SPGB Meetings (1985)

Party News from the October 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

At the advertised Islington Branch Weekend School, one of the SPGB speakers was Brian Rubin, who spoke on the subject of The Far Right in Britain. The October 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard carried an article entitled 'Ultra Right' by Brian. There's a strong chance there was an overlap between the article and his talk.

Obituary: Patrick Maratty (1999)

Obituary from the September 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Wednesday 21 July my brother Patrick Maratty, who over the years has written many letters to the Sunderland Echo under the pseudonym “anti-capitalist” and was a member of the Socialist Party, died in hospital after years of neglect by the health and social services.

Patrick loved snooker and wanted his son Matty to be a champion player. He believed that the only way Matty could become a “professional” as he called it was to act like one: this meant practising eight hours a day. He spent much of his life teaching his son how to play the game and anyone who knows Matty knows that he lives up to his dad’s expectations.

The other passion in Pat’s life was socialism. He believed that the major cause of social problems was capitalism and that the working class throughout the world should organise democratically and politically for a society based upon common ownership. He scorned religious beliefs as false, dangerous, divisive and a major contributory factor to many horrendous acts throughout history. I know he hasn’t gone to heaven, hell or purgatory but he will have found peace. I loved him and will miss him.

Vince Maratty

Letter: BBC reply on Marx (2013)

Letter to the Editors from the January 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

We wrote to Stephanie Flanders about her programme about Marx but received no reply. A Socialist Party member did, however, receive this reply to an individual letter

Dear Mr Maratty

Thank you for contacting us about Masters of Money and please accept our apologies for the delay in responding. I discussed your letter with the production team and the Executive Producer has requested that I forward you his response [below]. 

As you say, exploring Marx’s ideas within an hour is a huge challenge for television aimed at the uninitiated. This is especially the case when the programme is made with reference to the recent financial crisis, itself a very complex issue. I am very sorry that you didn’t enjoy this particular compression of the relevance of Marx’s thinking, and hope this letter explains some of the thinking behind the programme to your satisfaction.

The reason why we concentrated so heavily on the ‘can’t buy back’ idea is that the programme and series was framed around explaining the recent global financial crisis. The thinkers featured in the programme who spoke in support of Marx in some shape or form –Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, George Magnus, Raghuram Rajan, Tariq Ali, David Harvey and Martin Jacques –all highlighted this particular reading of Marx’s ideas as being the one most pertinent today, as did our academic advisors at the Open University. I am aware that there are many other Marxist or Marxian readings of our current situation, but given the constraints, this seemed the best one to focus on.

You object to our description of Marx having ‘next to no alternative laid out’. We believe this description to be fair and it is supported by a number of commentators and academics. As you say, not having a ‘blueprint’ and not having an ‘alternative’ are not one and the same, but if one asserts the existence of an alternative without describing in any great detail what that alternative might be and how it might work, it seems reasonable to say there is ‘next to no alternative laid out.’ We also explained in commentary and through interviews with Tariq Ali and Slavoj Zizek, why logically Marx might not have felt able to give a very detailed description of an alternative.

You write that there was no critical examination of ‘Marx and the so-called ‘Communist’ countries, the link between the two being taken pretty much for granted, with a couple of very minor caveats.’ We did make clear that Marx’s lack of a detailed blueprint should lead us to question his association with 20th century Communism, and we asserted that the ‘Communist countries…left Marx far behind’. That said, it was necessary to mention them as they were real world attempts to find an alternative to capitalism constructed by people who claimed to be following Marx’s thinking, and – as a result – audiences would expect any discussion of Marx, and any discussion of alternatives to capitalism, to mention them. We felt the overall direction of the programme – advancing Marx’s theories as being useful today and exploring some surprising aspects of his writings about capitalism –would have helped uninitiated audiences learn that there is far more to Marx than his association with 20th century Communism. Indeed this was a major thrust of the opening sequence.

You take issue with the use of the word ‘collapse’ to describe Marx’s descriptions of the end of capitalism. I hope I understand what you mean here. I think you are suggesting that capitalism does not end because it is inherently unworkable, but because through its development it inevitably creates the political and social conditions that lead to its overthrow, and that by using the word ‘collapse’ we underplay the importance and role of the proletariat. We did explain also the end of capitalism by saying: ‘He thought it would all get so bad that the workers would overthrow the system’, also in the opening titles we say ‘Karl Marx had the most radical advice of all: get rid of [capitalism]’, and we do discuss Marx’s thinking on the revolution that ends capitalism. Either way, Marx certainly did envisage a time when capitalism would no longer be and ‘collapse’ is a reasonable shorthand for Marx’s best known description of the end of the system in Capital.

Finally, you ask us why we didn’t consult your organisation. We contacted a wide range of commentators – both pro and anti-Marx but because of the constraints of time, we are not always able to contact everyone. We believe the people we spoke to enabled us to produce a good overview of the issues surrounding Marxian economics. 

Thank you again for taking the time to write and I hope you would agree that while not offering anywhere near a complete appraisal of Marx’s ideas, it might have served as an engaging introduction.

I hope this addresses the points you raised and explains the production’s view. We’re grateful to you for watching and for taking the time to contact us. 

Yours sincerely, 

Paul Kettle, 

BBC Audience Services

Reply: 

We can only speculate why Ms Flanders feels unable to respond to a direct invitation to discuss the statements made in her programme, while the Executive Producer on the contrary has supplied an interesting and considered response to one individual’s letter. Paul Kettle argues quite reasonably that one can’t really do justice to Marx in an hour, and it is true that one can find Marxist academics who still argue for underconsumptionist theory, even though it doesn’t make much sense. Nevertheless we have to object that the defence of the word ‘collapse’ borders on sophistry. The meaning of the word ‘collapse’ is pretty straightforward, and if one claims that Marx believed that capitalism would ‘collapse’ one is saying that Marx did not really believe that revolution was necessary to end it. Which is the precise opposite of the truth.– Editors.

Not so friendly (1979)

From the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

A group of socialists recently attended a meeting of the Friends of the Earth at Sunderland YMCA. It had been advertised as an open public meeting, all ideas welcome. There was a crowd of about fifty, mostly students, and we sat at the back of the room to listen to what the speakers had to say.

There were three speakers, two from the Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM). One talked of alleviating unemployment by creating 'Worker Controls' in which workers would commonly own their industries, and capital investment (which would also be commonly owned) would be used in the interests of the workers. The 'Worker Controls' would also be used to teach workers how to run their own affairs (how nice). The other ICOM speaker said that one of their members was at present investigating ways to solve 'over-population' and food shortages.

When it came to question time, one if us asked the speaker to explain the cause of unemployment "since you must know the cause before you can attempt to solve the problem". The ICOM speaker replied that there were various causes of unemployment, then relapsed into a tone such as to be inaudible to anyone. The member answered his own question: "Capitalism is the cause of unemployment, and your energies should be directed at removing the cause. men and women are thrown onto the dole because they are of no further use to their employers. Perhaps the market is 'glutted', but there must be a reserve army of labour ready for use when the market demands." Amazingly enough, the ICOM speaker replied that there was plenty of demand, but forgot to add that needs do not constitute market demand.

Another member said:"You say that workers will learn how to run their own affairs in these 'Worker Controls', but workers control everything now. The working class run capitalism from top to bottom. You won't find a capitalist soiling his hands with work." No reply. Another socialist rose and said that 'overpopulation' is a myth and the ICOM speaker stands accused of helping to spread dangerous myths. If half the starving people were removed tomorrow, the other half would still starve. It would not make an iota of difference. The accused, and red-faced, speaker stormed out of the room, not to be seen again that night. At that moment a member of the audience (or perhaps another member of ICOM) stood up and said, "I've had enough of this" and, "Perhaps our friends would like to leave".  (I wonder if they are that friendly with whales!)

They then proceeded to discuss 'Worker Controls', perhaps hoping that they had silenced us, but they hoped in vain. for another of our group said, "Obviously production in 'Worker Controls' would have to meet market demand, so in a situation where one group of people needed food but had no money (which is not market demand) and another group wanted arms and had the money (which does constitute market demand), the workers would have to produce arms." "I cannot see a workers' co-op producing arms", said the ICOM speaker. "Then I am afraid the only alternative would be the sack", said the member. We were then invited to leave. Why? Because the speaker decided to close the meeting after a very brief question time. We did not get the chance to put our case at this meeting, but we will continue to attend meetings that are 'open' to us.

Vince Maratty (North East Branch)