Sting in the Tail: A sick society (1995)

The Sting in the Tail column from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

A sick society

Dr. Ian Burns is Glasgow’s public health director. He has recently been commenting on the relationship between health and poverty in Glasgow. What he has to say applies to all cities:

“If we are going to do something about Glasgow's ill-health you have to confront the poverty. The Government have acknowledged there is a link between ill-health and poverty but they have always said we don't know if the one is caused by the other, ” he said.

"We are saying it is, the link is empowerment. If you are unemployed, have no educational background, and don't know where your children‘s next meat is coming from, you have the sense of the system doing things to you" (The Herald, 21 December).

The sad truth is that medical care is a commodity. If you can afford it you can get the most modern treatment immediately, but if you are poor you can join the waiting list to get treatment from underfunded overworked NHS staff.

Hard core

The term “hard-core” is popular with the press. We have read of “hard-core pornography” and “hard-core criminality”. Now the Government have found “hard-core rough sleepers”:

“In a statement. Environment Minister Robert Jones said the Government's winter shelter programme, with up to 350 places in Central London, made it unnecessary for anyone . . . to have to sleep on the streets this winter'. ”

"It is clear, ” the Minister added, "that street level agencies are finding themselves trying to help a hard core of rough sleepers ” (Observer, 18 December)

However, Homeless Network, an umbrella group of 30 charities, report that 288 people were sleeping rough in late November, a seven percent increase compared with May and estimate that during the past year 3,000 spent part or all of their time sleeping in the streets in the survey area alone.

Government ministers climbing out of their chauffeur-driven cars for a night out at the Covent Garden Opera may console themselves that the street-sleepers strewn around are “hard-core rough sleepers”, but socialists know that not only has capitalism a hard-core but that it is an extremely bitter fruit for the poor, disabled and homeless.

What a wally!

The shallowness and double standards of politicians were epitomised by John Major’s insistence that schools should conduct daily “acts of worship” on a broadly Christian basis.

"Mr. Major said daily worship for all pupils allowed them to explore their own beliefs and helped build community spirit and shared values, and reinforced positive attitudes" (BBC2 Ceefax, 17 December).

What that bit about acts of worship (ugh) allowing pupils to “explore their own beliefs” really amounts to is the attempted indoctrination of young minds, or what was called “brainwashing” when Nazis and the so-called communists did it.

And just how do these acts of worship build “community spirit and shared values” in, say, Northern Ireland? Mind you. Major will hear plenty of “positive attitudes” being reinforced by the hangers, floggers, xenophobes and other Christian worshippers at Tory conferences.

Whether Major thought up such rubbish by himself or merely parroted what some Tory hack told him, doesn’t matter, because he is damned either way.

A sorry sight

On BBC News (22 December) an entire workforce marched arm-in-arm through Liverpool streets singing “Here We Go”. So full of patriotic fervour were they that they waved and even wore the Union Jack. This was obviously a big celebration.

And what was it all about? Only that Bryant and.May, Britain’s last match factory, had closed down and this was the workers' way of marking the occasion.

Perhaps these workers will reflect on what good their patriotism did them when they signed-on the following day.

The sporting life

According to the dictionary definition, sport is “pleasant pastime; amusement, diversion”. So what are we to make of newspaper headlines that scream “Doping Ban”, “Bribery allegations”, and “Football Manager Took Bungs”?

Just as the financial pages are concerned with Insider Dealing, Dirty Tricks Takeover Bids and all the other skulduggery' of the City, so athletics, cricket and football reporters are as much concerned with cheating, doping and bribery as with reporting sporting events.

The truth is that capitalism is a social system based on profit, greed and deceit. Sport inside capitalism is big business, so it is no wonder that it reflects the chicanery of the system.

In a socialist society human beings would be able to enjoy sport as a “pleasant pastime”; amusement; diversion". That is impossible inside the present production-for-profit system.

Canadian capers

Some Canadian students have invited Tommy Sheridan of Scottish Militant Labour to Canada to speak about socialism.

At the Euro-elections last June Sheridan’s manifesto, besides being full of pictures of himself and claims that he is “the people's champion”, “hammer of the Tories”, etc., carried an article entitled “What Is Socialism?”.

According to this, production will still be for sale on the market and money, banks and finance will remain. What it all added up to is capitalism’s buying and selling system along with the usual idealist’s illusion that it can be “planned and run for the benefit of everybody”.

If those Canadian students want to know about socialism then Sheridan is the last one to tell them.

The Unions ten years after the miners’ defeat (1995)

From the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the 1984-85 miners’ strike baton-wielding police officers were a vivid warning of things to come as various anti-union laws promoted by the then Thatcher government have since stripped the unions in general of most of their powers — and a lot of their members.

It is now ten years since the miners marched back to work behind their banners following a 51-week strike that began in March 1984; sixteen years since the Tories began their overt assault on the working class; and seventeen years since the Economist leaked the “Ridley Plan” — an internal 'Tory Party document which was to be the blueprint for Thatcher’s assault on trade unions.

It is common now for trade unionists, assessing where they stand, to take their bearings from the 1984-5 strike and the defeat of the miners. When the strike ended, the NUM boasted 180,000 members. They now represent 8,000 miners at 17 pits. The impact of the miners’ defeat was phenomenal. “The wreckage of defeat,” wrote Steve Platt in a recent special trade union edition of the New Statesman and Society (18 November), “is still scattered around the national labour movement landscape like the relics of war on some recent battlefield”

For the Tories, the war didn’t end there. Since they came to power in 1979 they have implemented eight anti-union Acts, confining trade unions in a straitjacket of legislation and they have stooped to anti-union tactics not witnessed in Britain for ninety years.

Unions boast no victories these days, only the pyrrhic sort — that they still receive dues from 7 million members (12 million in 1979), that they still exist, surviving day-to-day like death-row inmates. They no longer call mass strikes and gain the support that the pickets at Saltley Gate Cokeworks secured when 10,000 Birmingham engineering workers downed tools and marched to their aid behind piper and banners in 1972. Their victories now are minuscule — fighting for individual rights, winning propitious tribunal hearings, and securing damages for members. Unions like the TGWIJ no longer call one-day strikes. Instead, they set up 24-hours legal advice helplines.

The roots of the present-day assault on trade unions go back two decades. Tories, like elephants, never forget. When they came to power in 1979 following the “Winter of Discontent”, it was with having endured two humiliating defeats at the hands of the miners in 1972 and 1974 that they placed the NUM so clearly in their sights. 'The Tories had long since accepted the fact that the miners, with their tradition of militancy, were the backbone of the trade-union movement — break the spine and the body crumbles, paralysed. Indeed, the Ridley Plan had carved the name on the bullet that killed miners’ solidarity five years before it was fired.

The Ridley Plan, like some Maoist strategy for guerrilla war, suggested where and when the Tories might win another show-down with the miners. It suggested the preparation of contingency plans - the building-up of coal stockpiles, the securing of overseas supplies, and it put on the agenda the recruitment of non-unionised haulage companies prepared to cross picket lines, the reduction of benefits to the families of striking miners and the rapid mobilisation of a huge paramilitary-like police force. When the Tories came to power, they only needed to bide their time and provoke a strike at a time favourable to themselves. They did this by announcing the closure of the Cortonwood Pit in March 1984. The rest is trade-union legend.

Anti-trade-union laws

Anti-trade-union legislation has been a major fetter on working-class unity over the last 16 years, and it is necessary to pin-point a few Acts before we can even take the temperature of the climate unions now operate in.

The 1980 Employment Act, for instance, made secondary picketing illegal and stole from unions the right to claim recognition from employers. It also made union members embroiled in sympathy strikes liable for damages should employers lose sufficient profits.

The 1982 Employment Act introduced periodic ballots on the closed shop, slimmed down the definition of an industrial dispute, outlawed industrial action against non-unionised firms and took away from striking workers the right to appeal should their action lead to their dismissal.

Such Acts were camouflaged as enhancing the freedom of the individual, of “improving the operation of the labour market by providing a balanced framework of industrial laws” as Norman Tebbitt went on record as saying in 1982.

David Coates sees the gulf between the “reality and rhetoric”, pointing out that:

“the freedom enhanced by those laws has been the freedom of capital, not labour. and the balance has been in reality the imbalance of class power ” (The Crisis of Labour, 1989, p. 123).

Under John Major the attack on unions has continued, keeping up the average since 1979 of one anti-union law every 20 months. The 1993 Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act, for instance, permitted firms to entice their employees away from their unions with various inducements.

Files can be filled with examples of companies that have made use of such laws - laws aimed at pushing trade unions and collective bargaining arrangements out of the door.

In April 1993 over 120 workers at J.W. Arrowsmiths, a Bristol printing company, found themselves dismissed when they decided not to abandon a work-to-rule and overtime ban in support of their pay claim. They were eventually locked out and given two weeks to denounce the GPMU and to accept a two-year pay freeze with lower shift and overtime rates. Only three workers signed the new bond.

Eleven months later and Caterpillar UK de-recognised MSF and GMB (APEX). They then offered workers a two percent pay rise and a £500 lump sum, along with health/legal benefits, if they denounced their unions and signed individual employment contracts.

“Human Resource Management” is now taking over from unions in many workplaces. Legislative constraints have prevented unions from operating inside many companies and workers now find they have to take on their capitalist paymasters single-handedly, denied the support of collective strength, being forced by circumstances to accept individualised employment contracts, performance and profit-related pay schemes, de-skilliing and their induction into the “flexible workforce”.

Class collaboration

The future appears bleak for workers, with employers looking to have it all their own way. Robert Taylor in his TUC-commissioned book, The Future of the Trade Unions, believes:

“unions . . . need to encourage employee share-ownership schemes . . . they are becoming institutions invaluable to employers, because they provide the stability that companies need as they carry through necessary change ” (chapter 9).

If unions are invaluable to employers it is only because they pose no threat to capitalism and help provide stability for them to amass huge profits, rather than fighting to improve the lot of the workers they are supposed to represent.

Apathy and sixteen years of disillusionment at the hands of a Tory government has soured the outlook of trade unionists and the leadership has done little to boost morale. When Arthur Scargill said that the “unions have not been marginalised by the Tories but by our own unwillingness to fight back”, it was John Monks, the TUC General Secretary, who retorted that Scargill's brand of defiance “was not a practical option” (Guardian, 7 September).

So long as leaders like Monks continue to rule the TUC, bowing to the whims and dictates of capitalism, the longer unions will remain a puppet of capitalism. Monks is all for reform. He promises a “mutually reinforcing package of reforms of the tax and benefit system”. He argues for “targeted public investment for rebuilding the industrial base” and believes “the conversion of individual unemployment benefits into a subsidy to the employer can benefit both employer, employee and the exchequer" (New Statesman and Society). Thus, capitalism prospers, becoming even more profitable at the expense of workers. Reform in reality becomes class collaboration.

Useless Labour Party

Neither can unions depend on the labour Party for support, if they ever could in the past. Indeed, the Labour Party has an outstanding historical record of betraying unions and deserting them in their hour of need. While Tony Blair had “considerable sympathy for the signal workers” during last year’s RMT strike, he argued that “this dispute is costing the country a great deal of money . . . people are entitled to take strike action, but it is not the function of politicians to start barging into industrial disputes” (Guardian, 7 September). Perhaps Blair is unaware that the Tories have been provoking strikes since they entered office and sending in their paramilitaries to crush resistance to their onslaught against working-class unity.

Conservative mentality

Blair later went further by saying that unions "do not want, nor will they get support from a Labour government", and declared that “at their best, unions represent in the workplace the values that Labour shares with the British people” (New Statesman and Society, 18 September). Certainly both Labour and the TUC have imbibed a conservative mentality, but what values labour shares with the working class is open to serious contention — certainly no commitment to end the profit system that ruins millions of lives every year.

For John Pilger, in the same trade union edition of the New Statesman and Society:

“Labour differs from the official conservatives only in tone . . . it would be hard to slip a cigarette paper between their views and those of the Tories . .  the trade unions have by default become the political opposition. ”

Insofar as Labour has acknowledged the inevitability of unemployment and refuses to support strikers, that would appear to be the case. As far back as 1984 the Labour Party was seeing trade unions as a hot potato and that supporting strikes would be an electoral liability. This is why the miners were given only tepid support and why RMT was ignored by Blair. Big union defeats would have reverberated through Walworth Road like the shock waves from an earthquake.

But the 1990s appear to have heralded the demise of trade unions as mobilisers of mass discontent born of workplace injustices. Just as Labour failed to harness the frustration and anger generated by the 1984-5 miners’ strike, so too have the unions failed to capitalise on sixteen years of Tory mayhem at the expense of their membership. In 1979, working days lost through strike action stood at 30 million. By 1993 it had dropped to 649,000 — a figure actually higher than the previous year — 528,000 — the lowest in 100 years!

There is indeed the potential for a real trade-union movement. Workers the length and breadth of the nation are crying out for representation. Some 800,000 workers every year take their employer-related grievances to the Citizens’ Advance Bureau. A recent survey found that only 6 percent of respondents felt secure at work. The 1992-3 pit closures brought more people out on the streets in protest that at any time during the 1984-5 strike. Research recently carried out by the Industrial Relations Unit of the University of Warwick, conducted with the co-operation of 12 unions, found that 72 percent of respondents joined a union for support. Some 31.2 percent sought out a union themselves.

There are many reasons why trade-union membership has fallen by 5 million in sixteen years — anti-union laws, Thatcher's premeditated attack on the traditionally strongly unionised manufacturing base, recession, unemployment, apathy and general disillusionment to name just a few.

Struggle for socialism

Trade unions have adopted a bunker mentality, afraid to pop their heads up in case they’re blown off. This is nothing new. Unions have always fought from a position of weakness. But it does not have to be this way. So long as unions continue to sec victories in securing crumbs from our masters’ tables, as long as they continue to acquiesce in and help perpetuate the capitalist system of production for profit, not use, and the exploitation of their members in the process, the longer and more futile will be their struggle.

Unions need broader objectives — long-term macro goals, not immediate micro victories. They need to harness their struggle to the movement for world socialism, to a system of society whose establishment will end the whole employer-employee relationship. Micro struggles can only be a rearguard action. In their efforts to coexist with capitalism unions will always fail, in theory and practice.

For Marx, they fail because they generally limit “themselves to a guerrilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organised forces as a lever for the emancipation of the working class, that is to say, the ultimate abolition of the wages system” (Value, Price and Profit).

John Bissett

King Coal makes a comeback (1995)

From the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

State capitalism, just as the Socialist Party predicted all
 those years ago, has been a pathetic failure as far as workers’
 interests are concerned. Now private capitalism has 
returned to the mining industry

At midnight on 30 December British Coal’s 15 remaining deep mines in England passed into the ownership of RJB Mining, a privately-owned company with shares traded on the Stock Exchange.

The government had prepared the way for this change-back to private ownership by crushing the NUM, closing down all unprofitable pits (and not a few not-profitable-enough ones too), and watering down the safety regulations in this notoriously dangerous industry. Now RJB Mining hopes to be able to make sufficient profits by exploiting the remaining 8,000 or so miners to be able to pay a dividend to its shareholders and pay off with interest those who loaned them money to buy what was left of the industry.

Considering that for years the nationalisation of the coal mines had been top of the list of the miners’ union's demands the actual moment of denationalisation passed off without any fuss. There were no strikes, no sit-ins and no demonstrations.

When the mines were nationalised — forty-eight years previously, on 1 January' 1947 — it was a different story. Then the miners did celebrate the ejection of the private owners, a particularly vicious and vindictive lot who had been responsible for grinding them into the dust after the failure of the 1926 General Strike. A notice was stuck up outside every pit in Britain proclaiming “This colliery' is now managed by the National Coal Board on behalf of the people”.

British capitalist class

This wasn’t true of course, as the miners were soon to find out. The Coal Board’s job was to manage the pits on behalf of the British capitalist class as a whole. At first this meant producing as much cheap coal as possible for the rest of British industry. Later this meant producing cheap coal for profit in competition with other fuels like oil. At no time did it mean production to meet people’s needs. Not one lump of coal was ever produced to be given to a pensioner to stop them dying of hypothermia. As many thousands did throughout the period of nationalisation.

Working conditions did improve somewhat, but wages remained a bone of contention. How could they not, since the more the miners obtained in wages the less of what they produced remained as profit? A profit that was needed to pay compensation with interest to the former owners as well as to invest in new machinery and equipment.

The whole period of nationalisation was marked by conflicts over wages — from the illegal strike at Grimethorpe in 1947, through countless local disputes, to the successful national strikes of 1972 and 1974, to the heroic but doomed year-long national strike which ended in failure ten years ago this month.

State capitalism

Ironically, it was the Coal Board and not the NUM that first recognised that nationalisation had nothing to do with socialism. In 1968 Lord Robens, a minister in the Labour government that had nationalised the mines who was appointed NCB chairmanin 1961, told a NUM weekend school:

"I do not believe that in 1945 those of us who were nationalising these industries would have done it with so much enthusiasm if someone had told us then that they were going to turn into state capitalism ” (Times, 1 April 1968).

Someone did tell them We did. This is what we wrote in our 1945 pamphlet Nationalisation or Socialism ?:

“Only when industry and transport, etc, are owned and democratically controlled by the whole community can service to the whole community be a reality. Nationalisation or State Capitalism is not the solution of the problem. ”

It took the leaders of the miners' union ten years longer than Robens to realise the truth. It was not until his retirement in 1976 that Dai Francis, the Secretary of the South Wales Area of the NUM. was prepared to admit that "there was no difference between the old . . . coal owners and the National Coal Board. They were now turning it into state capitalism ” (quoted in H. Francis and D. Smith The Fed). Former NUM General Secretary Will Paynter hit the nail even more squarely on the head when, surveying three decades of nationalisation, he noted that “progress from private enterprise capitalism to state capitalism does not change the fundamental status of workers in society ” (The Miner, November-December 1977).

No doubt this explains the lack of reaction by the remaining miners to the return of the coal industry' to private ownership. They had learned by bitter experience that state capitalism was no better, if no worse, than private capitalism, so that a change from the one to the other wasn't worth getting worked up over.

Profitable basis

Socialism does indeed involve the management of industries "on behalf of the people”. But this was not what nationalisation did do, nor, as we pointed out in 1945, what it was able to do. Nationalisation represented the purchase by the state of an industry from its previous owners and the appointment by the state of a board to run it on a profitable basis with the workers remaining excluded and exploited wage and salary' earners.

Privatisation, on the other hand, represents the resale of an industry to private capitalists for them to run for their own private profit instead of it being run by a state board for the benefit of the capitalist class as a whole. As far as the workers are concerned, it makes no fundamental difference.

For industries to be run as a public service in the interest of all, they must first all be taken into common ownership at the same time, and without any compensation being paid to the previous owners, and they must be made subject to the democratic control both of those working in them and of the community in general. Such genuine common ownership is something quite different from nationalisation, or state ownership.

Production for profit will come to an end and there will be no exploitation, no property incomes either in the form of dividends or of interest on compensation or other government bonds, and no wages system. Instead, people will be able to cooperate to produce what is needed on the basis of the principle “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

This is what socialism is and it hasn’t yet been tried. It is high time that it was.

Adam Buick

The Power and The Priests (1995)

From the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hardly a day goes by now without the Catholic Church in Ireland having to face some scandal or other. However, it is not only the wayward behaviour of some of its priests that has resulted in Irish people abandoning the church in droves and ignoring its reactionary teachings

One of the many fictions that prevails among Protestants in Ireland is that the Catholic Church always stood in the forefront of the struggle for independence from Britain. The reverse of this is true but acknowledging that would not fit in with the traditional Unionist slogan that “Home Rule is Rome Rule” — even though the slogan itself contains more than a germ of truth.

The historian Beresford Ellis rightly points out that the Roman Church played a key role in preparing Ireland for the Anglo-Norman invasion and it was Pope Adrian IV who, in 1154, promulgated a Bull authorising Henry II of England to invade Ireland. After the Reformation the Catholic Church in Ireland saw its role as that of facilitating the counter-Reformation and it was identified with conspiracies, mostly emanating from Spain, aimed at bringing about the defeat of the English Reformation. These activities were not aimed at the independence of Ireland; on the contrary, Ireland was now seen as an essential springboard for restoring Rome’s authority throughout the entire Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The Roman Church was hostile to every succeeding effort by Irish nationalists to cast off “the English yoke”, especially during those periods when the national struggle was married to the struggle of the poor for the amelioration of their poverty. It opposed the Fenian movement and its opposition became hysterical when the Fenians established relations with the International Working Men’s Association. Indeed, Archbishop Moriarity opinioned that hell was not hot enough or eternity long enough to punish the Fenians.

Earlier, in the period 1845-8, when the potato crop was blighted and thousands of people were dying of hunger and its diseases, while the export of sheep, cattle and pigs, as well as most of the cereal crop continued unabated, the bishops reminded the starving of the “moral” duty to pay their rents. In 1848, a leading Catholic layman, Dr John O'Connell, the son of Daniel O’Connell, the famous Catholic Emancipator, said “I thank God I live among people who would rather die of hunger than defraud their landlords of rent.” The bishops were eloquently silent.

Boycott weapon

The events of 1879-82 are significant in that they paved the way for resolution of the land question in Ireland and the establishment of the material conditions that were to create modern Ireland. It is a classical example of how a subject class can oppose with peaceful means its oppressors and, if sufficient unity is achieved, win victory. The Land League forged the boycott weapon, not only giving a new word to the English language but also setting in train a social revolution that was to finally banish the worst features of landlordism from Ireland.

With notable exceptions, the Church was unhelpful. An earlier version of the Land League, the Tenant Right League had achieved a considerable degree of unity between Protestant small farmers in the north and their more impoverished Catholic counterparts in the south. It was potentially an exciting development but, when Lord John Russell, the British Prime Minister, responded to the Pope's attempts to establish new bishoprics in Britain with an anti-papist Ecclesiastical Titles Act, the Catholic clergy and some Catholic leaders of the Tenant Right League sacrificed the unity that underpinned the struggle of the Irish poor in order to promote the politics of Rome.

A few years later the bishops brought bitter division into the Home Rule movement with the outrageous vilification of Charles Stewart Parnell after it was revealed that the Protestant leader of the Irish National Party was involved in a relationship with a married woman. As effectively as it had split the Tenant Right League, it now shattered the unity of the National Party and inadvertently set the stage for the entrance of Sinn Fein.

In 1912-13, the desperately impoverished transport and general workers of Dublin were locked out by their employers for joining a trade union. Revealingly, Sinn Fein was promoting the political interests of the vicious coterie of Catholic capitalists who were savaging the poor and the Church did nothing to hide its bitter opposition to the workers. As a gesture of solidarity, English trade unionists (whom Sinn Fein opposed) offered to take some of the workers' children and ensure that they were provided for while the lock-out lasted. The Church went wild and priestly louts led attacks on the departing parade of hapless children. The excuse was that these unfortunates whose little bodies were suffering from the bitter rapacity of Irish capitalism might have their souls endangered by the Protestant and “pagan” English.

In 1916, the residue of the Irish Volunteers — the great majority of whom had gone to fight the Germans — combined with the Irish Citizen Army to form the IRA which staged the so-called “Easter Rising”. The ICA had been formed by James Connolly to protect locked-out workers from the thuggery of the paramilitary Royal Irish Constabulary three years earlier. Now, incorporated into the IRA, it was hijacked by Connolly into taking part in an insurrection to forward the Sinn Fein policy of legislative independence to promote the interests of Irish capitalists.

After the defeat of the insurrection the Catholic newspaper, the Irish Catholic, editorialised on the immorality of the Rising and opinioned that it was an act of treachery and that there was no reason to lament that its perpetrators (the leaders of the Rising had been executed) had met the fate that since the dawn of history had been reserved for traitors.

The subsequent establishment of the Irish Free State politically canonised the executed leaders and nowhere were they more lauded than by the hypocritical Catholic hierarchy.

Holy orders

It would take volumes to detail the way the Catholic Church wormed and bullied its way into the affairs of the newly-established Irish Free State. One example will suffice.

In February 1948, the Fianna Fail government of Eamon De Valera lost its Dail majority for the first time since it achieved power in 1932. The new government was a coalition, and a young medical doctor, a left-wing republican, Dr Noël Browne, became an enthusiastic Minister of Health.

Poverty and acute privation grew during the war despite Southern Ireland’s neutrality. In the nine years since 1939, taxable profits had risen by some 200 percent but real wages had actually fallen below their pre-war level. The war years had been preceded by the heightened poverty resulting from the British embargo on Irish imports in the early 1930s which had followed the refusal of the De Valera government to pay the annuities which Britain had imposed when the Irish Free State was established. Life was hard for the urban workers and desperate for small farmers and this proved a fecund breeding ground for tuberculosis, a poverty disease which was then sweeping Europe.

I had met Browne and can testify to the enthusiasm of his efforts to counter the medical consequences of poverty in southern Ireland. After much trimming by his cabinet colleagues, the Minister introduced a Bill in the Dail that provided for free healthcare for expectant mothers and children up to the age of five.

The Irish Catholic bishops went wild. These puny efforts to give some medical help to mothers and babies was “rank socialism” and could not be tolerated by “Holy Mother", the Church. The well- cosseted bishops, living like feudal princes, did not simply pass on their opinion that the state help for the poor was “socialism” (which the church universally had always vigorously opposed), they wrote to the Taoiseach, John A. Costello, an earlier fascist sympathiser, instructing him that the government would introduce the Mother and Child Bill "under pain of sin”. The Bill was abandoned but an amended scheme was introduced, despite clerical protest, by the succeeding Fianna Fail government.

Since then, a new reality, brought about by the needs of a burgeoning capitalism, has inhibited the more audacious arrogance of the Catholic hierarchy. For years, as the Republic first become a trading partner with Britain in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement of the mid-Sixties, and later as a minor player in big-league EC capitalism, the Church remained a formidable agent of reaction. But television, with its insensate curiosity and its international programme fare, has had a part to play in breaking down the old walls of secrecy and false piety behind which many eminent churchmen traditionally sheltered. Again, the narrow world of gombeen capitalism has been overtaken by the brash presence of the multinationals and their religiously indifferent personnel. Reality was, and is, changing fast in Ireland, sometimes pushed by European law, and the Church is being exposed as a mere part of the “hallowed sepulchre" of its teachings.

Crumbling monolith

In Northern Ireland, especially in places like Belfast, the Catholic clergy have been happy to accept the bribes of the British government to act as a counterinsurgency agent. In an effort to combat the massive unemployment that, especially in more impoverished urban areas, plays into the hands of the paramilitaries, the Northern Ireland Office introduced Action for Community Employment (ACE) which provides temporary employment in non-profit-making enterprises. Shrewdly, the government used the Catholic clergy as a conduit for distribution of the ACE largesse in the Catholic community, thus, indirectly giving priests the power to assist those whom they favoured. Doubtless, Tory largess has won the Church a few friends. Undoubtedly, too, it has made them many enemies in the more embattled regions of the north.

We do not regard priests or bishops as being especially obedient to their own precepts of “morality”. Accordingly, unlike the media in general, we see no undue significance in their being increasingly exposed as liars, cheats and child molesters. Probably, in the past, many young men who aspired to the priesthood were able to suppress normal sexuality, often at the cost of personality deviance or alcoholism. Today there are few recruits to the priesthood; young Catholics have become disaffected as reality overwhelms theology. Regrettably for their victims, it appears that increasing numbers of the sad fraternity who seek opportunities for the expression of their sick proclivities are taking advantage of the scarcity and swelling the numbers of deviant priests.

Just as the advent of electricity reduced the sightings of leprechauns, so the heightened understanding of natural phenomena and its concomitant disregard of unevidenced beliefs — both by-products of modern capitalism — has destroyed the mystery and secrecy of the holy men who presume to “sin” outside the parameters of their own precepts.

The gullible will turn to the weeping statues. More will show their contempt for a crumbling monolith that, for the love of its god, heaped misery on humanity. 

Richard Montague

Crime and Politicians (1995)

From the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

What to do about crime is a question the capitalist parties 
are forever debating without ever coming near a solution.
They refuse to accept that capitalism causes crime

The Tories, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are all preoccupied with the problem of crime because crime is one of the principal concerns of the public. Even the smaller political organisations have been forced, by public demand, to address the question.

That demand is based on the proximity of crime — theft, burglary, mugging, armed robbery, car stealing, violence and murder, to name only the illegal variety — to the citizen. Crime is not now only something most members of the public read about; it is a frightening reality for most people, either as a personal experience or through association with a friend or neighbour. Nor is the illusion of security traditionally reinforced any more by the presence of the ubiquitous policeman a comfort. Despite massive increases in their numbers and vast sums spent on prevention and detection technology, the police response to run-of-the-mill crime is such that thousands of offences go unreported.

Like unemployment and the problems of the NHS, crime has become a potential election winner — or loser. As such, it occupies the attention of government and opposition while, in the background, specialists, like the police, criminologists, sociologists and other experts wrestle with the problem. Like poverty, homelessness, unemployment, health care and other acute problems of our present social order, no politicians, experts or academics would dare to suggest that they could ever solve the problem of crime; indeed, they all claim that crime results from our “human nature” and, therefore, all they can do is create mechanisms for containing the fruits of our human frailty.

Gutter media

The problems for the politicians and the experts is that they face a public opinion largely fed by a gutter, headline-seeking press which, like the criminals, benefits from crime — without taking any of the chances the criminals have to take. Recently Channel 4 had a programme on crime and its prevention in its series, Power and the People. Of the 300 people used in an experimental programme aimed at testing the citizen’s response to intelligent persuasion — as opposed to the brutal rhetoric of the gutter media — most of the suggestions for dealing with the problem of crime, offered by the majority of these voters, made the crimes they were discussing seem innocent and benign.

The floggers were there, the throw-away-the-key brigade, string-’em-up was well represented, cut-off-their-fingers seemed a cross-cultural response. Listening to the “solutions” offered by these opponents of crime, it occurred to this writer that, if the 300 had been a convocation of criminals, the innocent would be in grave peril.

Happily, and most instructively, after they had heard from the experts, police officers, criminologists, jailers and others, about the application of some of their “solutions” there was a swing of 12 to 15 percent towards more civilised views. The point is, though, that these people were a random sample of the electorate; the people with votes; the people who want something done.

It places the humane politician in a dilemma. If he, or she, has done their homework on the question, they know that all the knee-jerk “solutions” have been tried and found wanting. The death penalty didn’t stop sheep-stealing or reduce murders. An obvious, and an economically-effective, means of ending the intractable problem of “joyriding” would be to give the offenders the means, through employment or otherwise, of having a car, but that sort of solution would not win votes. Indeed, recently we saw the reaction of the gutter scribes of some of the tabloids and the so-called “quality” press to attempts by penologists to create some self-esteem in youthful criminals by exposing them to something that their station in life doesn’t allow them to contemplate — a holiday in East Africa.

But elections, for the politicians, are about winning. That means that political parties cannot be seen to be soft or innovative about crime — and many of the opinion-formers think that looking for its cause is being “soft”. In the Channel 4 programme referred to earlier, Labour leader Tony Blair was subjected to questioning about his attitudes to crime by people whose questions showed that they suspected him of being “soft” on the subject. He squirmed but his solutions, though more intelligently expressed, were essentially the same as those of Sir Ivan Lawrence, a typical Tory twit who had been questioned earlier. Blair may not have believed the nonsense he mouthed but capitalist politics are not about changing people’s ideas but with identifying with those ideas in order to get votes.

Of course it is easy to understand public reaction to crime — especially those most despicable of crimes carried out against the poor, the weak, against children or on the elderly. Actually, such crimes, though they get the big headlines, are relatively rare and represent a very small percentage of all crimes. The overwhelming volume of crime, some 94 percent, is against property and the offences at the top of the crime league, in monetary terms, are rarely associated with members of the working class. The really big money is in fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, insurance racketeering, tax evasion and the like.

Mammoth swindle

In these matters detection and convictions are low because there are grey areas between capitalism’s legal thieving and the illegal variety. An example of this appeared in the Observer on 15 May of last year and concerned a mammoth swindle carried out by insurance companies cashing in on Tory pressure on workers to join, or transfer to, private pension schemes. The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, responding to enquires about the insurance super-crooks said: “We have neither the resources nor the powers to investigate the whole area of personal pension transfers”. The same cannot be said about the resources and powers enjoyed by the army of snoopers the state employs to detect social security fraud.

Crime is a filthy business. According to Ken Smith, in his book Free is Cheaper, it employs about one million people, guarding, protecting, policing, transporting, arresting, convicting and incarcerating. The police, especially, are judged by the number of convictions they achieve and over the last few years there have been a succession of cases that have shown that police officers of all ranks are as ready to use thuggery, lies and deceit to achieve their purpose as are the criminals. In the upper echelons of crime, opportunity often plays a part in determining who is the criminal and who the victim but, at the low end of the crime scale are the really sad eases, the mugged, the terrified, the deprived and the injured. It is difficult for these victims to appreciate that the petty criminal is the product of the same system that made them his, or her, victim.

Free Access

Socialists do not need an answer to the problems of crime. We are organised to gain majority support for the abolition of capitalism, and the achievement of a society in which all human beings would have free and equal access to the goods and services they need. It requires little mental effort to appreciate that, in a society where everybody could avail of their needs the overwhelming burden of crime would disappear.

Space precludes a deeper examination of that other small volume of crime that does not appear to be directly connected with property but which usually results from the values and conditioning of people in a property society.

Capitalism without crime is just not possible. Most of the more repressive and brutal means advanced for its containment are not only angry, despairing and degrading ways of striking back at the criminal, they are utterly futile. While we have competition, profit, aggression, conflict and, of course, poverty, despair and alienation, we will have crime and while we have capitalism we will have all of these things.

Richard Montague

Letter: Meeting each others needs (1995)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Meeting each others needs

Dear Editors,

As I run a LETSystem in Canterbury I was amused to read Adam Buick’s article "LETS Abolish Money" in your December issue.

Despite Mr Buick’s evident dismissal of the very concept of LETSystem I was amused rather than perturbed, because even with the research that he had evidently undertaken it is clear that Mr Buick simply fails to understand either their ethos or their future potential. This is not at all unusual. LETSystems are so simple that a great many people have difficulty in understanding them.

Mr Buick dismisses LETSystems for being small, or rather for the twin reasons that they are small and that the range of goods and services that they offer is limited. That they are is undoubtedly true, but there is a very good reason for this. LETSystems are a new phenomenon. most individual ones are very young, even the oldest in Britain is no more than four or five years old. I don’t suppose that even Mr Buick was a towering and influential socialist intellectual at the age of five.

Having grown to a membership of 200 in less than twelve months the Canterbury LETSystem is beginning to attract the interest of "high street" businesses whose own involvement is likely to increase the system’s appeal, even to ordinary people (i.e. other than middle-class hobbyists and New Age dreamers).

As the system grows in size it will become more rather than  less able to pay people to run it and still be far more efficient than the conventional, money economy which requires approximately 10 percent of its workforce to be employed in "financial services".

There may well be an optimum size for any given LETSystem, the bigger they are the more services they are likely to offer and the stronger and more credible they are likely to be perceived, the smaller they are the more intimate they are and the quicker will a person's spending come back to them as earnings. But we do not need to arbitrarily impose limitations upon a system, its natural dynamics will enable each system to find its own optimum size, which may number in the hundreds, the thousands or even the millions.

Beyond these matters, which essentially pertain to the practical aspects of establishing and running a system. Mr Buick's most striking failure is his inability to understand the long-term potential that LETSystems have for converting the present-day market-dominated society into an egalitarian one where everyone’s needs can be met, their dignity maintained and where the environment can be protected. Trading with a LETSystem is not barter, Indeed, use of cash is actually closer to barter than is use of a LETSystem. The Pound Sterling is derived from an entity of intrinsic value — a pound of Sterling silver. So when you use cash you are exchanging one item of intrinsic value (or rather a paper representation of it) for another, which is precisely what bartering involves. By contrast, the credits that one earns or spends in a LETSystem are purely abstract measurements. That they are given a nominal value, usually in relation to the Pound Sterling, is solely to enable everyone to share a common valuation.

This purely abstract nature of their units of currency underlies one of the great advantages of LETSystems. Whereas if you are exchanging cash for goods or goods for cash you have to have one or the other with LETSystems you don’t. You can spend LETS units before you earn them, even before you are able to earn them. Given the strongly inculcated resistance that most people have towards going "into the red" new members of the Canterbury LETSystem are positively encouraged to spend, spend, spend!, for by doing so they are putting credits into other people's accounts which will further encourage them to spend and so increase everyone's opportunities to earn.

Within a LETSystem the sum total of everyone’s accounts at any one moment will always be 0. So for some people to be in credit it is necessary for others to be "in commitment", this differs from debt within the conventional economy because it is not seen as being irresponsible, it is necessary if trading is to take place.

It is this feature of LETSystems that will enable the market economy to continue to meet people's needs (or rather be the means by which people will continue to meet each other's needs) whilst causing it to cease to be a means by which some people can attain power over others.

Mr Buick’s statement that "A hoard of cash is no more useful than a large LETS credit balance" is an extraordinary one to come from anyone other than a contrite capitalist apologist, if some people have a large hoard of conventional money (in whatever form), given that there is a finite amount of it, other people must have little or none, and given that one must have it even to meet one's basic material needs, clearly those who have the stuff in large quantities have enormous power over those who haven’t. By contrast, given that LETS credits are purely abstract measurements with no limit and given that one can spend freely even with a “negative" balance no one with a large LETS credit has any power over someone else who might, at a given moment, be in commitment.

If, as Mr Buick proposes, the elimination of want is to be achieved by the elimination of the market system whereby people exchange goods and services to meet their needs, how will these needs be met? By a central economic authority with complete power over everyone's lives? Mr Adam Buick?

We can retain the benefits of a market economy whilst removing its current absolute dominance and less benign aspects, we can enable individuals and their local communities to secure greater power and responsibility for their own lives, we can remove the inefficiencies and environmental destructiveness of an excessively competitive society and so achieve the type of society that is the dream of many, whether socialists or not. by the very simple idea that is the LETSystem.

After a myriad of Utopian dreams have come to nought down the centuries we now have the means of creating a just and egalitarian society.

Anne Belsey, 

Faversham, Kent

Reply:

Your letter illustrates perfectly the point we were trying to make: the exaggerated claims of the benefits and possibilities of LETS made by some of its enthusiasts. You see LETS as a means towards creating "an egalitarian society where everyone’s needs can be met. their dignity maintained and where the environment can be protected". We are all for creating such a society, but say that LETS schemes will only ever play a marginal economic role.

For LETS to replace "the present-day market-dominated society” they would have to spread out of their present field of personal services, repairs, home cooking and gardening into, and the list is not exhaustive, farming, the generation of electricity. the provision of water, gas. sewage and telephone services. the manufacture of the cookers, fridges, heaters, cars, bikes. TVs. radios, computers (that LETS members merely repair not produce), not to mention the manufacture of the machines and equipment to make these consumer goods and the maintenance of a transport system to move them. They've got to take on and beat economically the public utility companies, the supermarkets, the multinationals and Big Business generally. We are sorry to have to break the bad news to you, but LETS schemes are not going to do this. They are never going to spread outside their present restricted field and even there they are never going to predominate.

This is because LETS are essentially an arrangement for conducting multi-sided barter amongst self-employed individuals. This means they are going to be restricted to the sort of things an individual can do. It also means that they have little interest for those in full-time employment with an adequate wage or salary. (For such people it is always going to be more convenient to pay someone to repair their TV out of the money they have earned than to commit themselves to a couple of hours extra work to exchange for this.) In addition, as the article stated, above a certain size LETS schemes become more cumbersome than resorting to ordinary money. This is not a defence of conventional money, merely recognition of a fact of life within "the present- day market-dominated economy”.

Our answer to the market economy is not to reform it as you want but to abolish the market. No, this does not mean some central economic authority deciding what people need. We envisage a self-regulating system of production for use. in accordance with the principle “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", with individuals deciding what their needs are. On the basis of the common ownership and democratic control of all land and industry, individuals would set the productive system in operation by what they actually took from the common stores to satisfy their needs under conditions of free access; this would then be transmitted to the stores' suppliers and from them to their suppliers and so on down the line and throughout the whole network of productive units.

Finally, don't get us wrong. We are not saying people shouldn’t join LETS schemes, nor that they are a complete waste of time within the present economic system. What we are saying is that they are merely one mechanism for surviving within the present system, on a par with housing associations, coops, building societies. Christmas Clubs, etc. People can join them if they want, but they should be under no illusion that they contain the germ for the transformation of society.

For this to happen, the large-scale socially-operated industry where the bulk of the wealth of society is produced today must first be taken into common ownership and democratic control. And this requires society-wide political action, not what our next correspondent calls "practical small-scale change” which leaves the commanding heights the economy in capitalist hands. - Editors.

Letter: Simply a knocking job? (1995)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Simply a knocking job?

Dear Editors,

Debate is useful and I accept that it is wrong simply to accept new ideas uncritically. However, Adam Buick’s contribution on LETS is simply a knocking job. He makes a number of errors in his description of LETS — for examples the recording of transactions is typically already paid (in local currency) not just "voluntary" — but these are secondary in importance. His real concern is to brand LETS activists as “currency cranks".

Adam Buick's own vision of a non-exchange economy is described in one closing sentence. Could he write as much on this in terms of practicalities as he did in criticism of LETS? I look forward to reading it. The idea of a non-exchange economy has in the past been based on the abolition of the concept of property or on the common ownership of property. Both ideas have a history.but neither have established any convincing vision of what the pattern of social relations, the model of social institutions and the organisation of production would instead be in such a world.

However, there isn't a lot of point in dialogue if you're going to be dismissed a crank. Yes. Fritz Schumacher, among others. said that a crank is a small, metal tooth that makes revolutions but this wasn't what was meant.

Get your facts right on LETS. Accept that the mainstream will regard both of us as cranks. Explain your own ideas rather than leave them to the last sentence. Decide whether you are interested in practical, small-scale change as a seedbed for wider transformation. And then we can have a useful discussion.

Ed Mayo, 

New Economics Foundation.

Reply:

We did get our facts right.

Your “correction" — to the effect that LETS members normally have to contribute to the scheme’s running costs — strengthens not weakens our argument that such schemes are strictly limited as to the size they can attain without becoming too costly to run.

We never said that members of LETS schemes were "cranks", only that currency reformers of one kind or another had latched on to these schemes as a way of promoting their cranky ideas, in particular that of a new kind of money that can’t be accumulated and can’t yield interest.

In response to your request for more information on how a society of common ownership and production directly for use without buying and selling could work we are sending you a copy of the new edition of our Socialism As A Practical Alternative pamphlet. Hopefully, after you have read it the dialogue can begin. — Editors.

Letter: Allowing for the placebo effect (1995)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Allowing for the placebo effect

Dear Editors,

Adam Buick states that “aromatherapy, holistic massage, acupuncture, tarot reading and other such new age fads" are "not normally needed by the unemployed".

There are a great many things which people do not need but which they want. Does Adam Buick mean that socialists believe in people only receiving what they need? Or is it acceptable for employed people to get things they want but don’t need, whilst unemployed people only deserve the bare necessities of life? If unemployed people want aromatherapy, tarot readings or massage, why not encourage systems which make these more readily available?

The arguments in favour of local trading systems, although technically these would apply whatever currency was used, are ignored by Adam Buick. These include:

1. The closer the physical proximity of buyer and seller, the less energy (fossil fuel, etc.) will be consumed in the production/retail process: and
2. It enables buyers to keep a closer eye on producers, eg. growers of food, which is miles better than buying from dodgy multinationals.

As for acupuncture, if Adam Buick has evidence that, allowing for the placebo effect, it is ineffective he should say so. If it does work, he should start asking why it is not available on the National Health Service (clue: start thinking about drug companies . . .). Calling it a "New Age fad" is no help to ordinary people who may want to use it.

Katharine Gilchrist, 

Canterbury, Kent

Reply:

Don't be silly. Obviously we weren’t saying that unemployed people shouldn't have access to acupuncture, etc. if they want to. The point the aside was trying to make was that, in contrast to the claim that LETS schemes can help the unemployed satisfy their basic needs without money, a disproportionate amount of the services on offer in actually existing schemes were of the type mentioned (and were actual examples from a scheme in Kingston. Surrey).

The aside wasn't really commenting on whether the various types of alternative medicine were effective or not (though clearly tarot reading is a load of rubbish). That is another issue altogether.

To return to the main point, we note that you confirm that Lets schemes are just a rearrangement within the buying and selling system. - Editors.

Letter: LETS all not get excited! (1995)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

LETS all not get excited!

Dear Editors,

I read with interest your article on the LETS scheme. This was first brought to my attention several years ago when, as I understand it. the system was in its infancy. (It would seem, incidentally. that it has done little growing up since.) I was attending a dinner party of sorts with a group of friends who do their views and ideas no justice by clinging to their '60s hippie image whilst expecting to be taken seriously as local and national political figures (Green Party, etc.).

Anyhow, they were raving about this revolutionary “no money scheme". Obviously I listened with anticipation. My heart sank, and they could not understand when I said simply “For LETS read pounds sterling". They had convinced themselves of the wondrous nature of the system and seemed under the delusion that, although accumulation of credit, book-keeping and cheque books were all relevant factors, by changing the name of the currency they had abolished money. The final shot in the foot for them after several hours of debate was that in order to initially join the scheme you paid a fee in sterling. This was to cover costs of operation of the scheme.

So intense was their belief in the system that they could not understand my scepticism. It is sometimes upsetting that the indoctrination of society is so deep that even those with good and honest intent cannot throw away the shackles of capitalism.

Neil Pettitt, 

Bristol

Reply:

Thanks. We were beginning to need a bit of support.  - Editors

These FoolishThings . . . (1995)

The Scavenger column from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

The basic contradictions in capitalism cause widespread death, destruction, pollution, poverty and waste. But this is to take the world view. Most of us experience day-to-day capitalism as a series of small stupidities, irritations and frustrations. Here are a few. If you encounter any worth a wry smile, please send them to The Scavenger, who will publish the best.

“I won't claim the Workhouses didn't have their problems. but they were set up by people who cared. " Edwina Currie MP.

Central eating - a letter in a local newspaper:

“Did this caring government not promise to provide a little more for heating to keep us old ones warm?

I applied for heating allowance at the age of 81.

I was refused, so with my 25p bonus for reaching 80 years I bought a packet of extra strong mints.

So there you are! I had something to cat and something to keep me warm at the same time.” 

L. Edwards.

Bimbos for Christ’s sake!

Deep cleavages and micro skirts are currently the height of fashion for those models who give prostitutes a bad name. But now religion is becoming fashionable too. Girls like Samantha Fox and Mandy Smith (ex-Mrs Bill Wyman) have embraced a few men and bared a few square feet of flesh in their time. But now, apparently, they arc embracing Christ and baring their souls as well.

Let’s face it — it’s got to be true if the barbie dolls believe it.

"We are prepared to shoot and kill in the interest of society. " Chief Constable James Anderton.

Dazed and confused

Emma Nicholson, Conservative MP, writing in the Mail on Sunday bewails the fact that charities are becoming career vehicles for highly paid executives who run them like businesses. She says of her own experience with Save the Children.

"As our fundraising improved, so did the notion that success should be measured in terms of the latest spectacular increase in collected cash rather than in the number of lives saved or bettered by the relief of poverty. "

The Scavenger

50 Years Ago: If capitalism continues (1995)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 2009 issue of the Socialist Standard

If capitalism continues, poverty, unemployment, insecurity and war will always be with us. Poverty for the masses, riches for the few. Wages for the workers barely sufficient to keep them alive; profits for the capitalists sufficient to keep them in indolent luxury. And unemployment. Has Beveridge shown us the way out? Why, of course not. Given conditions of production and distribution for sale and profit-making, when commodities find no market factories close down and widespread unemployment occurs. Great Britain since 1920 has had an unemployed army ranging from one to three millions, and the U.S.A.—that country of "high" wages and refrigerators—had figures reaching heights of 11 million. Poverty together with unemployment and perpetual economic insecurity are in themselves sufficient condemnation of capitalism. Besides all this, however, the various national sections of the world capitalist class periodically fall out with each other. No longer can their disagreements over private property issues be settled around conference tables; wars are declared and millions are massacred and maimed.

[From an article by Samuel Leight, Socialist Standard, February 1945]

New Companion Party to be formed in India (1995)

Party News from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been in contact with a group of Socialists in India who will be holding a Conference in March at which they plan to form a companion Party of the World Socialist Movement.

We will be sending a delegation of two Socialist Party of Great Britain members to attend this Conference. Naturally, this will cost a sum of money. This is why we would like to make an appeal to any socialists who want to help spread socialist ideas in this part of the world to make a contribution towards the travel costs of this delegation. 

Please send any contributions (made payable to "The Socialist Party of Great Britain") indicating it is for this purpose, to:

The Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN.

Blogger's Note:

There was a report of that SPGB delegation to India in the May 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Meetings (1995)

Party News from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Sunny Side of the Street (1995)

Coronation Street, 1995

TV Review from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Among the visual litter of second-rate soap operas, sitcoms and gameshows one programme has stood out like a beacon for over thirty years now. If the unthinkable ever happened and it was removed from our TV screens, a storm of protest would be guaranteed. It is well written, superbly acted and tremendously likeable. It is, of course, Coronation Street.

Coronation Street is what the pundits like to call a ‘national institution' and watching it it is easy to see how they came to that conclusion. At an emotional level, not only does it hold a special place in the heart of many viewers (unusual itself for a TV programme these days) it reflects a wider set of social values which viewers can easily identify with. It is a cosy, homely type of programme that you can curl up in front of on a winter's night. As has been tirelessly pointed out. the only real problem with it is that it does not reflect a cosy, homely world. Indeed, Coronation Street, its detractors claim, does not reflect reality at all. It portrays a world that does not exist anywhere any more. It is a terraced Victorian street with cobbles, a corner shop and an old-fashioned English pub. the sort of self-contained community that is dying out everywhere. Furthermore, Coronation Street largely neglects the type of problems associated with this decline.

At the time of writing, there is not a single unemployed person on Coronation Street. There is nobody with a drug problem. Nobody, apparently, even on anti-depressants or tranquilisers. Only one person. Emily Bishop, with a past history of mental illness. No one is active in a pressure group or political party of any sort, and there do not appear to be any trade unionists. Most bizarrely, for an inner-city Manchester street, there is not one Asian family and interestingly — as has been spotted by many a comedian with an axe to grind — the corner shop is run by a white couple called Reg and Maureen. Throughout its entire history, in fact, Coronation Street's corner shop has carried the flag for white Middle England. And of course, there is no one in Coronation Street who is — you know — in any way ‘funny’, sexually. Raquel's recent dalliance with Curly Watts is as close as it gets.

This all sounds like a terrible indictment, and in some ways it is. Coronation Street is a hopelessly unrepresentative television programme. Even if we momentarily disregard the sociological breakdowns and the discrepancies they reveal, comparatively few characters in the Street are in any way likely. Most are quite bizarre, though often entertainingly so. Has anyone ever met anybody in real life remotely like Reg Hallsworth? Or Mavis and Derek? Or Raquel? The question is superfluous — of course nobody has. and certainly not in the one little street. They are extreme characterisations of the comic variety, exaggerated almost — though not quite — out of recognition altogether. In truth, they have far more in common with comedian Harry Enfield than with anything or anyone to be found in miserable old Albert Square. Enfield’s “Mr ‘You don’t want to do it like that"’ seems to draw heavily on Percy Sugden.

Paradoxically for the greatest British soap opera, its characters are often more in the tradition of the British sitcom — more Captain Mainwairing or Gordon Brittas than Arthur Fowler, more Hattie Jacques and Joan Sims than Mandy Jordache. They are not, to hazard a guess, meant to be real people at all. It is hard to think of other characters in any other British soap opera who fall into this category.

Not them again.

Extreme characterisations often provide for good comedy, and this is one of the secrets of the Street's success. Compare it to BBC I‘s EastEnders and this becomes apparent very quickly indeed. While EastEnders goes in for a highly distorted version of ‘social realism’, the Street doesn't bother its head — its philosophy is that it is drama and laughs that people want more than murder, mayhem and misery. And that is precisely why it is held in such affection by millions of workers. Without too great a leap of the imagination, it gives them a sense of what life might be like if it wasn’t so bloody boring most of the time. lts appeal may be less obviously based on escapism than racy Dallas or glitzy Dynasty, but escapism it is nevertheless.

Despite their occasional traumas, the characters in Coronation Street are genuinely interesting specimens who are, encouragingly, rather nice with it. They are, as they say up North, decent folk. Has Alma a malicious bone in her body? Have Sally and Kevin, or Rita? It would not appear so. Best of all, they seem to inhabit a real community in every sense of the term. Not a sprawling housing estate plagued by packs of dogs and discarded syringes, nor the amorphous sprawl of suburbia but a place where people genuinely care about one another and then nip in to the local boozer to finish off the day with a pint and a gossip. It is a bit of a fantasy, true, but a lovely one.

It would be easy enough to sneer at all this, but Coronation Street deserves better. It cannot even be dismissed as a mere capitalist utopia, for although there are clearly elements of this, it is a strange utopia where the inhabitants live in poky, claustrophobic little terraced houses without any greenery in sight. Instead Coronation Street is best seen as an antidote to the myriad other TV programmes that portray the working class as vicious morons without an ounce of feeling or compassion in their entire bodies. If the producers of EastEnders got their grimy little hands on it, Nicky Platt would soon be selling crack cocaine on the corner of Rosumund Street and giving heroin to little Sarah-Louise while Betty Turpin would be running a brothel above the Rover's Return. Would that be more realistic? Hardly. It would simply be to swop one excess for another.

Though it has its faults, Coronation Street has more going for it than most soap operas. Crucially, it has never really endorsed the ethics of the market driven economy, and its least likeable characters. Mike Baldwin and Steve MacDonald are both petty capitalists, interestingly enough. And when realism — in a genuine rather than the over dramatised form of otvher soaps — rears its head, it is often for Vera Duckworth or Curly Watts to bemoan their existence as a 'wage slave' after a long day in the supermarket. Most of the characters, though idiosyncratic enough, appear reasonably intelligent — only screaming, bawling Tracy Barlow seems to have caught the EastEnders disease so far, and this too is encouraging.

Coronation Street will surely continue to do what it does best: provide an engaging pastiche of working class life with humour and vigour. It can generally leave the issues campaigning and 'social realism' to Brookside, the petty arguments and grind to EastEnders and the gratuitous violence and bad sets to Prisoner Cell Block H. It has little to learn from any of them while it continues to depict a working class with humour, a certain degree of confidence and more than one brain cell to collectively rub together. For this alone, its deficiencies can be forgiven. That is its greatest achievement over thirty years and more, and in a world dominated by a cynical, bitter and twisted media, it is not to be sniffed at.

Dave Perrin

What about the law of value? (1995)

Book Reviews from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Marx’s Theory of Crisis’. By Simon Clarke. Macmillan 1994, £14.99.

‘What About The Workers? Workers and the Transition to Capitalism in Russia’. By Simon Clarke. Macmillan 1994, £12.95.

Clarke argues that Marx gave a number of different explanations for the economic crises of capitalism. First, disproportionality between different branches of production so that one industry over-accumulates relative to the others and then faces a crisis of profitability which spreads to other industries. Second, underconsumption as workers cannot buy back what has been produced and a general crisis of profitability ensues as a result. Third, a tendency for the rate of profit to fall as a consequence of new technology and its greater cost relative to human labour power. Clarke’s view is that at one time or another Marx accepted and then rejected all three theories, and this ambiguity and inconsistency has been inherited by many of those in the Marxist tradition.

He argues that the three theories may describe contingent events in crises, but crises can actually occur for all manner of reasons. What all economic crises have in common is profitability – or rather, the lack of it. Crises are necessary and inevitable: they are a way of “purging” the economy of unprofitable businesses and raising the general rate of profit (largely at the expense of the working class, in terms of more work and less job security). This is perfectly normal for capitalism and does not mean that something has “gone wrong” with the economy. Indeed, capitalism will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis until the working class consciously organise for socialism.

Clarke is quite clear that the alleged failure of Marxism following the collapse of the Russian Empire is a myth, and that what has really failed is Leninism. This accurate insight is made all the more puzzling with the recent publication of another of his books.

As the subtitle of Clarke’s second book indicates, he labours under the illusion that Russia was something other than capitalist before the fall. His contention rests on the claim that Marx’s law of value did not apply in Russia before but does now. That the workers’ lot in Russia, as Clarke convincingly demonstrates, has gone from bad to worse in recent years does not show that bad is preferable to worse. In fact the collapse of the Russian Empire is a striking confirmation of the law of value, and it brings out a peculiar feature of his book on crises in that it ignores Marx’s theory of value. This time it is Clarke who is inconsistent.

Under the old system, the law of value (basically, the social compulsion to accumulate capital out of monetary profits) operated but was modified by state action. In Marxist terminology, the state redistributed surplus value from the profitable sector of the economy to non-profitable ends (the military in particular). But by the 1980s the “purging” effect on unprofitable businesses induced by the law of value, and delayed by state action, meant that most of the economy had become inefficient in terms of profitability and was, literally, in a state of crisis. This, together with popular opposition, is the main reason for the collapse of Russian state capitalism.

Lew Higgins