Watching the detectives (2002)

TV Review from the December 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

The three-part documentary True Spies which finished its run on BBC2 last month was an illuminating insight into one of the oldest–and most disreputable–professions. Looking at how the British intelligence services have since the 1960s systematically infiltrated those organisations considered to be "subversive" of the state, it united the spies and the spied-upon in a visual history of their secret combat.

The range of the organisations targeted for infiltration by the British "secret state" was a long one, encompassing some still surviving and many others that are long gone. On the left, it transpired that the Communist Party, the SWP (formerly IS), the WRP, Militant and the IMG were among those with paid agents of the British state in their ranks from the late 1960s onwards, many of whom were part of the so-called special branch "hairies" who specialised in entering the entryists so deeply that they assumed positions of power, influence and knowledge within the target organisation, as well as their habits and dress code. While most of their number will continue remain secret for obvious reasons, several spoke to camera of what they did and of how they did it. So too, did their handlers: bluff Northern policemen with anti-union agendas and cockney commie-bashers from Special Branch with a love of Queen and Country.

A small number of the "hairies" went native as their attempt to dialectically interpenetrate their opposites led to an unexpected outcome. But by the mid-1970s internecine rivalry between Special Branch (viewed as the grammar school boys) and MI5 (the public school-educated "sophisticates") led to a scaling-down of the operation and the use of occasional or periodic paid informants rather than long-term "sleepers".

Interestingly, their informants included over twenty top officials from trade unions who leaked information on potential industrial unrest and political militancy. These apparently included not just the usual right-wing hatchet-men but the former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, Joe Gormley, and others of a similar ilk. When asked to comment on this, Arthur Scargill–the man who succeeded Gormley as NUM President–expressed his surprise that there weren't even more, and for once it is tempting to agree with him.

Many of the other political (or former political) activists interviewed went to great lengths to express their astonishment that they had a spy in their ranks and that they may have been betrayed by someone close to them. In this category came current Cabinet Minister Peter Hain, formerly a leading light of the Anti-Apartheid movement and the 1970 "Stop the Tour" campaign (about the visit of the South African cricket team). Also in this category was the actor and former member of the "Shrewsbury Two" Ricky Tomlinson, who had been jailed for his secondary picketing activity during the 1972 building workers strike. Whether his surprise was real is difficult to gauge, though if it was, the level of naiveté involved is breathtaking.

Did the likes of Hain and Tomlinson really think that the forces of the state machine wouldn't take an interest in their activities? It does seem unlikely, especially in the case of Tomlinson–someone who used to delight in calling himself a "Marxist".

I am not a number?
The security services didn't just–and don't just–target the far left or trade unions of course. Fascist and nazi organisations, Irish nationalists, animal rights protesters, anti-nuclear campaigners and anti-globalisation activists have all fallen under the MI5 spotlight, as the programme demonstrated quite ably. Current and former members of the intelligence services estimated during interviews that at the end of the Cold War there were files on about one and a half million people in Britain held by Special Branch and MI5. That was roughly one in every thirty adults.

Though many of these files have now allegedly been destroyed the surveillance continues, of course. Stella Rimmington, former head of MI5, took visible delight in putting the "end of history" argument in her piece to camera about surveillance of the far left, saying that they had been vanquished. But it was clear from some of the interviews conducted with current security service operatives that there are still paid agents attached to all manner of political organisations in the UK. While much of the resources at the disposal of MI5 in particular have been directed towards the 400 or so members of the IRA in the last decade, surveillance of other political "subversives" continues apace–even if not quite at the heady levels attained in the 1970s.

It is quite possible–indeed likely–that the Socialist Party itself has been a target for the repressive agencies of the state over the years. While not allying ourselves with any foreign power (which is what made the Communist Party such a threat) we nevertheless places ourself firmly within the revolutionary tradition in this country–unlike, we would argue, the fake revolutionaries of the far left who have always sought a change of bosses rather than a real change of social system.

But as the Socialist Party has no leaders and no led, and has no secret meetings or cabals, we would have presented a different proposition to the security services altogether. No Socialist Party meetings are ever closed to non-members and as the fullest possible democracy replaces the diktat of a leadership, any "hairy" infiltrating our organisation would have been on a cushy number indeed. If such a person (or persons) has existed, their interview on a programme such as this might have made fascinating viewing–and we would certainly have been interested in hearing of their experiences.

We have never been believers in the need for a tightly-knit gang of conspirators, who are ever mindful of agents and infiltrators. Instead we rely on the strength of our case against capitalism and in the power of a democratically organised working class movement–the movement of the majority expressing the interests of the majority. Whilst we do not underestimate the power and intent of those who seek to uphold the vested interests of the owners and controllers of UK PLC–or the disruption that they can sometimes cause–neither do we think that they could stop a democratically organised socialist mass movement. History demonstrates that the activities of tiny minorities can never hold back the tide of the overwhelming majority for long, so–"hairies" or no "hairies"–we don't think they have any more right to claim that history is on their side than their adversaries in vanguards like the SWP.

Dave Perrin

Greed is Good? (2002)

From the December 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism would call the property baron Nicholas van Hoogstraten a success, if he hadn't arranged a hand grenade attack on one business rival back in the 60s, or been convicted of the manslaughter of another, for which he was jailed for 10 years in October. Apart from such violence, the likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, George W Bush et al have frequently praised and encouraged us to develop Hoogstraten's other traits: his ruthless competitiveness, his desire to acquire profit, his obsessive love of money, and his hierarchical survival-of-the-fittest view of human life, where rich go-getters are good, and poor tenants renting his flats are worthless "filth", who deserve to be exploited and abused.

If he hadn't gone a bit too far, transgressing laws designed to stop the system descending into barbaric chaos, the political servants helping capitalism to run as smoothly and fruitfully as possible would have been holding Hoogstraten up as a role model to be celebrated and emulated along with Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and other "self-made" moneybags of the world.

It is an appalling fact that, without the Hoogstratenisation of society, capitalism would be in dire trouble. Our education system under government control must, and will, Hoogstratenise children, teaching them that competition, entrepreneurship, employment, market forces, profits, personal fortunes and money are all splendid, so that the system is perpetuated by maintaining the thinking and behaviour at its core.

And though other capitalists and their political puppets would now distance themselves from Hoogstraten, the actions of millions of Britons and the imprisoned businessman are much the same. The working class are urged to work hard to get on. Hoogstraten also "worked" hard to get on, buying properties cheaply with sitting tenants, then "winkling them out" (as he put it) in order to sell on for far more with vacant possession. If our income is threatened by possible unemployment, we might be minded to work harder and longer so that if anyone's sacked, it'll be someone else. When Hoogstraten's income was threatened by an imminent fraud trial, he was minded to send in a pair of tooled-up heavies. We want to possess a nice home, so did he–a new £40 million copper-domed pad called Hamilton Palace in East Sussex. We are driven by capitalism (the cause of property crimes) into trying to keep strangers away from our homes by fitting good locks and burglar alarms. Hoogstraten blocked off a footpath that came near his home with barbed wire and big industrial refrigeration units. We are urged to save for our retirement. Hoogstraten has saved some £60 million.

And just as Joe and Jane Public are aware that there are more powerful people who can help or harm their finances, and who have to be sucked up to, like a bank manager, so it was, too, with Hoogstraten, who tried (and failed) to curry favour with Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, hoping that extensive land he owned there would escape invasion and seizure by squatters.

Money drives and heavily influences the daily lives of non-wealthy working, unemployed, sick and retired people, as it did Hoogstraten. Was his money mania significantly different from anyone else's pursuit of this tool of capitalism? Hoogstraten's fixation with money caused him to tell the jury at his Old Bailey trial "whatever money you have, it's never enough". Even after he was found guilty, and told by the judge that he must pay one third of the prosecution's costs (£120,000), his preoccupation with his monetary worth reared its ugly head again, with the tycoon retorting "and you're suggesting I'm not the victim, I suppose?".

Capitalism wants us to believe that by copying people like Hoogstraten (minus bombs and murder), we can go from rags to riches. Just as this multimillionaire landlord began his empire by supposedly selling his stamp collection as a teenager and buying cheap property, you too can acquire great wealth through competition, investment, speculation and exploitation for profit, if you succumb to the brainwashing.

Which brings us to the psychiatric report that the judge requested, and Hoogstraten went along with. The psychiatrist who examined him told the court that Hoogstraten was not mentally ill, but exhibited "narcissistic and paranoid" personality traits. But narcissism, being an exceptional interest in oneself, is a capitalist requirement for making lots of money. You don't get rich by worrying about how chasing profit may be causing discomfort or upset to others. And paranoia is necessary in business, as a failure to be highly suspicious and wary about the activities of similarly ruthless competitors can bring financial ruin.

Me-first thinking and extreme concern about others getting the better of you are actually necessary personality traits within capitalism, and Hoogstraten had become so heavily influenced by these, and the goal of obtaining ever more money that accompanies them, that in reality he had become mentally disturbed. But his sickness is our sickness. Anger, arguments and violence caused by money are rife in our society, and there have been many other deaths involving poor working class people attacking one another because of it. Capitalism is a sick system that requires mental sickness for it to continue. The cure is socialism.

Max Hess

Britain Is Not A Classless Society (2002)

From the December 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

In October the Cambridge Union invited the Socialist Party to take part in a debate on the question "This House Believes Britain is a Classless Society". Our speaker was Pieter Lawrence who made the following contribution.

It is often claimed that there are many ways of looking at the question of social class, but socialists argue that we should use a method that tells us most about the world we live in. To begin with, it should be agreed that statistics on the ownership of property are a important guide. These confirm what we see around us. We would have to spend our lives wearing blindfolds not to notice that British society is scarred by great differences in property ownership and in our use and enjoyment of the good things of life.

But we should not see class solely through the distribution of property. Class is a social relationship that invades all our lives. Class has changed and developed throughout history, it is not a static thing. This indicates the possibility of not just changing it but of abolishing it altogether so that we can all enjoy what would be the benefits of a classless society.

The statistics are many but just a few will tell us a great deal. If we look up the web site on "Who Owns Britain" we find that in England and Wales almost 26 million acres of land is owned by just over 150,000 families or individuals. This is 0.28 percent (about a quarter of one per cent) of the population who own 64 percent of the land. If we take land owned by the Dukes of Buccleuch, Westminster and Northumberland we have just three individuals who jointly own 531,500 acres valued at just over �14.5 billion. Three persons would be lost in our meeting tonight but in fact this trio owns a very big chunk of the country.

At the other end of the scale, according to the Economist for (23 February this year), for the years 1999/2000, the number of children living in poverty in this country was 4.1 million. (Poverty being defined as children living in families receiving less than 60 percent of the average wage). What this means is sub-standard housing, poor conditions of life, poor diets and cultural deprivation. A study published by the Rowntree Foundation has said that 8.3 million of our population live in these circumstances and this is not improving with time. This 8.3 million living in poverty was 100,000 more than in 1996/97. How then, can we sensibly dispute that what these figures mean is that we continue to live in a deeply divided class society?

But we may agree on one thing. I trust that we would all at least prefer Britain to be a classless society. To be a class-ridden society is to create conflict and great problems. It is morally and materially indefensible. I assume that what we would prefer is that all people should be able to live their lives, free from the disadvantages of underprivilege and class injustice. To live in a classless society would be in all our interests. The freedom for every person to develop his or her skills and talents on equal terms could benefit everyone. This would enrich all our lives. So surely we agree that a classless society would be a basis for a true community of shared interests.

Now, if this is the case, as I'm sure it is, it places a great importance on the need to get our answer to the question of the debate right. If through complacency, or what we imagine might be self-interest, we choose to pretend that we now live in classless society when in fact we do not, then quite obviously we are in no position to think sensibly about how to achieve the truly classless society that would benefit us all. So, I want to argue how we can think and act constructively so we can escape class divisions. As we know, classification is one of the important means through which we understand the world and this is no less true for social class. Our understanding of class can help us to take charge of our destiny and enable us to create a better world.

This should be easily within our reach. Who will doubt that we are people with great talents? In science, technology, in art, design, and in our trades, skills and many other fields, we can look back on great achievements. So given our great talents why is our society in such a mess? Why do we live in a world of great problems which appear to be beyond our control? Why is our politics cursed with persistent failure and disillusion? Why does social class linger on and on when it is part of an outdated system? To find the answers to these questions we need to know how society works. Above all we must not allow any privileged interest or power group to prejudice or corrupt the serious work of our enquiry.

What is true is that an economic definition of class is manifest in the entire way we are organised as a society. It is fundamental to our explanation of how we produce and distribute wealth and the commercial motives that are involved. It helps tell us how the operation of the market puts profit before needs and places constraints on all our activities. Our lives and the quality of our society depends upon on production and on the services we can provide. An analysis based on economic class tells us who gets what from the pool of wealth that is available. It explains how a privileged class has accumulated great wealth and property and therefore explains the great social differences that we see about us.

I am not concerned here with what I regard as the trivia of the debate. I fully accept that not so long ago "toffs" were people who played golf and went on motoring holidays, touring the Continent. Nowadays, millions of us from all walks of life do these things. That tells us that working people are now able to enjoy a share of the extra wealth that they alone have created through the greater efficiency of their labour. But this in no way alters the economic, class relationship between capital and labour which dominates the way we live. At the point of production, the workers and capitalists who may be sharing a golf course in their leisure time remain in a relationship of conflicting economic interests which must always, whilst it continues, condemn our society to the class divisions of strife and to the many ugly comparisons that we see of poverty amidst luxury.

It is not just society in Britain that is class-ridden. Regardless of the various political forms they may take, whether they be based on private ownership, or the state capitalist regimes that recently reigned in Russia and Eastern Europe, or the state systems of China and places like Cuba, the class system is a world system and it is in deep trouble with many threats to life.

Every country operates a market system that puts profits before need. And as a result, all over the world the great skills and talents that define our genius are constrained by the tawdry limitations of market capacity or what can be sold. The point is surely to release these great talents for the benefit of all people. That should be the main object of our societyâso how do we get there?

It is right to feel outrage at the great class divisions that exist but socialists do not come to this debate in a negative spirit of class hostility. Our aim is to end it. Class conflict has gone on for too long, there has been too much strife and we have to heal the wounds of history.

The way to end our class society and to reconcile our interests is through common ownership.

By this we mean that all people should stand in equal relationship with each other about the means of producing wealth, about natural resources and our entire world. On this classless basis, without the market system, in all the important activities of life, citizens of a genuine community of interests will be able to co-operate to serve the needs of all people. We are not speaking here only of our material interests. We have an urgent need to dignify our community relationships with social equality so as to enhance the quality of every part of life. As I have emphasised, a classless society based on common ownership is the only way to win freedom for the whole of mankind.

The motion "This House believes Britain is a classless society" was lost by 31 votes in favour to 284 against.