Never trust a Trust (1993)

 

From the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

The government has recently announced that thirty more district health authorities are to become self-governing in the fourth wave of trusts, and that the remainder will follow suit within two years.

The National Health Service enjoys considerable public support and attempts to return to private medicine have to be carried out cautiously whilst protesting vociferously that there is no such intention. But despite this cautious approach at least three-fifths of all self-governing trusts have run into financial difficulties. And in August, four London hospitals announced that they were going to cancel routine operations for the rest of this financial year. With seven months to go, from the date of these cancellations, to the next financial year, the waiting list for treatment will continue to grow, with pain and discomfort for patients.

The financial difficulties experienced by the health service trusts is only to be expected as an internal market does not put any more money into the system but costs considerably more to administer it. Whilst administrative costs have risen sharply to cope with the extra paperwork many newly-qualified nurses have been unable to obtain jobs and others have been given temporary contracts, only to find themselves unemployed three or six months later.

Despite the greater technological expertise required for modem nursing, the number of qualified nursing staff fell by 5.2 percent between September 1990 and September 1991 according to the Department of Health. But unqualified staff have increased by 17 percent. (Nursing Times. 1993, no.7)

The increase in total staff has been necessary to compensate for the removal of student nurses from the wards into colleges for the Project 2000 training courses. This change from traditional training methods has been introduced to improve academic standards and technical knowledge but also to pay students less by giving them grants instead of employing them as salaried workers.

Despite the dearth of jobs, financial hardship and the prospect of unemployment at the completion of training has led to a 5.5 percent wastage rate for Project 2000 students compared with 4.7 percent for students undertaking traditional training (Nursing Times). While the government juggles with the figures and nurses find out the hard way that professional status counts for little in the job market, the waiting list for treatment has increased by 60,000. A number of hospital trusts have changed nurses’ patterns of shift work, worsening their conditions of service and reversing some of the hard-won gains of the last thirty years. The Bradford Hospital Trust announced up to 300 redundancies shortly after it became a trust.

During recessions the bargaining power of workers is weakened and they are vulnerable to attacks upon their living standards. This will always be the case while capitalism lasts because trade unions tackle effects and not causes. Thus, any gains made during booms will be attacked by employers when there is a surplus of labour during a slump.

The government has repeatedly stated that it wishes to reduce public expenditure. Indeed, public health service employees have been held to a 1.5 percent pay increase this year (equivalent to a pay cut after allowing for inflation), and a proposed wage freeze for next year.

At first glance it seems curious and inconsistent to try to reduce expenditure on the one hand and to increase it on the other by opting for a system of management which is much more expensive. But a consideration of the ideological and political motives underlying the formation of the National Health Service and the reasons for the attempts to dismantle it show that both courses of action are consistent with capitalism’s priorities. When Henry Willink, Conservative Minister of Health in the wartime Churchill coalition government presented the 1944 White Paper setting out the proposals for a unified national health service, free at the point of use, centrally funded and administered by Local Authorities it was because it was recognized that after the sacrifices made by the working class in fighting a lengthy war to protect the capitalists’ interests they were not prepared to accept a return to the heartbreak conditions of the 1930s. It was also recognized that, with an acute shortage of labour, a reliable health service would be needed to conserve workers’ health in the critical postwar years of reconstructing industry. It was also necessary to provide concessions to blunt working-class militancy as strikes would have placed British capitalists at a disadvantage with their competitors.

A centrally-administered health service was more efficient and cost effective than the fragmented, piecemeal provision of health care which had hitherto been available in the 1930s. But by the 1980s, capitalism’s priorities had changed. A worldwide recession had reduced the capitalists’ profits making less money available for social programmes; a large pool of unemployed labour had weakened the power of the trade unions and made it no longer necessary to conserve the health of all the workers. The National Health Service now represents a cost against production that the capitalists would prefer to see drastically reduced if not abolished.

The NHS is an institution welcomed by the working class and its abolition, however desirable from capital’s point of view, is politically damaging, therefore, the moves towards replacing it with private services have been gradual. Laundering, catering and Portering services have been contracted out private companies in the last few years with reduction of staff, lower wages and poorer working conditions in the majority of cases.

Once all district health authorities become self-governing trusts it will be possible to break the power of the trade unions by dismantling the Whitley Council which negotiates health service employees’ pay. The trusts will be able to set their own pay and conditions which will lead to further downward pressure on wages. And with each trust being independent and no longer part of a nationally administered service then a national strike by health service employees over a dispute in an individual trust would be considered to be an illegal "sympathy" strike. Also with an internal market in place it will be possible for a hospital trust to break a strike by sending patients to other hospitals.

It has been claimed that the internal market, with buying and selling of health care on business lines, can make the most efficient use of resources and expertise by sending patients to other hospitals for services which may be in short supply in their own areas, but the 60,000 increase in the waiting list for treatment shows this not to be the case. There is a consultation process between health districts, regional health authorities and the public at each trust application but the public’s response is not disclosed by the Department of Health. We can be certain that if the public’s response to hospital trusts was enthusiastic then this would be widely publicised and trumpeted as a vindication of the government's policies. The secrecy surrounding this information is an attempt to conceal the lack of support for their plans. The announcement by the Government that it intends all health districts to become trusts within the next two years makes a mockery of the so-called consultation process and makes the public meetings little more than a declaration of intent.

In addition to the plans for NHS trusts, the 1989 White Paper Working for Patients (sic) provides for a range of optional extras such as single rooms, television and a choice of meals for those who wish to pay for them which will create a two-tier system with only basic amenities being provided for the poor and better services being provided for the not-so-poor.

A visit to any of the older district general hospitals will provide evidence of expensive refurbishment having been carried out on some of the surgical wards whilst, in many cases, even basic repairs are not carried out on the geriatric wards, reflecting capitalism's attitude to non-producers. Obviously, the majority of elderly patients will be unable to pay for "extras’' out of their pensions. A return to Victorian values, particularly the Victorian workhouse, is beginning to look an unpleasant reality for the poor and needy.

The government’s policies have caused problems for the mentally handicapped. Dr David Tod, President of the National Association of Fundholding Practitioners, told the Conservative Party conference in October that he cannot accept any more mentally handicapped patients in his practice without extra funding (Independent, 9 October).

The proportion of pay which general practitioners earn from the number of patients that they have on their books has been increased from 46 percent to at least 60 percent and this has, predictably, led to a reluctance to treat patients requiring a lot of medical care. There is no doubt that further attacks will be made on the NHS and that the present cumbersome structure is being set up with a view to selling it off to private speculators in due course. For the poor, only the most basic provision will be retained, and the mentally ill will continue to swell the ranks of the homeless as long-stay hospitals continue to be closed without adequate alternative care being allocated.

But the attacks on the NHS provide an object lesson to those who wish to reform capitalism. The reforms were gained only after years of struggle, implemented when it was no longer in capital’s interests to obstruct them, and are being reversed when it was no longer expedient for capital to accede to workers' demands and a recession makes it difficult for workers to resist the encroachment upon their living standards. Nothing less than the complete overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by socialism can prevent this happening to reforms over and over again.

Carl Pinel

Why nurses are angry (1993)

From the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

In September nurses from University College Hospital (UCII) in central London went back to work after a six-week strike. What made them angry enough to strike?

Why is it that approximately two months ago south London hospitals were crying out for extra nurses to care for patients on the wards, but there was not an agency nurse to be found?

A recent survey done by the Institute of Manpower Services found that one nurse in four would leave the NHS if they could. Why?

The creation of the internal market within the NHS has meant there is increasing pressure on trusts to keep within their budget. With the old system it did not matter if budgets weren’t kept to, the money was just replaced. In the new system if you don’t keep within your budget, then you don’t meet your contracts and eventually you go bankrupt like any other business.

In trusts most of the money goes on nurses’ wages (they are the majority of the workforce).

Constant pressure

There is constant pressure to cut this budget and this lias been addressed in a variety of ways.

First, freezing posts as nurses leave. Second, possible redundancies, though on the whole this has not been widespread as yet. However in the College of Health Studies where I work, there has been an amalgamation of two colleges of nursing which involved redundancies. The College is about to amalgamate with a further two colleges of nursing and more reductions are planned. It has been suggested that the 183 teaching posts in the three colleges will be cut to 52.

Third, alteration to nurses’ hours. Nurses have traditionally worked a shift system of earlies, middles, lates and nights. The hours are different from hospital to hospital but used to be roughly: Early: 7.30am to 3.30pm; Late: 1.30pm to 9.30pm; Night: 9pm to 7.45am.

Managers did not see why there should be an overlap of nurses on duty between 1.30pm and 3.30pm. This did not appear to be cost effective. What were the nurses doing during this time? On investigation it was found that education of students and professional updating of staff went on. As the extra nurses were not directly involved in patient care, managers felt it was a waste of time having them and altered the hours accordingly. Extra money was also being paid to the night shift for working "unsocial hours"; again managers fell this could be tampered with in some way.

At one particular hospital the nursing shift hours are now: Early: 7am to 3pm; Late: 2pm to 10pm; Night: 9.45pm to 7.15am. This hospital may have reduced the nursing budget on hours, but its sickness rate has soared and it is having to pay agency staff to work.

Finally, alteration in ward skill mix. There is a trend to employ more care assistants (unqualified nurses) instead of qualified staff, who are paid more. This leads to a decrease in the quality of nursing care given to patients.

Two research studies (Skill Mix and the Effectiveness of Nursing Care, Centre for Health Economics; York and Ward Nursing Quality and Grade-Mix, Report No. 504, York University’s Health Economics Consortium.) showed that where wards were staffed wholly by qualified nurses the standard of care given to patients was high, but where wards were staffed with combinations of unqualified and qualified nurses the standard of care delivered to patients was lower.

Fragmented care

This appears to be because unqualified staff cannot give the total nursing care to the patients. For example, they lack the knowledge to interpret signs and symptoms and cannot give out drugs. This means that patient care becomes fragmented and patients have to wait for qualified nurses to gel to them to give them the appropriate drugs or interpret symptoms.

All these points mean that there is an increase in pressure on nursing staff which results in frustration because they cannot give the nursing care they want to.

A Trust’s survival depends on getting contracts from Health Authorities and GP fundholders. Since the reforms there has been an increase in productivity within hospitals. This increase in throughput of patients has a tendency to mean early discharges, which puts extra pressure on nursing staff to ensure that discharge arrangements are ready and that there are enough beds for patients coming in. It may also mean patients go home too early — and have to be readmitted. The government says that wage increases will come from increased productivity. But if contracts are completed early. Health Authorities and GP fundholders have no more money to buy more treatment for their patients. So hospitals simply have to stop work. Eventually this will mean that hospitals cut the number if nurses so that, although the amount of work remains the same, there are fewer people to do it and it takes all year to complete. This situation is worse in London due to high overheads and London weighting etc. For example Camden and Islington Health Authority stopped all elective surgery at some central London hospitals in September because it had used up all its money with these expensive Trusts.

The planned reduction in junior doctors' hours means that some things previously done by doctors will become the remit of the already overburdened nurse. Again, nurses are cheaper to employ than increasing the number of doctors.

All these things mean that the nurses are increasingly having to alter the way they care for patients and are increasingly leaving the patient's bedside, for which they have been trained, to deal with administration issues such as discharge arrangements or managing bed vacancies.

No wonder the nurses at UCH said enough is enough.

If the Tories win another general election, the next step is obvious. Trust hospitals will simply become private hospitals, contracting with both private health insurance companies and Health Authorities for their income. And Health Authorities themselves will simply stop buying some treatments. A Labour government would be no better as they would still face the fundamental problem of how' to finance an NHS which will need more and more money for research, new drugs and so on.

Within capitalism it is impossible to deal effectively with disease and illness with the NHS or any other healthcare system as the emphasis is on profits rather than peoples' health and researching into causes of ill health. The only way in which to have a proper Health Service is to form a society which is based on peoples' needs: socialism. Finance and the fundamental problems it brings will disappear as it would be a society based on need rather than profit. Emphasis would be on prevention — at the moment this is too costly. The McKinleys’s river approach ( where individuals are falling into a river and drowning and Health care staff pull them out. patch them up and send them back to the top of the river, where they fall back in again) would stop and society will address the reasons why people fall into the river, such as bad housing, air pollution, etc. All individuals would be looked after in the appropriate place hospital or community. In hospital, there would not be the pressure on beds that there is now and people could spend as much time there as they need, and when discharged to the community there would be the proper resources available

Adele Atkinson

"Capitalism just cannot come to terms with the necessity of meeting human needs." (1993)

From the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who needs leaders? (1993)

From the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

John Major looks like he’s in deep trouble with his party. But what difference does a change of leadership make to the operation of Capitalism?

Who would you like to be Prime Minister of Great Britain? Or leader of the Labour Party? Of the Liberal Democrats? And when you have made your choice ask yourself why — not why you chose that particular person but why you bothered to make a choice. Ask yourself what persuaded you that whoever is nominally in charge of things makes any noticeable difference to what happens to us.

We ask these questions in response to the present void in both Conservative and Labour parties, in which they are wracked with doubt over whether their recent choice of leader was advisable. In both parties the doubts have triggered off the usual frenzied but surreptitious campaigning by aspirants to the leadership, while they all deny any such ambitions and profess undying loyalty to the leader.

This is especially noticeable in the Tory Party because, as the government, their mistakes, disputes and obvious impotence to control capitalism are so clearly exposed. This is not good for John Major, who came to be Prime Minister on the assumption — which he encouraged — that his government's style would be different from Thatcher's and that this would ensure it would be more successful in tackling current problems like unemployment, housing, shortage of medical services and so on. His lack of success makes it embarrassing for Tories to remember his promise in November 1990, to lead "a nation at ease with itself.

After nearly three years of his government whatever the nation is at case with it is not John Major, whose popularity is at the point where it causes friction in his and a campaign lo replace him much as Thatcher was replaced. One seasoned MP tells of the day when a senior Tory minister advised him never to forget that loyalty was the party's secret weapon. Of an enquiring mind, this MP soon realized that the opposite is the ease — that the Tories are as disloyal and ruthless when they decide their leader is likely to lose them seats in parliament. When it gets down to it that is why Thatcher had to go and why Major’s job is in jeopardy.

The relentless and fruitless search for the perfect leader is, like so many of the delusions which bolster the capitalist system, clearly influenced by prejudice. For example, nothing in a leader appeals to British people so much as an apparent firmness of purpose. But when that same characteristic is shown by an "enemy" leader — like Saddam Hussein, it is a very different matter. Saddam, says the prejudice was not firm and consistent in his policies; he was mad, just like all the other bogeymen of the Sun and similar papers.

In any case, how valid are the memories of Thatcher single-handedly beating off all those mad, grasping foreigners and doing something called "putting the great back in Great Britain"? The decline of British capitalism since the First World War has done much to fashion the political history of this country. In one way or another every government has had to accept, and work with, that reality. Some have done this more readily than others; some have skilfully practised deceit on the issue, so that the voters were convinced they were not doing what they were.

Part of this deceit has been in the speeches of leaders who have suggested that the decline in British power was avoidable and that they could reverse the trend. This posture has not been confined to the Tories; Harold Wilson, especially during his first spell in power, consistently talked about British power and the British economy forcing their way to the top in the world. At times he was so absorbed in this crazy notion that his voice lost its Yorkshire twang and took on a Churchillian growl when he spoke about it.

The idea is to conceal reality so that all those voters who are deluded into thinking that if Britain is a super power they will become super-workers will gratefully vote for a Wilson or a Thatcher. For her entire period in Number Ten Thatcher was one of the cleverest at hiding the reality and persuading British workers that it could be avoided. That was why so many of them voted for her. But the deception is self-perpetuating because it reinforces the notion that the decline — or the rise — of a capitalist power is not a matter of history but of political policy. The assumption is then that the collapse of the British Empire would not have happened had it not been for feeble egalitarians such as Clement Attlee is mistakenly supposed to have been. It is a delusion which does not help to understand the place and the function of leaders nor what happens under capitalism.

And that brings us to the crucial question of how useful are leaders. Do they really change the course of events? One field in which they are confident they have control is the economy. When things are going badly — when British capitalism is in recession or a financial crisis — the Chancellor of the Exchequer assures us that they have the remedy; trust them and all will be well. And when things are going well — when there is a boom — they claim the credit, saying it is due to their skill and intelligence.

About a year ago British capitalism went through a crisis which has come to be known as Black Wednesday. It was a day when a panic-stricken Chancellor (who, as one of those clever political leaders, is supposed never to gel in a panic) ended a succession of juggling with interest rates by withdrawing sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. This was supposed to be yet another example of politicians’ skill but in fact it happened only a short while after the Chancellor — the hapless Norman Lamont — and John Major had lectured us on the theme that the only way to prosperity for us all was lo keep sterling in the ERM. They were in no doubt about this quite sure that sterling would not be taken out of the ERM. Now many Tory politicians are asserting that the withdrawal is an example of their cleverness and that things for British capitalism are better as a result. For example, Norman Lamont is now very clear on the issue, urging “the Prime Minister to stand up and say once and for all that Britain should never again have anything to do with a single currency. Then we could all sing in the bath" (Well he was writing in the Sun).

Parasitic minority

Different conclusions have been drawn from that muddle, as from all the other episodes of similar chaos which regularly burst on the scene, stimulating more speeches, lectures and promises from political leaders. But only one conclusion fits the facts. No matter how clever and learned leaders may be, they can have no significant effect on how capitalism works and how it affects us. This social system works to its own priorities, to the benefit of a small parasitic minority. It cannot be controlled or manipulated. The cleverer leaders may be able to conceal this for a time; the not so clever — like Lamont and Major — can’t conceal it and that is why they arouse such contempt. To choose one leader against another is to choose one style of futility before another. It would be better to abandon the whole sorry mess and opt instead for efficacy for our own ability to change society so that we operate it, trusting ourselves to run the world for ourselves.

Ivan

White supremacy is stupid (1993)

From the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a world that is becoming smaller and societies that are becoming multicultural, it may be time for Western culture to examine critically its view of other cultures. For how much of Western culture is made up of prejudice about other cultures? How much of Western identity is constructed upon the negative identity of others?

Decolonization in a political sense has occurred. What remains to be addressed, however, is cultural decolonization. The legacy of several hundred years of Western expansion and domination, manifested in racism, continues to be recycled in Western cultures in the form of stereotyped images of non Western cultures.

Social Construct

It has often been observed that "race" is not a reality but a social construct. In his study of the "Jewish question'', Jean-Paul Sartre wrote, "Don't ask what the Jews are, but what we have made the Jews”. This applies equally to images of Africa and blacks. The term "White on Black” refers to the whole spectrum of relations in which Western interests were dominant — the trans-Atlantic slave trade, master-slave relations on plantations in the Americas, colonialism, the post-colonial era. and majority minority relations in the Western world. In each of these situations Europeans constructed images of Africa and blacks on the basis of selective perception, expedience, second hand information mingled with reconstructed biblical notions and medieval folklore, along with popular and "scientific” ideas that were current at the time.

Stereotypes of Africa and of blacks are still in circulation but old images have faded away or acquired new meaning and new images have arisen. In the second half of the 20th century, "race” is no longer invoked as the primary key to differences; it has been succeeded by systems of differences founded not on biology but on culture.

"Race" discrimination has increasingly yielded to discrimination along cultural lines, bringing with it different sets of images. Hence "racism" in the literal sense is no longer a satisfactory term to understand the changing realities. Culture as a new basis for differentiation is much more diffuse in its ideological claims than race theory, but in some ways equally effective in establishing boundaries and demarcations. While science marched forward, popular thinking in Europe still followed Christian modes of thought. Genesis (9:18-27) relates that "Noah drank wine and fell into slumber while naked”. Ham, his youngest son, saw him but did not cover his shame, whereas his brothers Japheth and Shem covered their father with cloth. Awakened, Noah praised Shem and blessed Japheth. but cursed Ham.

Curse of Ham

In the early Church the curse of Ham or Canaan was regarded as an explanation of slavery, but not simply of blacks because slavery at the time was "colour-less". The association of the curse of Ham with blackness arose only much later in medieval Talmudic texts. In the 16th century it became a Christian theme and by the 17th century it was widely accepted as an explanation of black skin colour. From here it was just a step to the interpretation of the curse of Ham as an explanation of and justification for the slavery of black Africans.

The view of Africa as a continent condemned to eternal servitude was well suited to a theological assessment of slavery. According to the theological explanation, the Continents were peopled by descendants of Japheth (Europe), Shem (Asia) and Ham (Africa), ranked in a master-servant relationship. Until well into the 19th century, even after the development of the theory of race, this remained the most popular explanation of slavery.

Minorities often a find place in society in certain specialized occupations. No matter how unreal and how dependent on circumstances its position in the labour market is. it is often extremely difficult for a minority to overcome the stereotyping that goes with that position.

The occupational roles allocated to blacks in Western society are an example a minority specialization which has been in existence so long that it seems to reflect the "natural" order: entertainment and sport.

The first role blacks were permitted to perform in White society, after that of slave or servant, was that of entertainer. Indeed entertainment was itself one of the functions of slaves. Entertainers do not threaten the status quo but embellish it. Emotive expression by blacks is accepted and conforms to the rhythm myth, the stereotype of musicality. Thus over the past century, blacks have become the musicians, dancers and buffoons of Atlantic culture.

Sporting challenge

Another terrain on which blacks have been permitted to manifest themselves is in sport. Several sports had travelled along with Africans to the New World and. according to a study by the tennis champion Arthur Ashe who died recently, by the mid-19th century several sports were integrated. The achievements of black athletes challenged "white supremacy" and breached the myth of "racial" inferiority. The integration of sport is part of overall black integration. But it is also a limited kind of success. Their success seems to confirm one of the stereotypes of the black as bestial brute, the all brawn-and-no-brains kind of athlete. At first the story was that blacks were inferior to whites in every respect, physically as well, and therefore unfit to compete with whites led to other stories about blacks having "abnormal muscular qualities, different from those of white men”.

Recently a Tory councillor in Derby was quoted as claiming that "black people do not use swimming pools because they cannot float":

"Retired teacher Colin Brown, 59, said: 'Black people are very heavily boned and they sink. It’s a physiological fact that was taught when I was studying physical education. You never see any black Africans in Olympic swimming finals, do you?’” (Sun, 9 September).

Racism never comes alone. It forms part of a hierarchical mental set which also targets other groups. The features attributed to groups define by “race" are not peculiar to racism, but are also attributed to entirely different categories defined according to social status, gender, age, nationality and so forth.

What racism and other forms of prejudice and discrimination all have in common is social inequality. The common denominator is power — the power that arises from a hierarchical situation and the power required to maintain that situation and, also the anxiety that comes with power and privilege.

Michael Ghebre

Go For A Million (1993)

Party News from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Do you want to support us in our biggest campaign yet?

Our plans for the June 1994 Euro-election are now well underway. We will be putting up genuine Socialist candidates in four seats: Birmingham East, Glasgow, London Central and Lothians. These constituencies are nearly ten times the size of the Westminster ones, so in our campaign we will effectively be contesting the equivalent of 37 parliamentary seats.

This will mean that over two million electors will have a first time ever chance to vote for the case for Socialism.

In return for the £4,000 deposit which we will pay, the Post Office will distribute our Socialist Manifesto to one million households. This will be the widest single circulation of socialist ideas in our history. 

So if ever there was a good time to make a donation it is now. Please send your contributions to Election Fund, The Socialist Party, (52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN) and please make cheques payable to The Socialist Party of Great Britain. To contribute through a standing order, write to us for a form.

Between the Lines: After Warrington (1993)

The Between the Lines Column from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

After Warrington

Colin and Wendy Parry lost their son, Tim, aged twelve, to an IRA bomb. Their response was to try to find out why he was killed. Panorama (BBC 1, 9.30 pm, 6 September) followed them as they visited the rival factions in search of their tribal motives. It was moving and compelling viewing, but, above all, it was frustrating. The Parrys are the kind of reasonable people socialists like to meet; their minds were genuinely exercised by the question "Why?". But the responses of those they met on their quest for knowledge ranged from the entrenchedly bigoted to the enthusiastically stupid.

This TV viewer has grown bored of watching ghetto catholics and protestants pleading a defence for their blinkered outlooks. The self-pitying nationalists who want us to imagine that the Great Famine is still going on and that it constitutes some kind of an excuse for blowing up children should dry their eyes and stop whining; nobody beyond the drunken barroom rebels of Boston cares less about their persistent self-indulging in a patriotism which puts kids in graves. And as for the protestant bigots, always shown to us on our screens from their siege headquarters in the Shankhill Road, they should be informed in no uncertain terms that their vociferous paranoia in defence of a Union which confines them to slums and slogans is a form of nationalist arrogance, made worse by the fact that they too are wage-slaves and have nothing but their illusion of ascendancy to defend. Who cares about these people with their shallow, offensive ethical defences for the prejudices which keep the undertakers busy.

But worse than these home-grown fools, whose only hope now lies in the recognition that instead of fighting to protect their poverty they have a world and not a nation to win, there were the fellow-travelling republicans in Boston — the Noraid brigade who want to see bodybags for their bucks. Who could but admire the patience of Colin Parry, a man whose son was murdered with the support of these remote-control warriors, when one of them (no doubt the son of a nephew of a man who claimed once to spend his boyhood in Kerry) told him that his position of opposing all violence was too easy? No doubt they would prefer it it he came to the war in Ireland by their lofty route: by sitting in a bar in Boston drinking imported stout, singing rebel songs which they do not understand and which decent people have long ago forgotten the words of, and putting dollars in collections so that more Tim Parrys can leave home one morning and arrive at the mortuary before it is dark.

Pretty Woman meets Reality

Not being much of a cinema-goer, ITV’s showing of Pretty Woman (9 m, 5 September), starring Julia Roberts and Richard Gere, was this writer’s first opportunity to see this tale of Cinderella encountering the delights of the free market. The romance is quite simple: Gere, a millionaire whose description of his uselessness as a property speculator was good stuff, picks up Roberts, a hooker who looks like a Hollywood movie star. He pays her huge amounts of money; she gives him sex and then falls in love with him. According to the Beatles, money can’t buy you love, but times have changed and if you want to spend the rest of your life with Julia Roberts, open a deposit account now. Then on Wednesday, 8 September BBC 1’s Inside Story ran the sequel to the film. It was not intended to be a follow-up; it was a documentary about prostitutes and their lives. None of them looked much like Julia Roberts did, but a few of them might have done had they not suffered years of being beaten up by ruthless pimps who wanted their money’s worth out of their investments. It was a story of the daily struggle which our opponents celebrate as the free marker. It’s a strange medium, TV: you watch a romance about buying sex and smile at the happy ending; if the documentary would have been shown immediately before the film its offensive message might just have been a little clearer.

Steve Coleman

Letter: Do you get the picture? (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Do you get the picture?

Dear Editors.

You know what happens to the sheep that follows the goat down the path of no return? They end up in the freezer. It doesn’t pay to follow leaders!

It reminds me of an old saying I heard in the Socialist ranks. "Where there are leaders there are led, where there are led there are bled". When you act like sheep you are begging to dc sheared. Do you ever wonder why millions are spent during a campaign to get someone into office? Obviously there is a great deal at stake. Candidates are identified by their ideology. If a Socialist candidate entered the race, his only monetary support would be supplied by the Socialist Party and they would have to rely on donations from the members and sympathizers and they are unlikely to have any rich "Perots" to help them. Since we are the only Party that represents working-class interests it follows that the Government is owned by those who can spend millions on campaigns. They pass all the laws in their favour. They have at their disposal all the most able professors of economics, all the captains of industry. Nevertheless, even with all their power, they cannot make capitalism do their bidding. It is like trying to steer a boat without a rudder. No-one can fix something that cannot be fixed! We must replace capitalism with socialism. "Once a Socialist always a Socialist" is a familiar saying among socialists. When you have become convinced that reforming capitalism doesn’t work (for the have-nots) there is no other alternative.

We all pay taxes, right? Consider this; in the last 50 years that I know of, taxes have increased year after year and we have been able to pay them. Where do we get the money? In your pay envelope. When you negotiate with your boss for a raise, the "cost of living" is the main topic of discussion, and that includes taxes. Do you get the picture?

William Hewitson, 

Santa Maria, California

If Maria Victoria, of Collyhurst, Manchester, will supply us with an address we will be able to reply to her recent letter.

The Penguin Dictionary of Politics (1993)

Book Review from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Penguin Dictionary of Politics by David Robertson. £6.99.

This new edition is alright on subjects like referendums and the party system in Scandinavia but hopelessly inadequate on anything to do with Socialism or Marx — though the idea of the former USSR as "state capitalism" does get a mention.

50 Years Ago: The coal crisis (1993)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Between 1920 and 1939 a serious situation existed for the miners; poverty, unemployment, ill-health and fatalities were constant and recurring features of their lives. They marched to London, their leaders addressed meetings of protest demanding that something be done. Nothing was done by the Government except in 1931 when the meagre dole was cut on the grounds of “economy” and “equality of sacrifice” (with the sanction of the majority of the Labour Government) : a marked difference from the feverish activity now shown by the Government and its spokesmen, when faced with a serious coal shortage. There were no newspaper appeals then nor any broadcasts calling men to volunteer for this “honourable and vital work.” There existed no need to entreat or flatter workers—in fact, when miners sought to improve their working conditions or prevent a lowering of these conditions, abuse was the weapon used against them by the mineowners or their apologists. The miners’ leaders have been referred to as “Arrogant, bellicose, stubborn to the verge of stupidity” (page 96. “The Coal Problem,” 1936, by J, Dickie, formerly Liberal National M.P. for Consett).

[From an article by L. J., in the Socialist Standard, November 1943.]

SPGB Meetings (1993)

Party News from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sting in the Tail: Plain speaking (1993)

The Sting in the Tail column from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Plain speaking

There has been an outbreak of plain speaking from politicians recently. That nice Mr Major has been calling some of his Cabinet colleagues "bastards". Now Mr Thorbjoern Bernsten has called Britain’s Environment Minister Mr John Gummer "a shitbag".

All this foul language is nothing however compared to Mr Gummer’s plain speaking in reply to Mr Bernsten:

"I don't think the comments of people in an election campaign . . . are worth making much about" The Herald (18 August).

Now that is plain speaking. Mr Gummer reckons you shouldn’t pay much attention to what politicians say at election campaigns. Well done, Honest John!

We certainly don’t put much store by what the professional liars say at election times; either in Norway, Britain or anywhere else for that matter.

Ghost riders

A plague of ’ghost riders’ has been fleecing public transport companies in America. There are people who climb onto buses which have been involved in accidents in order to claim compensation for non-existent injuries.

To counter this, some bus companies have staged fake accidents which they filmed. In one case:

"Video cameras inside the bus and outside filmed 17 people scrambling on to the bus before the police arrived. All later claimed to be injured in the accident". (Guardian, 19 August).

Doctors and lawyers also get in on the act by having "runners" who arrive quickly on the scene to hand out leaflets with phone numbers and and advice to passengers to claim for neck and back injuries which are hard to disprove.

All of this "enterprise" doesn’t meet with the approval of the bus companies and their insurers, but it shows that America is still "the land of opportunity"!

UN corruption

Allegations that United Nations soldiers in Sarajevo are involved in widespread corruption have provided the press with plenty of "shock-horror" headlines.

The idea that anyone connected with the UN should be above such things is ludicrous when it is seen to be comprised of nations all of which are part of the world-system called capitalism. For all of these soldiers to be unaffected by the corruption which is part of capitalism’s culture is impossible.

This episode also produced an illuminating example of the morality of capitalism. Sylvana Foa, the UN spokeswoman, commented:

"I don t think anybody should be too surprised that out of 14,000 pimply 18-year olds a bunch of them should get up to naughty tricks. It happens in every war — it's just sad they were wearing blue berets" (Guardian, 27 August).

Apparently it didn’t strike her as sad that "pimply 18-year olds" should be part of killing-machines called armies.

Sink or swim

The battle to dominate the package-holiday market is hotting up once more. The cutthroat pricing of recent years caused by falling bookings was replaced last year by a truce during which operators rebuilt profit margins by increasing prices.

At last the market is growing again: Thomson, Britain’s biggest operator, estimates that bookings are up 14 percent on last year and the industry expects 1994 to be even better.

Now the industry’s heavyweights have announced price-cuts for 1994 and Patricia Yates, editor of Holiday Which explains why. They are:

"clearly looking for a killer blow which will knock out some of their smaller competitors, at the same time carving out a bigger market share among major competitors" (Guardian, 17 August).

Is this sort of predatory behaviour simply down to greed? It is what every company in capitalism must do, if it is able, to ensure that the day doesn’t come when it will be swallowed up or forced out of business.

Satisfaction

What gives people most satisfaction in life? Supporters of the market economy say it is more and more money because it buys the goodies and the leisure which compensate for the pain of having to work.

Along comes Professor Lane of Yale University to challenge this view. He cites recent studies in America which show that what gives people most satisfaction are good human relationships, job satisfaction, and (something despised by marketeers) security.

This is what socialists have been saying all along, but we don't think these things can be universally available within the market economy. Prof Lane does and argues that "governments must intervene’ with policies that will ’convert markets to that purpose’.

The Prof is yet another one of those who criticise some aspect or other of capitalism but would never dream of getting rid of it.

Negative thinking

Why do people continue to place their trust in politicians when it’s obvious they’ve no answer to world problems?

Who really believes that crime, pollution, unemployment, the health service etc, would be worse if politicians weren’t in charge?

Most people know that politicians are “economical with the truth", and that many are careerists — yet continue to vote for one party against another on the basis that they are the ‘lesser evil". No wonder society is in such a state with this negative thinking!

The problem has now become so entrenched that anyone who challenges this apathetic status quo is immediately branded a crank. With this last thought in mind, therefore, the Socialist Party asks you not to believe a word we say! Rather we would ask you to consider what we say, and then make up you own mind. Fair enough?

Nationalism's winners and losers (1993)

From the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

The IRA claims it is acting in the interests of 'The Risen People’. But as R Montague makes clear, it is our fellow members of the working class, fighting over the fictions of opposing nationalisms, who are not only the battle casualties but the social casualties of the ‘national question’.

'The cause of Labour is the cause of Ireland". So wrote the renegade James Connolly when he abandoned his concept of internationalism and aligned himself with the racist nationalist, Patrick Pearse, in a struggle to extend the power of Ireland's fledgling capitalists back in 1916.

The lie did not die with Connolly; it remained to pollute working-class politics in Ireland and to facilitate the divisive interests of Ulster Unionists and Irish Nationalists and to bolster the fiction among some workers that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary Ireland is in some way "their country". Connolly's reformist vision of solving the "national question" in order to clear the ground for the class struggle played no small part in making the so-called national question — which should be of no concern to the working class — a battleground on which workers slaughter one another over tribal issues.

The Provisional IRA and its political cousin, Sinn Fein, frequently use the term "the risen people" to designate their members and supporters, most of whom reside in working-class housing estates or on small farms. Like much of the archaic political baggage of the republicans, the expression dates back to the early part of the present century when the Gaelic revival and Sinn Fein were a burgeoning force in Irish politics.

Not that Sinn Fein or the genteel pseuds of of the Gaelic League were particularly concerned about the ordinary people. In Dublin, where Sinn Fein was especially active, the Medical Officer of Health announced in 1912 that 82,000 people were living in one-roomed tenement slums. Poverty was endemic, grim, the sort of poverty that has an ambience of real hunger, foul smells, ignorance and beggarly hopes and expectations. In 1912, too, Jim Larkin began to unionize the low paid, the labourers and transport workers who, against a background of mass unemployment, had no protection from their particularly rapacious employers.

The employers responded with a lock-out and the Royal Irish Constabulary won a contemptible place in Irish history by brutally attacking these semi-starvelings who had the audacity to ask their employers for a little more. The priests moralized and reminded the workers that property was a divine right and that they must distrust the motives of trade unionists in Britain who opened their homes to the starving kids of the victims of property and who, according to the priests, might be careless of the religion of those they were helping!

Sinn Fein stood aloof; its founder. Arthur Griffith, making no secret of his bitter hostility to the cause of organized labour.

"The first duty of the (Irish) nation", according to Sinn Fein, was not the plight of the desperately poor and downtrodden families that represented the generality of working-class life. Sinn Fein and the Gaelic League were not on their side. On the contrary: in as much as Sinn Fein’s purpose and its policy was aimed at gaining political independence so that an Irish government could nurture a native capitalism behind tariff walls and import quotas, it can be said that it was firmly on the side of the masters whose riches and affluence were fashioned from the grim exploitation of the poor.

With fierce candour, Sinn Fein would declare the first duty of the new Irish nation to be the interests of "the home manufacturers and producers" — a euphemistic description of the Irish capitalists who were locked in class warfare with the workers. Yet it was these workers who were subsequently elevated in republican myth to the status of "the risen people" because the republicans had succeeded in convincing some of them to forgo their ow n class interests and risk their lives fighting for the political and economic interests of their enemies!

In the light of recent revelations appertaining to lifestyle, wealth and poverty in Northern Ireland, it might be of interest to take a look at the current crop of "risen people" and to assess whether they are winners or losers in the grim game of death, maiming and suffering so grandiloquently misrepresented by republican slogans.

We must make it immediately clear that when we look for those who are losers and those who are winners in the Northern Ireland troubles, we see neither category represented as catholics or protestants, or as republicans or loyalists. All such categories are among the winners and, of course, catholics, protestant, loyalists and republicans are the entire human material of the losers the people who suffer death, maiming, intimidation and imprisonment. Among the losers, too, are those who inflict these miseries on one another.

Who are the "risen people"? Where and how do they live and what sustains the claim that either in their actual conditions, or in their political aspirations, they could justifiably be seen to have "risen"? Put another way, as the media draws attention to the rich lifestyles of some people in Northern Ireland and disgraced ex-Minister, Michael Mates, suggests the British government’s £3 billion annual subvention is making life easy for some people, we might suspect that these are the real risen people. The question is, are these people whose lives have changed so noticeably for the better as to gain the attention of the national press the "risen people" of republican legend?

In offering the testimony of Michael Mates we are conscious of his dubious reputation but he is right in saying that the British government makes a nett contribution of some £3 billion annually to Northern Ireland and he is right in suggesting that some of this money goes to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and he might even be right in inferring that that public authority has evolved a standard of housing which is superior to some local authority housing in Britain.

Where Mates lapses into nonsense is in inferring, as he does, that money invested in public housing is in some way associated with the reluctance of local politicians to hammer out an agreed solution to the province’s problems. The fact is that there is still an acute housing problem in Northern Ireland and that this is being currently aggravated by severe cuts in the housing budget.

It is true that the overwhelming majority of IRA activists and IRA supporters, the "risen people", in the cities, towns and villages of Northern Ireland live in public housing estates. By their nature, even where standards have improved, these are depressing places and when the IRA or Loyalist writ is triumphant life can be very frightening indeed.

Peculiarly, the "risen people” and their "enemies” who support the loyalist cause, live in very similar surroundings. Whether they support the posturings of the paramilitaries or remain frightened and silenced by graffiti, intimidation, hijackings, and the occasional taking-over of their homes by local or state gunmen, they live in fairly uniform poverty. Unemployment in some of these areas can be as high as 85 percent; where it is lower, it remains a fact that most of the people are wholly dependent on state benefits.

As far as political aspirations are concerned, for most people they extend to the simple and somewhat despairing hope that the killings will end and the gun bullies, legal and illegal, go away. For others, politics are the bitter reaction to the last atrocity. For others, and especially the young people, nurtured in the ambivalence of a capitalist "morality" that glorifies military thuggery, and licensed killings, it is easy to translate the machoism, romance and reaction to state violence into the cause of Ireland — or the cause of Ulster. These are the areas from which come those who are killed, those who are maimed and those who are sentenced to long periods of imprisonment — and, of course, those who are doing most of the killing. Workers in these areas are often articulate and aware that whatever way the troubles are ultimately resolved will not affect the economic life of their class. The regime under which they live — either republican or loyalist — doesn’t tolerate dissent, however. Freedom is the right to do what you’re told!

Both republican and loyalist paramilitaries accept and commonly practise capital punishment even for what they term anti-social behaviour; there is no appeal, no concern for the social conditions that give rise to the alleged misbehaviour. This is a dominant, frightening part of the life of the IRA's risen people and they are locked into it because it is the heritage of their class; because their poverty denies them the opportunity to seek another form of life that exists a short distance away — among the real winners.

The prominence of this other form of life has become so pronounced that it has become newsworthy. On August 8 the Independent on Sunday featured an article entitled "Ulster Few Enjoy A Golden Age”. The article was accompanied by a picture of yachts and luxury cruisers tied up at Bangor marina and the lead-in proclaimed. "The sweet life goes on in North Down despite everything".

The ”story" was about luxury boats, about Jaguars and Mercs and Porsches, and the arrogant, pompous and non-productive people who own these things.

Two days later, the Irish Times took up the theme in a lengthy article entitled "The Sweet Charm of the Northern Bourgeoisie". The writer, Nuala O Faolain, festoons her article with quotes that speak volumes about the "charm" of her subjects. Listen to their words. these people who live rich lives because they own the means of wealth production or who organize the exploitation of the producing class for those owners. When you read what these people have to say you will see that, while they live a mere dozen-or-so miles from the working-class housing estates of Belfast, economically and culturally they are light-years away.

Here are some of O Faolain’s direct quotes:

"You can hear explosions across the lough. I do wonder some times why we‘re so fortunate, when they're so unfortunate."

"Pound for pound, we have a higher standard of living than anywhere else in Europe."

There’s a lot more of the same thing. But there is no talk of catholics and protestants; not a word about republicanism or loyalism. These people might compete with each other but they have no fictions to kill for. No, they know what side their cake’s buttered on and they can eat in peace — together.

And there, surely, is a lesson for us — the working class.

Richard Montague

Blogger's Note:

Embedded within this article were two 'Facts Files' giving more background on some of the participants in the conflict. Rather than try and post them within the article, I have reproduced them below:

FACT FILE: The Royal Ulster Constabulary

The RUC came into being with the Stormont state and over the years proved a willing and frequently brutal instrument of the ruling Unionist Party. With the commencement of the Civil Rights agitation in 1968 the RUC unquestioningly accepted Unionist Party instructions to deal with protest in the traditional way — with the boot, the baton and, if necessary, the gun.

Before the provisional IRA came into existence (1970) the RUC had been responsible for at least six deaths. The first two fatalities were as a result of beatings and, later, the RUC directed heavy machine-gun fire against a block of flats killing four people including a nine-year-old boy and a British soldier home on leave.

The RUC do not carry out normal policing in nationalist areas; instead, heavily armed patrols in armoured Land Rovers travel through these areas accompanied by soldiers. No attempt is made by these patrols to carry out ordinary policing; on the contrary, the frequent journeyings up and down streets in residential areas is seen as an act of provocation which helps to consolidate the influence of the IRA. Given its history, it is as difficult to see the RUC achieving acceptance among nationalists as it is to see loyalists tolerating the IRA. The force is much more a part of the problem of Northern Ireland than it is a part of the solution.

FACT FILE: The IRA's "Mandate"

The last all-Ireland General Election was held in 1918. Sinn Fein won 73 seats (for Westminster parliament); other nationalists won a further 6 seats and the Unionist Party won 26 seats. The Unionists won majorities in four only of the six counties that was to become Northern Ireland.

In 1921 the British government partitioned Ireland, creating Northern Ireland (6 counties) and the Irish Free State (26 counties).

The present IRA and Sinn Fein validate their right to carry on an armed struggle by reference to the electoral victory of Sinn Fein in 1918. Given that numerous general elections have taken place in both parts of Ireland since that date and that, when they have contested these elections. Sinn Fein have failed to achieve a significant vote, the IRA/Sinn Fein "mandate" claim is patently absurd. Current indications are that in an all-Ireland election Sinn Fein could expect two percent of the vote.

The Provisionals do not mention that the Irish electorate in the 1918 election was staunchly catholic and conservative and that today that electorate oppose contraception, divorce, abortion and all the other trappings of a pluralist state. The IRA/Sinn Fein, on the other hand, have abandoned the old 1918 conservatism: today, despite their claim to be faithful to 1918. they not only mouth the sort of left-wing shibboleths that would cause the 1918 electors to rotate continuously in their graves but they have, also, espoused most pluralist reforms.

Faith, poverty and lies (1993)

From the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Religion has an irrational,
 non-materialist ideology 
which can result in
unrestrained barbarism. In 
the battle over birth
 control women workers are
in the front line and are 
suffering appallingly

During a recent visit to the United States, the Pope encountered considerable criticism of his views on "natural methods of birth control" and the rights of women to termination of pregnancy. Gallup polls conducted before his arrival such as in USA Today/RCC concluded that 75 percent would sooner follow their own consciences than accept papal doctrines. Another poll indicated that 83 percent of Catholics aged 18-25 years "believe they can disagree with Church teaching yet remain good Catholics". ("Catholics for Free Choice/KRC Research and Consulting", Lancet, 21 August). Other views expressed have been more critical. Frances Kissling, president of a movement called Catholics for Free Choice concludes that Pope John Paul is "lost in the pelvic zone as he increasingly insists on fidelity to his restrictive views on sex and reproduction".

The Catholic Church seeks to maintain and recruit followers based on strongly-held precepts or dogma. The purpose of the Pope's travels abroad is to reinforce these, including the Church’s views on contraception and termination of pregnancy.

Far from taking account of the views expressed in opinion polls by his adherents he is at present working on an encyclical entitled "Veritatis Splendor" which is said to be more extensive than the "Humanae vitae" put out 25 years ago. Leaked versions of the forthcoming encyclical do not indicate any compromise by the Pope on these issues. He is also working on yet another encyclical concerned about "questions of life" which will be concerned with questions of sexual morality.

Encyclicals are meant to be binding and obeyed. This may have been the ease in mediaeval times when the Catholic Church had total control of all information and ideas and their availability to the subject population but it is certainly not the case today.

The harsh reality of the world's problems and the futility of applying these outmoded concepts is brought home forcibly by A.A.Verkuyl, a gynaecologist working in Zimbabwe:

"In large areas of the world, health care is provided by the RCC and the Church’s powerful position prevents effective access to reliable contraception. In Rwanda one-third of the health facilities are administered by the RCC. The bishops refuse to discuss the possibility of promoting condoms for contraception or even for Aids prevention purposes while 40 percent of the under-five population are malnourished, the population doubles every I9years, and HIV prevalence in urban areas is more than 20 percent.As in sub Saharan Africa, so in tat in America and the Philippines " (Lancet, 21 August).

The author describes instances of what the Church's attitude results in:

"Take Maria. She is a girl of 17 living in abject poverty in one of the enormous third world cities. No running water or sanitation. Maria looks after her siblings while her mother can just scavenge enough to prevent starvation. Her only chance of escape is to marry someone with a good job. If she finds a candidate, he will most likely blackmail her into having sex before marriage. She assents out of fear of losing him. There are dozens of other girls who see him as an escape vehicle from terminal poverty, and thus he acts as a transport medium for gonorrhoea, syphilis, and HIV between them. The end result is that his girl friends experience infertility, ectopic pregnancies, backstreet abortions, and Aids. If they ever give birth, the baby may die of Aids or congenital syphilis, or become an orphan. Maria refuses to have an abortion. To provide for her child and herself she has to give sexual favours to a dozen men. Five years later she dies of Aids without dignity. Her son is a street urchin."

Another case deals with a recently-qualified nurse:

"she is happy to get a job in a remote RCC hospital even though her husband is obliged to stay in town and look for work. At Christmas her husband visits her . . . there are no condoms in the hospital. At the end of her 6 months’ probation the nuns in charge of the hospital will make here have a pregnancy test. If it is positive she will not get the job. Six weeks before the urine test she misses her period. A traditional doctor in a nearby village tries to help. She dies of a perforated uterus."

The Muslims are no less reactionary than the RCC in these matters. They consider a child to be a gift from Allah. Verkuyl quotes the case of a 12-year-old girl:

"Her father is a staunch Muslim, thinks that education is not important for girls. She had had her menarche so a marriage is arranged. She never had sex education and has no idea about antenatal care and what is supposed to happen during delivery. Her mother cannot tell her; she died during her eleventh pregnancy. After three days' labour at home she is encouraged with hot irons on her hack to push harder. In the end a dead baby is born. Three months later she is able to walk more or less normally and is rejected by her husband because the huge hole in her bladder causes her to smell and leak. Her family do not want her back. So much for 'natural methods ’."

The lifetime risk of death from pregnancy is greater than one in twenty-five in Zaire and in Muslim northern Nigeria whilst the risk in western Europe is one in 25,000 Both religions are united in their outmoded view that women should not have a say in deciding how many children they have.

Commenting on the argument that family planning is unnatural the author writes that:

"These arguments would not be used by somebody who flies in an aeroplane all over the globe and has a natural tumour removed by unnatural surgery under unnatural general anaesthesia."

On a recent visit to Brazil the Pope pursued the same authoritarian line that he has elsewhere. The murder of the street urchins in Rio recently emphasizes the consequences of these policies in Latin America."Almost two million Brazilian girls aged between 9 and 17 are prostitutes, an inquiry has been told in Brasilia" (Daily Telegraph, 24 August).

The Roman Catholic Church and the Islamic leaders have millions of followers. But how obedient are they to the outmoded view's of these religions that deny any fundamental right to women and take no account of the economic problems facing ordinary workers or agrarian workers anywhere? The vast majority of Catholics do not practice natural methods as defined by the Church. J. Poole writing in the Lancet in 1992, in an article entitled "Time for the Vatican to Bend" commented:

"It is hard to see how Western European and American Catholics, 80 percent of whom have themselves rejected the teaching of Humanae vitae, can vote to deny effective family-planning to the women of the poor nations of the world." In other words the Pope and the Muslim leaders are out of touch with the views of their own followers and fail to realize that they cannot turn the clock back as far as the development of human ideas are involved, which finally are shaped by the everyday material problems people have to face world-wide.

So what is the significance of the Pope’s visits abroad and the above comments from people grappling with the everyday problems of living and in many eases literally barely surviving? It is clearly incontrovertible evidence that chinks are appearing between these leaders and their followers as the views fail to have any application to the consequences of modern capitalism.

To the Socialist, religion or any concept based on the supernatural is a means of keeping the masses subservient to a given class-divided society. It is a barrier to social progress and can only exist where there is a minority owning the means of production and the bulk of the wealth produced. People who believe in a life hereafter are more likely to tolerate adverse conditions here on this planet.

Marx had no doubts about this. He wrote:

"It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion, as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions." (Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, 1843).

When the resources of the world are owned and shared by those that produce them, then the palliative needs satisfied in some cases by religion will disappear.

Terry Lawlor

Letter: Twyford Down (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

Since last year, 1 have been involved in the fight to save Twyford Down. This has been presented by the media as a "green" issue with particular appeal to New Age travellers, students, environmental activists (such as Earth First!) and conservationists. The destruction of many sites of archaeological and historical interest there has scarcely been mentioned. The political aspects of the Government's roads programme are ignored. The corrupt dealings between Conservative Party members and MPs with Winchester College, the construction industry and the Department of Transport have not been exposed at all.

The Government is interested in only one thing — power. This is true of all governments, but the present one is particularly nasty and corrupt. Their overriding concern is that they and their Establishment friends (the Establishment is not just a mental construct but consists of real people who live and interact with each other in a social milieu most of us cannot even imagine) should continue to hold their positions of wealth and power at our expense.

Roads are not built for (although they are built by!) working people, despite encouragement to buy cars and use them. Their main purpose is to boost profits by offering cheap transport (roads are paid for and subsidised from taxes) for the owning class. Tory support for the roads lobby also ensures the continued payment into Party funds of huge subventions by the British Road Federation and construction industry companies, and the continued appointment of worthies to lucrative directorships.

The people who run this country, like those who benefit from the capitalist system everywhere in the world, are not interested in the well-being of ordinary people, although they pretend to be when they want us to sanction their robbery with our votes. They will spare no destruction — of our communities or the natural environment — in pursuit of power and profit.

The roads programme is an important issue not because of any intrinsic values but because the government chose to make it so. The Twyford Down struggle eventually took on the proportions of Orgreave, with the use of Group 4 Securitas as a private army, hired and equipped by the DoT to show us who was boss. Nearly 200 security men. plus construction workers and police, were sent against 25 protestors (I was one) who were camped on the Down overnight on the 9th December — to set an example, not merely to enable Mott MacDonald's vandals to destroy an irreplaceable ecosystem and scheduled ancient monument.

Despite what has happened at Twyford Down and what we are threatened with at many places around the country, people are not going to shut up and go away — to do that would be to abandon any thought of standing up to the worst excesses of this evil Government and to abandon the future of the planet as a place fit for life. It is vital that our non violent protests continue and grow. It is no use waiting for the Tories to be voted out of office, let alone for "the revolution". If direct action is not taken now there may soon be precious little left for politicians to argue about.

Katy Andrews, 

London E11

Reply:

It's all very well saying it’s no use waiting for "the revolution" (we agree: we shouldn't "wait" for it we should work for it). But unless it takes place — and the basis of society is changed to common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use. instead of private ownership, stale control and production for profit, then capitalism will go on destroying the environment, and the most that can be done will be to occasionally slow this down a little. The record shows, however, that defeats (as a Twyford Down) are more frequent than any minor victories. This is not really surprising as nothing, not even government action let alone direct action, can stop the economic laws of the profit system ensuring that profits come first. — Editors.

Letter: I’ve Been Misinformed (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors.

I read with interest Steve Coleman's article "Farewell to the Middle Class" in the September issue as 1 used to work for IBM as a contractor some years ago. It was pitiful to see how brainwashed its employees were; so much in fact they all believed that the corporation would keep them all employed for life. I remember colleagues almost boastfully stating that union membership was totally unnecessary when employed by such a kind and caring company as IBM.

Now that thousands of its workforce worldwide have been, or still are, facing redundancy, I’ve no doubt that those same, smug people can now be seen with egg slowly dribbling down their faces. This corporation is a past-master at hiding its tyranny behind a smile.

While insecurity and uncertainty dog its workforce (and I’ve no doubt the plight of those sorry characters in Steve's article w'ill be repeated many times over), it is interesting to note that earlier this year, the IBM corporation employed a new chairman. Lou Gerstner Jr., previously of Nabisco has been engaged on a salary of S2 million plus annual performance-related incentives of of $1.5 million. Included in this neat little package was also the offer of 500.000 IBM shares and a further, long-term inducement of $500,000. Oh! I almost forgot. As a "sweetener" for leaving Nabisco, he also received a further $5,000,000 to cover any of the profits he may have lost by leaving Nabisco.

Sounds incredible, eh. Not least of all to the employees I don’t wonder. Perhaps it would be more fitting if IBM stood for I’ve Been Misinformed.

Simon Montfalcon,

Romsey, Hampshire

Letter: Second Labour Government (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

In the September issue of the Socialist Standard, the Editorial Statement called "Break the Link with Labour" says that the second Labour government cut Unemployment Pay. I have always understood that the Labour Cabinet voted for the cuts (although by a small majority) but the cuts were never made, as the Labour government resigned before implementation. It was the incoming National Government that cut Unemployment Benefit.

Bert Mayes, 

London SW18

Reply:

We should have said "when the Second Labour Government agreed to cut unemployment benefit". On 23 August 1931 the Labour Cabinet voted by 12 or 11 votes to 8 or 9 (the size of the majority is disputed) to cut unemployment benefit by 10 percent, but fell from power before they could implement this - Editors.

Letter: Manipulation and Brainwashing (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

The September Socialist Standard article "Manipulation and Brainwashing" made a good point: "the people responsible for this manipulation (of the masses| are the cadres of intellectuals serving the interests of the ruling class, who reinforce its sentiments, illusions, modes of thought and views of life are: psychologists, economists, historians, sociologists and other people in public life".

However, I think making this point in such a few words runs the risk of putting some of the people working in those fields off the Socialist Party, who would otherwise be favourably disposed towards us.

Is it easy, in many cases, to distinguish which activities of these "cadres" are serving the interests of the ruling class and which ones are beneficial to socialist arguments? For example there are psychologists (who are integrated into the system) who have demonstrated time and again that some people behave in socially harmful ways, not because they’re "born that way" or are "bad/evil", but because obstacles to socially useful development (which proved to be insurmountable) have been placed in their way by society.

Cliff Begley,

London WC1

Letter: Put baldly (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

With regard to Dave Perrin’s letter in the September Socialist Standard, at the risk of engaging in pedantry I am bothered by the use of the phrase “the Socialist Party therefore encourages workers to struggle where necessary to establish political democracy under capitalism". Even allowing for the caveats in the preceding comments which make clear our purpose in utilizing this democratic facility (severely flawed though it be from a socialist point of view), to urge workers to put an end to capitalism, it seems to me that the phrase "encourages workers" put baldly this way would indicate that the Socialist Party has this as a definite plank in its policy whereas, of course, as David Perrin himself points out, we are concerned with capitalist political democracy only as a means that can be used to end capitalist society and this must be our clear caveat always.

M. Judd,

Keston, Kent

Reply:

Our policy on this question was reaffirmed at our 1990 Annual Conference: "that the Socialist Party of Great Britain wholeheartedly supports the efforts of workers everywhere to secure democratic rights against the powers of suppression. Whilst we avoid any association with parties or political groups seeking to administer capitalism we emphasise that freedom of movement and expression, the freedom to organise in trade unions, to organise politically and to participate in elections, are of great importance to all workers and are vital to the success of the socialist movement" - Editors.