development the world has now reached, all this is within our reach, requiring but one more thing—the understanding of, and consequent desire for Socialism by a majority of the citizens of the world.

R. B. Gill

Remember Soweto? (1976)

From the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that the headlines have died down over the recent riots in Soweto, South Africa, and the press vultures are picking over some other gory carcass, it is worth a look at what the Johannesburg Star had to say before the outbreak of riots.

In an article on 14th June 1976 it described Soweto as ". . . just a huge agglomeration of people living without many of the accepted amenities of urban life. Physical security, schools, decent sanitation, and roads, electricity, proper shopping and recreational facilities . . ." In other words, a massive shanty town for “probably well over a million people” (i.e. black workers). Since last year, when the Johannesburg Star had another article on Soweto “matters have not improved”. The cauldron could well have boiled over earlier.

The real concern of the paper is revealed in the last paragraph of the later article:

Can any government in its right senses allow this drift towards disaster to continue? Even if you leave human compassion right out of it and simply consider the huge potential threat that is building up here to the security of everyone. White as well as Black?

The capitalist class are always willing to “leave human compassion right out of it”. What they are concerned with is “the security of everyone”, specially themselves. You can’t have the workers going round rioting, stealing and destroying property; they might start bringing these reactions into the factories and other places. Workers must respect property. The capitalists must keep the lid on and maintain law and order “at all costs” as Vorster emphatically pointed out.

The tragic lesson of Soweto is that the capitalists will unhesitatingly use the state power when they think their interests are threatened. While we abhor the conditions under which the South African workers are forced to live, the solution does not lie in abolishing apartheid but in the recognition by all workers that their common interest lies in the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by Socialism throughout the world.

T. K.

So They Say: Ungrateful Lot (1976)

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

Ungrateful Lot

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

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

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

O Brother!

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

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

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

months . . .

The Times, 7th July 1976

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

Sir Willie?

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

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

What could be fairer ?

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

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

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

Daily Telegraph, 7th July 76

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

Class Distinction

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

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

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

Idle-ized

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

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

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

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

Alan D'Arcy

Labour-Power and Wages (1976)

From the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

The particular form of society in which we live is capitalism which is composed of two classes, defining class as relationship to the means of production. The capitalist class own the means of production, which enables them to exploit the working class and to live luxuriously on the surplus-value the workers produce. The working class have no ownership in the means of production and must therefore, to live, sell the only commodity they possess: : their mental and physical energies, viz., labour-power.

Labour-power is not to be confused with labour; the latter is the function of the former. Labour-power, being a commodity, is subject to the same economic laws as other commodities. The value of any commodity is determined by the amount of socially-necessary labour-time required for its reproduction. In applying this yardstick we shall see that labour-power exists in the living individual: therefore the value of labour-power resolves into the means of subsistence, food, clothing, living accommodation, all the things required to reproduce the labour-power for the employment in which it is engaged. This includes provision for the worker’s family, as his children must replace him in the labour market.

The purely physical means of subsistence required to keep the worker sufficiently supplied with energy to continue in working order is qualified by historical or social elements; these reflect wants arising from developing social conditions, and varying standards of living obtained by workers in different countries. The value of labour-power may therefore vary within certain limits. It may, for example, be increased by the expansion of the social element, or the social element may be brought nearer to the bare means of subsistence just sufficient to keep the worker as exploitable material. Any further reduction, reducing wages beyond the physical element, would result in labour-power failing in normal efficiency.

Wages are the price of labour-power, the expression of its value in terms of money, although price and value are not necessarily identical. Wages therefore may rise above or fall below the value of labour- power, depending on the pressure of capital on one side and the resistance workers are able to put up. A constant struggle takes place as a necessary result of the wages system. The worker must always try to maintain his standard of living, the capitalist will always try to increase his profit.

The value produced in a working day is divided into two parts. The first is that which has to be returned to the worker as wages. The remainder is appropriated by the capitalist class as owners of the means of production, and is called surplus-value. Clearly the one cannot increase without the other decreasing. Also, wages can never rise above the point where the average amount of profit is threatened to any extent. However, it is a mistake to suppose that this conflict of interests constitutes the class struggle. It is one part of the class struggle, a necessary but limited one. The ultimate struggle is over the ownership of the means of production and distribution, and its prosecution requires comprehensive political action.

Failing that, the basic position of the wage-worker remains unaltered. As we have seen, labour-power is a commodity and like other commodities has value. But it is unique among commodities in that by its use, i.e. when the worker produces by applying his energies to natural resources and raw material, he creates value. He not only adds value, but more value than that of his labour-power. It is the difference between what the worker receives as wages, and the total value he produces, that is the source of the capitalist’s profit. The worker must supply the capitalist with surplus-value in order that he may work for his own livelihood.

Socialists ask their fellow members of the working class to look beyond the wages system, to become conscious of the need to move on to an altogether different society. A society where wages would have no place, there would be no wage-working class, and no capitalist to appropriate what is produced. Property society has served its purpose. Socialism will give rise to new social relations corresponding to the ownership of the means of living being in the hands of the world community. The aim should be to abolish the wages system and to replace it by a system where people can freely take the things they require, as they will freely take part in producing them.

P. Young

Letter: Small Fry (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Small Fry

I read with interest your reply to Robin Cox, entitled “Working and Class” (March Socialist Standard), in which you say that a self-employed business man employing a handful of people cannot be classed as a member of the capitalist class proper. With which I agree, but by the same token, if a person retains the full value of his own labour and the surplus value of, say, 5 or 6 other people then he cannot be classed as a member of the working class proper.

I remember reading an article which, if my memory serves me right, made this very point, saying that the labour theory of value was very elastic and that the small business man came into an economic “grey area”, but that these people were such a small minority of the world’s population it was of no importance to the scheme of things. It also rightly pointed out that a self-employed person’s interest lies more with the working class than the capitalist class, as often in an economic crisis many find themselves fighting for their very existence. Indeed, thousands have found themselves relegated to the ranks of the dole queue in competition for the sale of their labour-power.

I would be most interested in your comments.

E. Higdon. 

Auckland, N.Z.

Reply:

In addition to the answer you yourself give, we would say the following. The kind of small enterprise you suggest is seldom independent and would not be capable of competition with larger companies. Instead, it is commonly dependent on one or another of them. It supplies components, or sub-contracts, or plays a part in distribution.

The “business man” running such a firm is theoretically getting his living from the surplus-value produced by those he employs, but in practice he is supervising a segment of the larger enterprise. Usually the use of his own labour-power is as indispensable as that of the employees, and in effect he is himself employed and exploited. When the major company reduces production he is likely to be left with his outlet diminished or gone and his liabilities to meet: hence the many bankruptcies among small companies.

It is convenient to the capitalist class to let small enterprises go on in this way. Many of them produce cheaply because they are in sub-standard premises, employ part-time or casual labour, or believe sacrificial cheapness equals competitiveness and will get them more contracts; and the volume of goods or services supplied to a company in this way is not sufficient to be worth the company’s while to incorporate in its own production. As an example, a few years ago the Esso oil company operated a system of “authorized installers” for central heating. Under it, small businesses installed boilers, pipes and radiators for small returns—so that Esso heating oil could then be sold. Not much doubt who was, and who was not, realizing the surplus-value in that case.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: The Working Class (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Working Class

You are interested in the working class which is 60-70 per cent of the population. Have you any surveys, or are there any socialist-type surveys which indicate a particular psychology especially comparing them with other classes and how they differ? First money; according to probate statistics the working class leaves nil as far as this district is concerned in the overspill Manchester area. As far as I can see they are not interested in looking after their own social interests like tenants’ league and political meetings. They are certainly fond of children. They are also fond of hire-purchase. They do not tidy up their gardens like the middle class bungalows here. What have they not that the higher-ups have?

W. Popplewell, 

Knutsford

Reply:

You are approaching this matter from the wrong direction. The working class, as you indicate the overwhelming majority, is so called because the members of that class have to rely on a wage or salary in order to live and maintain their families. The term “middle class” is confused, although it is popularly used to denote those who earn relatively high wages or salaries; this does not influence the economic realities of the “middle class.” They too have to sell their labour-power in order to live.

Members of the working class leave relatively little because while they are selling a lifetime of labour- power they receive (in wages and salaries) only that amount which generally accords with the amount required for them to live. There is no surplus. Hire-purchase is a debt which workers incur because they are unable to purchase certain articles outright. But neither of these phenomena indicates a fondness or an innate characteristic displayed by workers: they are reflections of working-class poverty.

Matters such as the workers’ fondness of children, and gardening habits, clearly vary in individual circumstances and are also open to a wide range of opinion. Although it would be unsatisfactory to draw any common significance from them, what can be said is that by and large, members of the working class look after children and gardens. The point to note here is that these do not necessarily have to be their own.

On your last point—the working class have not got the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. This is the factor which underlies all working-class behaviour, and not some “special” psychological characteristic.

The answers to the questionnaire you have also sent, cannot be dealt with here. We suggest you approach the reference section of a public library which will have many of the statistics you require.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Ownership and Arms (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ownership and Arms

Your party supports common ownership of the means of production and distribution, but opposes nationalization, calling it state capitalism. How, therefore does your party propose to bring about common ownership and does it wish to do this for all industries?

Your party opposes religion, why? Is this because your party is based on Marxism?

Finally, why does your party oppose and wish to abolish the armed forces? In a socialist state surely they could be used to defend freedom and democracy. If this country were to be invaded by hostile forces what would your attitude be to resistance?

Michael Newton,

Cambridgeshire

Reply:

Nationalization is a means of running capitalism under the auspices of the state. It has nothing whatever to do with Socialism and bears no resemblance to common ownership. Look at the coal mines, the railways, electricity and steel: the same capitalist economics of money, wages, and profits and competition for markets hold sway as in the “private sector”. Common ownership means that the whole world and all its industry and resources will be held in common by all mankind. Goods and services, being produced solely for use, will be freely available according to need. How? A democratic majority on a world basis will first come to understand the need to change and then vote for it. This presupposes their readiness to co-operate in bringing it into being and running it.

Yes, Marx has supplied the scientific basis for opposing religion. The crude and primitive mumbo- jumbo of religion has served successive ruling classes through centuries. When the working class develop class-consciousness they will have no further need for pie in the sky. There is no rational or scientific basis for religious ideas; clinging to them anchors the workers to capitalism.

Your final question assumes “this country” will go Socialist first and be on its own. You must be on your guard against nationalistic habits of thought. The workers of the world are confronted by the same social problems, all arising from the same cause—capitalism. Socialist ideas will not spread in isolated pockets here and there. Millions of workers in this country must become Socialists before the system here can change. Can your really imagine this happening while in the rest of the world ideas stand still? As Socialism involves working together and organized co-operation, then as the movement for Socialism grows the liaison and unity of workers will grow and will necessarily be world-wide. Hostile forces are a product of capitalism. They are represented in the military machines of rival capitalists struggling for markets and profits. Workers have no country to defend, and armed forces only exist to conserve the property of the capitalists. Workers have a common interest wherever they are, and no reason to be hostile to each other. For further expansion of the above arguments you will find our pamphlets War and Questions of the Day well worth reading.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Giving way over wages (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Giving way over wages

I have bought the Standard for 34 years and voted “Socialism” at elections as you advise us to do.

Recently I have been having a battle in the local newspaper with married women teachers who have husbands earning the average industrial wage of £60 a week. I have suggested that where they have joint incomes of £160 gross per week they give up their employment in favour of the young unemployed who receive £11 dole. The reply of the married women teachers is that the law has now been changed and they are going to hang on to the good life no matter how many are out of work. This legislation I believe was due to pressure on the Labour government by women’s organizations. By the way the local Labour Party have kept out of the argument!

What has the SPGB to say on this matter to the unemployed? I myself am existing on £14.15 invalidity pay at 59 years of age. Will we ever get Socialism? Do we deserve it? The so-called "middle-class” women have no principles.

E. Hewkin,

Derby

Reply:

We sympathize with your anger over inequalities, but in this instance you are mistaken. What you are proposing is a variant of the “wages fund” idea; i.e. that a certain amount of money is available, and one group of workers gets more only at the expense of another group. That is not the case, nor is the converse—that if one group relinquished its higher wages the money would go to others who are poorly paid.

If married women teachers resigned on principle as you suggest, who would get their jobs and salaries? In the present situation, the answer is “Nobody”. The numbers of teachers are being cut down, not by sackings but by non-replacement of those who leave (normally by retirement). The authorities, who are seeking to reduce government expenditure, would be gratified at having the process thus speeded-up; they would not then defeat the object of “cuts” by giving extra money elsewhere. The result therefore would be two people out of work instead of one, with the dole as it was.

But higher incomes do not mean opulence for workers. Wages represent the cost not only of producing labour-power, but the cost of reproducing it: maintaining the worker and his family. Some labour- power is a cheap product, requiring little training and maintenance—hence low wages. Skilled, professional and managerial workers generally are selling a more expensive product, hence its higher price. However, the latter must also live in a manner which reproduces their labour-power satisfactorily; and, just as with unskilled workers, that will take them to the extent of their incomes. In housing, for instance, poorer-paid workers may live in Council dwellings or privately-owned ones, at relatively low rents. A mortgage of £7,500 on an “owner-occupied” house at present Building Society rates over 15 years means repayments of nearly £100 a month, and similar expenses knock holes in the sort of wages you refer to. Please understand that we are not asking you to shed tears for people with incomes several times bigger than yours. We are pointing out that all workers are ultimately in the same boat. The married women replying to you may pretend to be arguing from principle, but in fact it is expediency thrust on them by the economics of capitalism.

Why not point out, instead, that women workers are exploited the same as male ones, and “the good life” is a carrot on a stick? An unemployed person seeks whatever solution he can find to his immediate individual problem, but the only way to get rid of unemployment and its miseries is to abolish capitalism. Don’t bother your head with such questions as whether we “deserve” Socialism. The capitalist class did not consult its conscience but simply pursued its material interests: Socialism will be established by the working class doing the same.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Strangled or United? (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Strangled or United?

From time to time I have it pointed out to me that the present TUC has such a stranglehold on the worker that even if he wanted to he would never be allowed to think and work it all out for himself, his very existence being in most cases dependent on his joining the union. This is one of the biggest problems the Party has to contend with in propagating true Socialism.

Do you consider the article on the General Strike, published in the Sunday Express of 2nd May, to be a true description of events at that time? If it broke down after nine days due to weakness of purpose (the writer states that there were two distinct sections of the community opposing the miners), would the Party consider the worker of today to be in any way more united and consequently stronger in his fight for freedom (if he is fighting for it) than in 1926? I feel that support for the Constitution is as strong as ever, but I would welcome your comments.

Doris G. Featherston, 

Stonesfield

Reply:

The amount of correspondence we receive means the holding-over of many letters, and yours was received at the same time as our issue on the General Strike was coming out. We assume you have now read that issue and made your own comparison with the Sunday Express article.

Workers are organized in unions out of necessity—it gives them a proper bargaining position—but any stranglehold is not one of the unions over their members. The meek acceptance of wage restraint is made possible by the fear of unemployment; in other words, the unions are controlled by the workings of capitalism. Workers in the majority (in and out of unions) fail to see that there is an alternative to capitalism and it is this which makes them follow trade-union and political leaders in the vain hope that they will in the future solve the problems they have failed at in the past. This failure cannot be hidden. Support for the Constitution must be viewed in the same light of the wrong assumption, that capitalism is the natural order. Knowledge of the Socialist alternative will unite the working class in a manner not before seen.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Existence and purpose (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Existence and purpose 

George Pearson remains persistently puzzled about why man should glory in natural phenomena. This question is, for me, answered by the following quotation from Sir Walter Raleigh: “We are compounded of earth, and we inhabit it.”

The emotions that George Pearson describes as “spiritual” are entirely natural. There isn’t an atom of our being that is not a part of the natural universe. External factors such as natural or artistic beauty on the one hand or the degradation of the dole queue on the other will serve to trigger our reactions. But to ask why we react is meaningless, like asking why trees can’t walk.

Of existence the only meaningful statement we can make is that “existence is”. No reason, no purpose is implied in existence, only its reality. Likewise with our emotional reactions: they are as much a natural part of human life as the ability to breathe.

C. Skelton,

Woking

Letter: Drugs, cash and crime (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Drugs, cash and crime

In a socialist society would cannabis and other soft drugs be legal or illegal, or would it be free access as with other goods? If the latter, how would you deal with those who misuse them?

If a racist party of about ten years can field 300 candidates in the next election as stated in a recent News of the World article, why can’t the SPGB of 72 years field fifty candidates and get five minutes’ air time? The SPGB would succeed with its policies if they were known more and it is the ideal party policy-wise to combat racism.

I understand that under Socialism there would be no prisons. I realize that due to free access there would be no need to steal. As one who has been in jail and met some real bad people, how would Socialism stop these people committing murders and arson? When I have stolen it has been through necessity. I like most things I read in the Standard I have seen, but the above is one point that bothers me.

I would like to learn more of the SPGB. Would the fact that I have stolen in the past stop me becoming a member in the future?

D. R. Broadbent,

Wakefield

Reply:

We have put your three letters together, and numbered the answers to your questions.

1. The words “legal” and “illegal” will have no application in Socialism, since they represent the rule of one class over another. “Misuse” is itself a controversial term, since practically all of the substances taken as drugs have medical or everyday uses. In some people’s view “misuse”, of many things besides drugs, means letting the working class at large have them. Aldous Huxley, who wrote about his aesthetic experiences with drugs, was of that opinion: “I think the matter should be discussed, and the investigations described, in the relative privacy of learned journals, the decent obscurity of moderately high-brow books and articles.” (Letters, 1969, p.803).

On the other hand, the medical possibilities pointed out by Huxley have overtones of keeping obstreperous workers quiet: “A group of psychologists and social workers in Vancouver and Seattle have developed techniques for using mescaline therapeutically . . . Delinquent boys have been totally transformed in a single sitting.” (Ibid., p.720).

In this capitalist society it is impossible to evaluate sensibly and say what are beneficial uses and what are misuses. A large amount of drug-taking — including aspirin, alcohol, etc. — is to relieve or escape from the worries and harassments of life today, and will not be sought by people in Socialism. If it can be shown that a drug has no application other than giving harmless pleasure, we may still have to consider whether resources can be given over to producing it; but that will be for society as a whole to decide.

2. The number of SPGB candidates in parliamentary elections reflects our resources in funds and membership, and to have fifty would require far more money than we have or could raise at the present stage. Our income is made up of members’ subscriptions and donations; the Socialist Standard is sold at a loss, and consumes funds all the year round. Other political parties do not make their finances and all their transactions open as we do, so we cannot say how a particular one manages to put up a large number of candidates.

Most organizations depend on wealthy supporters. In the case of the Labour Party the supporter is the trade-union movement. In other cases, the supporters may be capitalists who think particular interests of theirs will be furthered if the organization gets political power or is successful in its reform demands. That in itself should explain why we do not get offers of such support. However, it is also true that the Socialist Party does not accept donations “with strings” which would give the donor special influence on our policies.

What will enable us to have more candidates is, therefore, a larger membership and bigger sales of the Socialist Standard.

3. Murderers are a microscopic proportion of the population. Many commit their crimes in the course of robberies or otherwise for money. Some murders are the results of a belief in causes, or antagonism to a particular section of people. Arson is an offence against property. On the other hand, you may join the armed forces and kill people and set fire to buildings; this is held to be not criminal but heroic. Look at what society makes of people and clear your head of nonsense about “bad individuals”.

4. The condition of membership of the Socialist Party is understanding and acceptance of its Object and Principles.

C. Brinton (Harwich): We are pleased to learn you propose to examine the Socialist case seriously, and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Several letters have had to be held over because of pressure on space. We assure correspondents they will all be dealt with as soon as possible.

Editorial Committee.

Anarchism in Spain (1976)

Book Review from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Leval (Freedom Press, £2.00)

In the months following the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War about 1,5000 collectives were formed, mainly in the countryside and small towns, under anarchist influence. This book gives details of the organization of a number of them, and presents the anarchist view of the conflict in Spain.

Leval starts with an account of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement in the last quarter of the 19th century. As elsewhere in Europe, there were organizations with large memberships and journals with circulations reaching 50,000. For their decline into irresolute factions Leval blames Marx, Engels and Lafargue, and the importation of “deviations” from France. However, had the movement been founded on understanding instead of the emotionalism he commends (“the ideal dwells deep in the Spanish soul”), its supporters would not have been so easily persuaded by whoever came along.

In his visit to Spain in 1872 Lafargue noted: “The agricultural workers live in the towns and villages like other labourers, with whom they are continually in touch; it is for this reason that so many peasants take part in the insurrectionary movements (Engels-Lafargue Correspondence, Moscow, Vol. 1, p.27). When the Civil War began in July 1936 the harvest awaited gathering-in, and the collectives were initially a movement by municipalities to organize labour and supplies in that emergency.

Anarchists and other radicals keenly fostered this sudden opportunity to apply their ideas and were helped by the fact, as Leval states, that “in general the Catalan industrial bourgeoisie was anti-francoist”. The collectives helped arms production and transport, and organized distribution; the Aragon Federation substituted ration-books for money. Inevitably, they in turn required military protection. Leval and his translator, Vernon Richards, are both self-conscious about this. Leval speaks of “libertarian troops” and says: “It is true that the presence of these forces . . . favoured indirectly those constructive achievements by preventing active resistance by the supporters of the bourgeois republic and of fascism.” They were at war, weren’t they?

The “bourgeois republic” contained four anarchist Ministers. Leval criticizes the “socialist and republican leaders” for not introducing “daring reforms” before the Civil War; their failure, he says, created support for Franco. That was the background to the rise of other European dictatorships — the inability of reformist labour governments to make parliamentary democracy appear worthwhile.

The collectives do provide an example, within limits and special circumstances, of communal organization and to answer to those who say workers by themselves could not manage anything. They also provide a lesson for anarchists. Leval speaks more than once of necessary “workshop disciplines” and tells how “workers wishing to advance to a higher category . . . were required to undergo an examination in theory and practice before the central council of the Syndicate and workshop delegates”. Yet anarchists still wax indignant over Engels' “authority letter”, written apropos Spain in 1871:

Whether it be the will of a majority of voters, of a leading committee, or of one man, it is still a will imposed on the dissentients; but without that single will, no co-operation is possible. Go and run one of the big Barcelona factories without direction, that is, without authority!

B.B.

50 Years Ago: A Liberal-Labour Government? (1976)

The 50 Years Ago column from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent Labour Government took office as a gift from the Liberal Party. Their short term of ‘power’, with its attendant rewards, no doubt whetted the appetite of these Labour Leaders.

Philip Snowden, in an article published in Reynolds’ (June 6th) exhibits a hunger that is ravenous, and a contempt for the minds of his followers that is surprising, even in a Labour Leader.

After pointing out ‘That there is a large amount of Liberal opinion and sentiment in the country, which is disorganised’, this ‘Honourable Gentleman’ asserts that ‘If any man can revive the fortunes of the Liberal Party, it is Mr. Lloyd George’.

For what purpose should Lloyd George organize the Liberals he has not already disgusted?

Snowden answers: ‘Mr. Lloyd George knows that neither his magnetism nor his programme can ever revive the Liberal Party to the extent of giving the Party enough members in Parliament to form a government. He will have to depend upon the support of another party to carry out that programme.’

‘Co-operation with the Conservatives for such an object is out of the question. A Labour Government is the only possible alternative to the continuation in office of the Conservative Party. There is nothing in Lloyd George’s programme which is in opposition to the Labour programme on these subjects.’

‘His only hope of achieving his land and coal power scheme lies in helping a Labour Government to get back to office, and in co-operating with them in the House of Commons. There is no sacrifice of independence in co-operating for a common purpose.’

#    #    #    #

Anxious that it should be clearly understood there is no difference between the Liberal and Labour Party Snowden again refers to Lloyd George, who he says: — ‘Will carry the vast bulk of the Liberals with him on a programme which as an immediately practical programme for the next reform government is little different from the Labour programme.’

(From an article “Birds of a Feather” by Comrade E. Lake, published in the Socialist Standard, August, 1926.)

Come to the aid of the Party! (1976)

From the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party is in deep trouble. In several constituencies moves are afoot to remove local MPs. Members, especially trade unionists, become dissatisfied and frustrated, organizing "left-wing” moves to replace the sitting members (with scant success). The usual shadow-boxing between "wings” of the party is in full swing over the question of cuts in government expenditure.

The Labour Party is not, and cannot be controlled by its members. It has, in fact, few real members at all: only those in local constituency parties actually go along, sign the form, and pay the sub. It is a complicated hotch-potch of “affiliated” organizations representing trade unions, political groups (mostly now defunct or as good as — ILP, Co-op, Fabian Society, etc.) and a motley crew of "Socialist” Medical Association, "Socialist” Legal Aid Societies and hole- and-corner reformers of every hue.

The members of the Labour Party cannot control it because it has no clearly defined objective. The so-called Clause 4, which talks about “common ownership of exchange”, is self-contradictory nonsense. Consequently Labour Party officials can hardly be charged with political action inimical to the party, since this is not stated in its constitution. "Left wingers” have great difficulty in formulating a case against local Labour MPs. The members are not clear what the party is about beyond a vague desire for improvements, "bigger and better”, etc.

Certainly the Labour Party has never had, nor ever will have, the slightest intention to introduce — or even explain — Socialism. Socialism can only be achieved by conscious political action by the working class. It will be voted in — it can never be blasted in. "Bloody revolution” advocated by the infantile hot-heads of so-called Marxist groups is nonsense.

The first need of Socialist workers is a political party to fight and win elections on an uncompromising Socialist ticket — Socialism or nothing. No "Marxist Group”. “Socialist League”, “International Socialists” or “Workers’ Control Group” can even work for Socialism, let alone achieve it. Only a political party controlled by all its members can be the instrument of capitalism’s downfall. The answer to the cases of Prentice, O’Halloran & Co. is Socialist knowledge in a no-leaders party.

This is the importance of Principles: a generalized expression of the party’s aim and methods. They state what the party is FOR — and therefore the party is restricted to those who understand them and have the knowledge to control it. The precondition for Socialism is a strong political party. However deeply ingrained the illusion that leaders can help them, better experience (combined with clear, explicit propaganda for Socialism through democratic control of the powers of government) will convince workers of the necessity for joining a Socialist party.

Numerous workers today bemoan their feeling of utter helplessness and impotence in the face of the bureaucracy which dominates their every breath. The answer is to join and actively work in a Socialist political party. This is the first essential step. It means turn off that television, and “get up and go” — to the party meeting.

There is no greater crashing bore than the conventional little automaton totally immersed in “his own” business. There is no greater personal satisfaction than that gained from working together for the noblest cause of our days — the emancipation of humanity from capitalist chaos. Now is the time to come to the aid of the Socialist Party, and work for it.

Horatio.

The Truth About Freedom (1976)

Book Review from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Political Police in Britain by Tony Bunyan. (Julian Friedmann Publishers Ltd., £4.95.)

We recommend this book to all those starry-eyed people who blissfully go round believing in the myth of “British freedom”. Tony Bunyan has done his homework very well, his book is crammed with detailed and relevant information. Most of the sinister and ugly features usually associated with tyranny and dictatorship, have their counterpart in what to the popular mind is a free country. Just as in dictatorships, a servile press helps to fashion a climate of opinion. To be accused is to be deemed guilty. Particularly in matters concerning “security”, the attitude is we cannot be squeamish about condemning a few conspirators; the national interest must come first. If, after many months in prison, charges are dropped or the case fails for want of evidence, then the “free” press can be relied upon to make capital out of those cases resulting in convictions and ignore the rest.

The sheer number of distinct police agencies carrying out a vast range of surveillance, infiltration, spying and oppressive activities, is bewildering. Apart from the “ordinary” uniformed police force (which is itself supplemented by Special Constables through Acts of Parliament going back to 1831) there are D15 and D16, the former dealing with foreign espionage and “subversion” inside Britain, the latter with external spying. Then there are the Special Patrol Groups. These are specialist riot police who go round in unmarked cars and carry arms as a matter of course and are trained in the use of CS gas. They were set up in 1965 and are not to be confused with the Special Branch, which goes back to 1883 and played its part in combatting an outbreak of Irish bomb attacks during that period.

From the beginning the Home Office had a direct concern in the “political intelligence” activities of Special Branch. Spies were planted in groups of minority activists such as the Legitimation League. In the early years, superintendents appointed under the Factory Act of 1833 were used to spy and report on workers’ activities.

The Official Secrets Act of 1889 dealt with spying and breaches of official trust by state employees. The 1911 amendment extended powers to act against journalists and newspapers for receiving and publishing information. Further strengthening Acts were passed in 1920 and 1939. Brendan Mulholland of the Daily Mail and Reginald Foster of the Daily Sketch were sent to prison in 1962 for failing to reveal sources of information. The phrasing of this legislation is very loose, lending itself to wide interpretation. The ruling class, through the government of the day, has a formidable array of oppressive powers at its disposal.

Books can be barred from publication or “doctored” to suit the Ministry of Defence, to which all ex-military personnel are required to submit their manuscripts. Examples are Sir Compton Mackenzie’s book Gallipoli Memories (1929) and a book by Anthony Nutting (a former Privy Councillor) on the Suez Crisis of 1956.

The Franks Committee, set up in 1971 by the Tory Government to look into Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, produced a report running to four volumes. Neither the Tories or the following Labour government took any action. The issue arose out of the use of D-notices against the Daily Express and the Sunday Telegraph. Three people were sent for trial at the Old Bailey over an article dealing with Biafra. The Public Records Act enables governments to suppress information for up to one hundred years.

Our “heritage of freedom” or rather the privileged position of the capitalist class, is further safeguarded by laws like the Statute of Treasons, dating back to 1351, and the Riot Act of 1381 (year of the Wat Tyler rebellion). The Tolpuddle Martyrs were condemned under the Unlawful Oaths Act of 1797.

The Incitement to Disaffection Act of 1934 is aimed against the circulation of “seditious” literature to members of the armed forces. They must be trained to kill, not taught to think. Under this Act a man was sent to prison for two years in 1972 for possessing literature likely to cause disaffection, namely a pamphlet concerning the war in Northern Ireland.

Bunyan produces an illuminating résumé of the Angry Brigade trials. Of the twelve people arrested and charged, two had charges against them withdrawn, five were acquitted on all counts, and five were convicted on conspiracy charges. Prescott was sentenced to fifteen years in prison; Purdie was found not guilty after having spent nine months in jail. The press in general and the Evening Standard in particular applauded the sentence and ignored the acquittal. The conduct of the police in gathering evidence and making arrests, was somewhat devious. Purdie was arrested “for questioning, which is illegal. He was not cautioned nor was any warrant made out for his arrest”.

The police have powers to seriously restrict press coverage of trials. The Metropolitan and City Police Press Card is the means by which the number of reporters has been reduced from eight thousand to a trusted two thousand whose names and credentials are registered. Sir Robert Mark, promoted to power by Roy Jenkins and Reginald Maudling, is behind this censorship by the backdoor. According to Bunyan, Commissioner Mark is contemptuous of the legal processes he is supposed to uphold: trial by jury in particular. No doubt for him the ideal situation would be one where the police also acted as judge, jury and jailer.

Further specialized units are the National Drugs Intelligence Unit and the National Immigration Unit. All streams meet at and have common access to the Police National Computer Unit at Hendon. It is estimated that by 1979 more than 36,000,000 names and a variety of other details will be almost instantly available.

The staggering edifice of repressive legislation has been steadily built up over more than a hundred and fifty years. Particular emergencies, such as two world wars and outbreaks of social disturbance, have prompted a reactionary and obsolete ruling class to try to strengthen their hand to preserve a little longer their parasitic position as a privileged owning class. Organizations like the Angry Brigade and the IRA help to create an atmosphere of fear, which provides the ruling class with their excuse to act in the name of security. The backlash of increased repression effects everybody.

In recommending Tony Bunyan’s book as a useful source of information on an important subject, we do not share his conclusion. He denies that the elected government controls the institutions of the state and is vague about how capitalism can be ended.

However ugly and menacing the coercive machinery may be, it will not avail against the rising tide of working-class understanding of and desire to establish Socialism. In fact, the whole set-up can only operate against a background of working-class acquiescence. The most useful lesson to be learned, is, that the vote is all-powerful. The state cannot be smashed. It can and must be captured by a conscious working class, in their quest for freedom.

Harry Baldwin

News of Party Activities (1976)

Party News from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

General Strike Exhibition

This exhibition, organized by the TUC, was at the Covent Garden flower market from July 3rd to July 31st. It provided us with a great opportunity to sell our literature, particularly the May 1976 SS. The Centerprise bookshop had a stand in the exhibition and agreed to display a number of Party publications, and we had literature sellers outside the two entrances to the exhibition. 40 Socialist Standards were sold on the opening day!!


Party ‘Flying Squad’

Members of Westminster Branch have decided to organize propaganda raids on different areas. On June 19th, 14 members in 4 vehicles went to Birmingham and held an outdoor meeting close to the Bull Ring. A number of local members were present and, despite a wet afternoon, the meeting continued for about 5 hours. The next trip was July 10th to Woking, and there is a possibility of a repeat to Birmingham on 14th August. If interested, contact M. Tenner at 01-229 7794.


New Branches

Members at Lancaster have achieved Branch status. With the help of two London comrades, they held two public meetings in May; an excellent write-up appeared in the Lancaster Guardian. The members in Hampstead now constitute a Branch. They are continuing their weekly series of lectures and engaging in electoral activity.

See Directory for details of meetings.


New Group

Leeds/Bradford: a new group has been formed in this area. Most of those who attend the regular meetings are not yet members of the Party but there are hopeful signs that one or two may soon join (one has already made an application). Introductory Leaflets recently distributed produced several enquiries. There is a possibility of further Groups at Northampton, Bristol, Stoke area, and Brighton.


Outdoor Meetings

Glasgow: The Branch now have 11 speakers to cover the three meetings they hold each weekend, including a new station at East Kilbride (possibility of a 4th station in August). Two indoor meetings held recently proved successful. Bristol: Meetings have recommenced on Durdham Downs each Sunday. Ilford: Meetings commenced on June 4th and are held each Friday at 8.00 p.m. Very successful so far. Earls Court: Useful meetings every Thursday with good literature sales. Lincoln’s Inn: Meetings now taking place every lunchtime, Monday to Friday. Hyde Park: Meetings held from 11.0 am until 8.00 pm (weather and speakers permitting) although the morning sessions are the most successful as far as literature sales and attentive audiences are concerned. Stevenage: Mid-Herts Branch have commenced Saturday afternoon meetings. The local members require assistance from other members, particularly those living in and around London. Contact Comrade K. Knight for further details.

Propaganda Visits

Two lively and successful meetings were held in Sunderland and South Shields during April. There was an encouraging number of sympathizers and non-members present. Another useful meeting was held in Manchester during May, where it is hoped that the Branch may soon be re-constituted. Please note the Group’s change of meeting place.

Literature Sales at the Young Vic

During the month of May, one member sold, single-handed, the following literature outside the Young Vic Theatre, London, where a French-Canadian Repertory company were performing:— 21 Fulcrums, 25 Socialisme Mondials, 20 Western Socialists and 10 Socialist Standards totalling £8.60.

Electoral Activity

Three Branches in London are undertaking electoral activity with a view to contesting the 3 constituencies of Hampstead, Marylebone and Lambeth Central. Hampstead and S.W. London Branches are distributing leaflets in their respective areas whilst Westminster Branch is canvassing in Marylebone. More Support is Required for These Activities: contact the Central Organiser NOW!