issn1758-5708 correspondweinter: nfebruaryt2013 …article on the leveson inquiry, it “duly...

Issue Number 17

www.thesocialistcorrespondent.org.uk

ISSN 1758-5708

SocialistTheTheSocialistCorrespondentCorrespondentIssue Number 17

Winter: February 2013

£2.00

� Tax and the City: it’s time for change - P5

� Should Scotland beindependent? - P8

� Neo-Liberalism and New Labour - P10

� Debate on Soviet economic planning - P16

� Leveson Inquiry:a whitewash - P4

� OscarNiemeyer’ssynthesis ofbeauty andideologyP22

Winter: February 2013

� OscarNiemeyer’ssynthesis ofbeauty andideologyP22

CCoonntteennttssISSUE NO. 17 WINTER: FEBRUARY 2013

2 The Socialist Correspondent Winter: February 2013

Demolition will onlyexacerbate shortagePAT TURNBULL

Page 14

Olympics’ legacy notall fun and gamesPAT TURNBULL

Page 15

Debate on Soviet economic planningGREG KASER

Page 16

West’s real war aimsin AfghanistanDR. VERA BUTLER

0

Oscar’s synthesis of beauty and ideologyJAMES TAIT

Page 22

Famine Roads built by the starving IrishSIMON KORNER

Page 26

Discussion, debate and authors’ opinions: To encourage the broadest possible discussion and debate around the aims of exposing capitalism and promoting socialism, we hope our readers appreciate that not all the opinions expressed by individual authors are necessarily those of The Socialist Correspondent.

CommentaryPage 3

Leveson Inquiry:a whitewashSIMON KORNER

Page 4

Tax and the City: it’s time for change PAUL SUTTON

Page 5

Tax evasion and avoidanceSIMON KORNER

Page 7

Should Scotland be an independent country?MARTIN GIBSON

Page 8

Neo-Liberalism andNew LabourTOM BURDEN

Page 10

Pictures: Unless otherwise stated all pictures are courtesy of Commons Wikimedia. Some of these will be attributed to an individualphotographer. This does not mean that these individuals agree with theopinions expressed by individual authors or The Socialist Correspondent. Further information: http://commons.wikimedia.org

Winter: February 2013 The Socialist Correspondent 3

Leveson report: a whitewashIntimate and Corrupt relationsbetween the media, politiciansand the police to continueAs Simon Korner points out in hisarticle on the Leveson Inquiry, it

“duly exoneratesthe Prime Minis-ter, ex-CultureSecretary and theMetropolitan po-lice” and fulfilsits main functionto provide an ap-parent independ-ent judgmentwhilst leaving the

establishment intact. Leveson stated that, “I am satisfied

that I have seen no basis for chal-lenging at any stage the integrity ofthe police, or that of the senior policeofficers concerned”. The former Cul-ture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is foundby Leveson to have acted “com-mendably” in his handling of NewsCorp’s attempt to buy BSkyB andMurdoch’s claim that he was de-ceived by his own journalists is ac-cepted. The Leveson Report is awhitewash. Nevertheless, some interesting

things were exposed during the In-quiry. The intimate and corrupt rela-tions between the media, police andpoliticians was exposed and as Simonpoints out, “the process of the in-quiry and the recommendations ithas made – as well as the processand outcomes of the corruption trialslater this year and the second part ofthe Leveson Report – deserve to bestudied for the sinuous ways inwhich the British ruling class perpet-uates its grip on power.”

Tax and the CityThe citadel of the British ruling class’is the City of London, which, Her-bert Morrison, former Labour leaderin London, described as “a squaremile of entrenched reaction”, quotedby Paul Sutton in his article, “Taxand the City: time for change”. Also quoted is Tony Benn, who

said of the City: it is “an offshore is-land moored in the Thames with afreedom that many other offshore is-lands would be glad to have”. The City has connections akin to a

SocialistCorrespondentspider’s web, a layered hub and spokearray of tax havens. There is an im-mense concentration of wealth andpower in the City with its web, as awhole, holding an estimated US$ 3.2trillion in offshore bank deposits.

Tax evasion and avoidanceIf the Government was to end taxevasion and avoidance (mainly foundin the City) then the budget deficitwould almost wholly be wiped out. But to do that the government

would be required to take on the City.It is not surprising that this is nothappening, given that the Coalitiongovernment is largely made up ofmillionaires, many of whom made (andstill make) their money from the City. Instead we are fed the lie that ‘we

are all in this together’ and the major-ity of the people are made to pay forthe problems created by the City.

Scottish IndependenceThe referendum on Scottish independ-

ence will takeplace in the au-tumn of 2014. The SNP have

made it clear thatif they win thevote on independ-ence they will re-main a member ofNATO, retain theBritish monarchy,the British poundand the Bank ofEngland as MartinGibson relates in

his article, “Should Scotland be inde-pendent?” In other words, key aspects of the

British state will not be disturbed. Thecapitulation of Cameron to Salmond(above) on virtually all issues related tothe referendum and the lacklustre“Vote No” campaign, led by that ‘greyman’, Alastair Darling, may reflect theBritish ruling class’s indifference to thereferendum result. Indeed the British ruling class may

well find it easier to control and ma-nipulate an independent Scotland andthe prospects for the people: ratherthan an easier road to socialism, maybe a faster route to emisseration.

Neo-liberalism and New LabourIn his article, “Neo-liberalism andNew Labour”, Tom Burden outlinesthe origins of liberalism in early capi-talism and the more recent develop-ment of neo-liberalism leading to thesustained attack on public servicesover the last 30 years. Tom explains the reasons for the

adoption of neo-liberal policies in thecreation of New Labour and arguesthat the think-tank, Demos, played akey role in developing ideas “whichbecame very popular among keyLabour figures”. Demos emerged from the debris of

the Communist Party with much ofthe considerable assets. The moneywas used in the campaign to furtheremasculate the Labour Party and tocreate New Labour.

AfghanistanVera Butler exposes the real reasonsfor the war in Afghanistan. It is about economics. She refers to

the enormous oil reserves in CentralAsia, Afghanistan’s role as a transitroute because of her geo-political po-sition and the country’s vast naturalresources of gold, silver, copper, lead,zinc, and iron as well as largeamounts of rare earths of vital im-portance for the electronic and othermodern industries.

Beauty and IdeologyJames Tait’s article on the BrazilianCommunist architect, OscarNiemeyer, makes the case that in hisbuildings he synthesises beauty andideology. His buildings include that of the

Brazilian government, the cathedralof Brasilia and theheadquarters ofthe French Com-munist Party inParis. James writesof his architectureas “rooted in adeep desire to im-prove livesthrough the spacesand structures hecreated”. Oscardied in December2012 at 104 yearsof age.

The To contact The Socialist Correspondent

email the editor: editor@thesocialistcorrespondent.org.ukwww.thesocialistcorrespondent.org.uk

CCoommmmeennttaarryy


Leveson Inquiry: a whitewash

Leveson’s report, published in Novem-ber 2012, duly exonerates the PrimeMinister, the ex-Culture Secretary andthe Metropolitan police, and preservesthe concentrated pattern of UK mediaownership intact. Leveson concludes that limiting media

ownership is unnecessary - althoughplurality regulations should be appliedto news output – thus giving News Corpa free hand to remount its bid forBSkyB in future.Set up in July 2011, Lord Leveson’s

remit was to investigate the “culture,practice and ethics” of the UK media ingeneral, with specific issues of NewsCorp criminality to be dealt with later,once the various police investigationshave finished. The Leveson report’s main proposal

that an ‘independent’ regulatory body beestablished to regulate the press, under-pinned by law, has become the focus ofmedia debate, and has been rejected byCameron, despite his having said hewould adopt Leveson’s recommenda-tions as long as they were not ‘bonkers’. Any discussion of limiting the media

oligarchs’ power and control has beeneffectively silenced by the report’s statedconcern not to hamper the British mediafrom competing successfully againstglobal rivals in a fast-changing digitalmedia environment. Of the personal culpability of senior

News Corp executives, Leveson saysthat potential criminal proceedingsmean he cannot comment. He does, however, accept Rupert

Murdoch’s claim that he was deceivedby his own journalists. While admitting‘some concern’ over the fact that JamesMurdoch perjured himself as to whetherhe was aware of phone hacking – overthe famous 2005 ‘For Neville’ email,which ex-News of the World executive

Tom Crone told the parliamentary se-lect committee hearing he had discussedwith Murdoch in 2008 – Leveson sayshe is unable to reach a conclusion. As if to underline the whitewash, the

day the report came out, RebekahBrooks, former News of the World edi-tor, and her predecessor Andy Coulson,later Cameron’s director of communica-tions, were in court for allegedly makingillegal payments to public officials togain confidential information about theroyal family, charged alongside a Sunjournalist and a Ministry of Defencecivil servant. Brooks and Coulson aredue to stand trial in September. As regards police corruption and

cover-up, the fact that the Met droppedinvestigations into phone hacking, firstin 2006 and then again in 2009 - afterthe Guardian accused them of a cover-up – receives little attention fromLeveson. The fact that several News of the

World employees, including an editor,Neil Wallis, were employed by the Metin their media operations department -

while the paper was under investigation– is dealt with by the recommendationof a ‘cooling off’ period of 12 monthsbefore former media employees can betaken on by the Met in future, merelyslowing down the revolving door. Although almost 100 people, includ-

ing police, have so far been arrested,Leveson states: “I am satisfied that Ihave seen no basis for challenging at anystage the integrity of the police, or thatof the senior police officers concerned”,and cites police overwork following theLondon 7/7 bombings as the reason forthe Met’s failure to follow up hackinginvestigations. The report rather undermines its own

conclusion that the police conductedthemselves with “integrity at all times”,by recommending that senior police of-ficers in future keep a note of meetingswith media contacts and that they beaware of ‘the dangers of consumingalcohol in the setting of casual hospital-ity’. Of the political elite, which suffered

considerable embarrassment during theinquiry itself, Leveson finds that the for-mer Culture Secretary Jeremy Huntacted ‘commendably’ in his handling ofNews Corp’s attempt to buy BSkyB andcould not be accused of bias in favour ofthe corporation. Equally, the revelation of the closeness

of Cameron’s friendship with RebekahBrooks and her husband Charlie as partof the ruling class Chipping Norton set– a friendship which extended to Char-lie lending Cameron his ex-Met policehorse to ride – is downplayed. Leveson in his recommendations sim-

ply suggests greater transparency bypoliticians when consorting with mediacontacts in future. Thus for the mo-ment, Cameron’s association with po-tential criminals – Brooks and herhusband are both charged with conspir-acy to pervert the course of justice byconcealing evidence from the police (aseparate charge from the others againstBrooks and Coulson) – is sidelined, as ishis intimate connection with Coulson,another Chipping Norton crony. Leveson’s principal recommendation,

by far the most detailed, is to set up a

Leveson Inquiry: a whitewashTThhee LLeevveessoonn iinnqquuiirryy iinnttoo tthhee NNeewwss IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall pphhoonneehhaacckkiinngg ssccaannddaall hhaass ffuullffiilllleedd iittss mmaaiinn ffuunnccttiioonn –– ttoo ssaattiissffyysscceeppttiiccss bbyy aappppeeaarriinngg ttoo pprroovviiddee aann iinnddeeppeennddeenntt jjuuddggmmeennttoonn oonnee ppaarrtt ooff tthhee eessttaabblliisshhmmeenntt wwhhiillee lleeaavviinngg tthhee eeddiiffiicceeuunnddiissttuurrbbeedd..

By SIMON KORNER

Lord Justice Leveson


Tax and the City: it’s time for change

new self-regulatory body with a code ofstandards to oversee the press, a bodywhose funding and appointments – par-ticularly that of the chair - should be in-dependent and which has an arbitrationservice and a mechanism for dealingwith complaints, with powers to demandhigh-profile apologies and impose fines. Newspaper editors have agreed to

Leveson’s proposals ‘in principle’ andthere is now the prospect of cross-partysupport, but also of further wrangling. The Guardian reports that Oliver

Letwin, Cameron’s ‘fixer’, has proposeda royal charter to appoint independent‘judges or senior people to verify the in-dustry’s system of self-regulation’ while

the Lib Dems ‘have proposed that theroyal charter should not be changed’ un-less over two thirds of MPs agree. The best method of press regulation is

perhaps the least interesting questionraised by the Leveson inquiry, which re-vealed deep-seated corruption as partand parcel of the normal functioning ofthe British ‘democratic’ state. And the argument over whether using

the law to regulate the press is consistentwith British traditions or not obscuresanother British tradition – of which theLeveson inquiry itself is a prime exam-ple: using one arm of the state, the judi-ciary - in this case, a quasi-judicialprocess - to reassure the public that

bourgeois democracy is able and willingto correct itself and continue functioningsmoothly. The corruption bypassed by the Leve-

son report extends to the whole role ofthe inquiry itself. The process of the in-quiry and the recommendations it hasmade – as well as the process and out-comes of the corruption trials later thisyear and the second part of the Levesonreport – deserve to be studied for thesinuous ways in which the British rulingclass perpetuates its grip on power, a no-table example being the way the primaryissue of concentrated media ownershipin Britain has been left conveniently inthe shadows.

“Individuals and businesses must paytheir fair share” he told the billionairesand the leaders of multinational corpo-rations gathered there to listen to himand to others charged with facilitatingthe management of the global capitalistsystem. He also said that “trade, tax, and

transparency” were UK priorities for theUK presidency of the G8 in 2013 andthat “Acting alone has its limits. Clampdown in one country and the travellingcaravan of lawyers, accountants and fi-nancial gurus just moves on elsewhere.So we need to act together in the G8”.How many of his audience were really

listening to him is not known but whatis known is that dealing with tax evasionwas listed as a priority at the G8 summitin 2008, and that apart from some tech-nical studies by the Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Develop-ment (OECD), no real action has fol-lowed. The political leadership of the leading

capitalist countries seem very reluctantto take this issue on other than as an oc-

casional opportunity to flaunt the rheto-ric that ‘we are all in this together’ whenclearly we are not!. Indeed if Cameron was that serious he

could have saved himself the troubleand the expense of a trip to Switzerlandand got on his bike to go down the roadto address the City of London. One ofthe greatest sources of ‘means’ for taxevasion globally is to be found there andin particular in the links of the City ofLondon to the ‘offshore’ sector in whichit is a leading player.The ‘offshore sector’ has grown hand-

in-hand with global capitalism and is akey integral part of it. A Briefing Paperpublished by the Tax Justice Network in2005 found that approximatelyUS$11.5 trillion of assets are held off-shore by high net worth individuals andthat the tax not paid as a result of thesefunds being held offshore might exceedUS$255 billion each year. An update, published last year, now

puts that figure between US$21 andUS$32 trillion, which suggests lost taxof US$189 billion (based on minimal

figures of a 3% return on US$21 trilliontaxed at 30%) (www.taxjustice.net).Offshore is not only about avoiding

tax for individuals, but also low or no fi-nancial regulation. The laws and rulesof ‘offshore’ permit minimal supervisionand maximum secrecy, which allowsmultinational corporations and criminalnetworks to use them to ‘hide’ profitsmade from enterprise, whether legal orillegal. On some measures, half of all world

trade passes via tax havens allowing lit-tle or no tax to be collected on it. Theexample of Amazon immediately comesto mind, but it is not only the ‘man inthe street’ in the developed world thatloses out but even more so the poor andthe poorest in the developing world.The Global Financial Integrity Net-

work has just published a report whichcalculates that nearly US$5.86 trilliondollars was stolen from 150 developingcountries in the decade 2001-2010, withlosses estimated at US$858.8 billion in2010. The sources of such flows were crime,

tax evasion and corruption and thecountry identified as the major contrib-utor to such flows is China. The authorof the report, Dr Dev Kar, notes: “theChinese economy is a ticking timebomb. The social, political, and eco-nomic order in that country is not sus-

Tax and the City:it’s time for changeOOnn 2244 JJaannuuaarryy 22001133 DDaavviidd CCaammeerroonn aaddddrreesssseedd tthhee aannnnuuaall ggaatthheerriinngg aatt tthhee WWoorrlldd EEccoonnoommiicc FFoorruumm iinn DDaavvooss iinnSSwwiittzzeerrllaanndd oonn tthhee ssuubbjjeecctt ooff ttaaxx..

By PAUL SUTTON

Leveson Inquiry: a whitewash


Tax and the City: it’s time for change

tainable in the long-run given such mas-sive illicit outflows” (www.gfintegrity.org).Chinese money flows to a number of

offshore havens. First and foremost isHong Kong but it also includes theBritish Virgin Islands and the CaymanIslands in the Caribbean, among others.They in turn channel these flows to theCity of London, to which they are con-nected in a myriad of ways.In a recent book, Nicholas Shaxson

(Treasure Islands: tax havens and themen who stole the world, 2011)describes these connections as akin to a‘spider’s web’: “a layered hub-and spokearray of tax havens centred onthe City of London” which“gives the City a truly globalreach” (p.15). They enable the City of

London not only to capturebusiness in regions far from itand channel it to London(something different fromNew York which is muchmore focused on the ‘local’US economy), but also pro-vide opportunities for moneylaundering and other ques-tionable/illegal financial prac-tices, in which UK banks havebeen involved and for whichsome of them have beenfined. The result is that London

has the largest number of for-eign banks of any financialcentre. As of 2008, the yearthe financial crisis hit, “it ac-counted for half of all interna-tional trade in equities, nearly45% of over-the-counter derivativesturnover, 70% of Eurobond turnover,35% of global currency trading and 55%of all international public offerings”(Shaxson: page 247). Add in the offshore centres to which it

is closely linked - the Crown dependen-cies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle ofMan plus the existing and former Britishcolonies clustered mainly in theCaribbean - and in 2009 “the web as awhole held an estimated US$3.2 trillionin offshore bank deposits, about 55% ofthe global total according to data fromthe Bank for International Settlements”(Shaxson: page 252).This is an immense concentration of

wealth and power over which there isvery little oversight or real supervision.It is guarded and nurtured by the Cityof London Corporation, which TonyBenn likened to “an offshore islandmoored in the Thames, with a freedomthat many other offshore islands wouldbe glad to have” (cited in Shaxson page266).

The freedoms here are privilegesextending back over centuries whichallow it, on occasion, to be exempt inwhole or in part from some Acts of Par-liament. The City has its own policeforce, its own corporate franchise inwhich companies have a larger share ofthe vote than those living in the City, andits own well-connected and very effectivelobby groups which ensure its interestsare protected. Work last year by the Bureau of

Investigative Journalism, published inThe Guardian (9/7/2012) reveals thepower of this lobby. The City spends

over £10 million a year on public affairsadvocacy and enjoys unprecedented ac-cess to ministers. This allows it, working with others in

the finance sector, to win policy changeswhich recently include the slashing ofUK corporation tax and taxes on banks’overseas subsidiaries, the neutering of anational not-for-profit pension schemethat was supposed to benefit millions oflow-paid and temporary workers, andthe killing of government plans for a newcorporate super-watchdog to policequoted companies.In the light of these facts it is odd (or

is it?) that the many proposals nowparaded in the UK media for more ef-fective control of the banks and financialinstitutions remain silent on the City ofLondon. This was not always the case. In 1917,

Herbert Morrison, the Labour leader inLondon and later senior figure in theAtlee government, commented: “TheCity is now a square mile of entrenchedreaction, the home of the devilry of mod-

ern finance and that journalistic abortion,the stunt press. The City is an adminis-trative anachronism” (cited in Shaxson,page 260). Morrison favoured its abolition – and

for many years this was the policy of theLabour party. But as we know, Morri-son’s grandson, Lord Mandelson, statedhe was “intensely relaxed” about people“getting filthy rich” and in like spirit in1996 Blair dropped proposals for aboli-tion in favour of the promise of ‘reform’.Needless to say, when reform came, itwas ‘light touch’ and the City remainedintact in all important essentials.

The question that has tobe asked is: Can reform ofthe banking system proceedwhen there is no parallel re-form of the City of London?In November 2012 the CityReform Group was launchedto contest elections in theCity scheduled for March2013. It has a progressive plat-

form and primarily seeksto introduce transparencyand accountability into theaffairs of the Corporation. It should be supported but

at the same time it is clearthat its vision is too limited.The future for the City of

London should be the futureonce spelled out for it by theLabour Party: abolition. Reform will not resolve

problems which are deeplyinterconnected (finance, off-shore and the City) but sim-

ply ameliorate the worst abuses in oneleg of the triangle. ‘Joined-up’ thinkingand action is required to move beyondthis platform.It can be confidently predicted that

Cameron will not be getting on his bike,but it would do Ed Miliband no harm toget on the Underground and go to Bankstation. On emerging he can do a quicktour of the ‘square mile’ and come backresolved to do something about what hesees. He can ask one of his favoured ad-visers, Lord Glassman, to help him givenGlassman’s critical academic work on theCity over the years.Tax evasion by the rich and by the

multinationals is a serious issue, but deal-ing with it on its own is only treating thesymptoms, not the disease. For that tohappen, much more radical surgery is in-dicated. It is an area where Miliband can truly

put ‘blue water’ between him andCameron (and on the way begin to re-dress the issues of ‘offshore’ in the bluewaters of the Caribbean and elsewhere).

The Bank of England andBank underground station.

Tax evasion and avoidance


£12 billion of this comes from avoid-ance by the biggest companies, whichuse tax havens to pay far less than theheadline rate of corporation tax. Tax evasion is an even bigger drain

than tax avoidance. The World Bankputs the figure in the UK at £70 billiona year. Together avoidance and evasion,combined with the late payment of taxamounting to £25 billion, deprive thegovernment of £120 billion in taxes lostevery year – almost equivalent to the£127 billion budget deficit.In spite of this, corporation tax will be

cut from the already low 24% to 21% by2014. It’s a race to the bottom, againstIreland and Luxembourg, with the UKrate the lowest of any major westerneconomy. George Osborne claims thatlow tax is “an advert for our countrythat says: come here; invest here; createjobs here; Britain is open for business.” The lower tax rate will cost us collec-

tively £875m a year from 2016. TheInstitute of Directors, which represents37,000 company directors, said the re-duction was a “very welcome boost”.The most infamous of the tax avoiders

is Starbucks, which paid no corporationtax at all over the past three years. Inresponse to the recent UK Uncut cam-paign threatening a boycott, the com-pany now says it will pay £20m incorporation tax over the next two years– in an attempt to clean up its image.Other companies highlighted include

Amazon, which paid £1.8 million in taxon a turnover of over £200 million andGoogle, which paid just £3.4 million taxon £2.5 billion, using Bermuda as a taxhaven. Google, which avoided $2.2 bil-lion in taxes globally last year is lessbashful than Starbucks about its taxavoidance measures, which chairmanEric Schmidt justifies as part of the nor-mal workings of capitalism.These companies are not alone.

Goldman Sachs saved up to £20 million

in tax avoidance last year, and Vodafonealmost £5 billion – among at least 2,700other companies the government’s taxdepartment, the HMRC, is currentlychasing. These include online bettingcompanies which use tax havens such asGibraltar, and are being bribed with atax cut worth £100 million a year tobring the offshore internet gaming busi-ness back to Britain.Over each of the past four years, about

100 new avoidance schemes have sprungup. These include investment in film pro-duction, which attracts tax relief as part ofthe government’s apparent support forBritish film production. A billion pounddeal with a film company can earn over£100m in tax relief for its investors. Buttypically, the investment money is loanedback once the corporation has benefitedfrom the tax relief – even though half thefilms are American, including Pirates ofthe Caribbean I and II, which had alreadybeen made, investors merely buying ashare of the rights.Other methods of avoidance are char-

itable donations, which attract huge taxrelief. But a recent attempt to cap taxrelief on charitable donations at 25%was thwarted by universities, arts organ-isations and charities, all of whom fearedthe loss of vital funding.HMRC – short-handed after the 2005

merger of Inland Revenue and Customs& Excise cut 35,000 staff, with furtherjob cuts to come – has insufficient re-sources to cope. The HMRC unit thatdeals with the largest corporations is setto shrink by 20% by 2015.It’s a losing battle given the over-close

relationship between Whitehall and thecorporations, which provides huge ben-efits for the latter. The parliamentaryPublic Accounts Committee found re-cently that David Hartnett, the perma-nent secretary for tax, had a “cosyrelationship” with many of the corpora-tions with which he negotiated.

The revolving door between the civilservice and the private sector enablescorporations to devise ever more effec-tive schemes to evade new restrictions.The financial secretary to the Treasurycame from PwC, as did the director ofthe newly established Office of Tax Sim-plification, which advises on streamlin-ing tax laws. Others include partnersfrom KPMG and Ernst & Young, whohave also helped draft new tax laws. Revolving the other way are former

ministers, who act as advisors to thesefirms. These include Lord Mandelson,Lord Digby Jones, former home secre-tary Jacqui Smith, as well as Sir Mal-colm Rifkind.Tax avoidance by individuals is an-

other massive drain on public money –worth an estimated £8 billion a year.The 400 highest earners, with incomesbetween £5 million and £10 million peryear, paid under 20% tax in 2010-11,and many of them far less than that. Over a quarter of those earning be-

tween £250,000 and £500,000 a yearpaid less than 40% tax in the same pe-riod. In spite of this, the current 50%top rate tax is being reduced to 45% thisApril. Closing down tax havens, beginning

with the Crown Dependencies and UK-controlled Overseas Territories, wouldbe a start as would forcibly preventinglarge companies from choosing whichcountry they pay their tax in. But as Google’s Eric Schmidt points

out, it’s capitalism that’s the problem –a system in which millionaires pay lowertax than workers and corporate corrup-tion is inbuilt.

EEvveerryy yyeeaarr tthhee BBrriittiisshh GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt lloosseess ££112200 bbiilllliioonn iinn ttaaxx eevvaassiioonn,, aavvooiiddaannccee aanndd llaattee ppaayymmeenntt.. TThhiiss iiss aallmmoosstt eeqquuiivvaalleenntt ttoo tthhee ££112277 bbiilllliioonn bbuuddggeett ddeeffiicciitt..

By SIMON KORNER

Tax evasion andavoidance

Starbucks HQ in Seattle, USA


Should Scotland be independent?

The question was proposed by the Elec-toral Commission in Scotland andagreed by the SNP Scottish Govern-ment who had proposed the same word-ing but beginning with “Do you agree.”After much wrangling since the SNP

won their historic majority victory in2010, this now means that most of themain political formalities and issues ofprocess have been settled between theScottish Nationalist Government inEdinburgh and the Unionist CoalitionGovernment in London.

However, always keen to seize thetactical advantage and to create a moodof ‘independence is inevitable’, the SNPGovernment published on 5 February2013 a post-referendum, 17 monthsconstitutional timeframe by which Scot-land would become an independentcountry by March 2016.SNP Deputy First Minister Nicola

Sturgeon said, “Our proposals wouldsee this (constitutional) platform put inplace immediately prior to the ScottishParliament elections, to provide the

newly elected Scottish Government withthe full range of powers it needs todevelop the country.”She added that the publication of their

independence timeframe gave “the peo-ple of Scotland a clear road map as tohow Scotland would make the journeyfrom a devolved system of governmentwith the levers of power retained atWestminster, to a nation in which thepowers of our national parliament arecomplete and in which the people aresovereign.”The SNP Government is keen for the

UK coalition government to hold talkswith them about this timeframe aheadof the referendum. This has been flatlyrejected by Prime Minister DavidCameron and Scottish SecretaryMichael Moore on the basis that theywill not “pre-negotiate” Scotland’sseparation from the UK and that theyare content to wait until after the Scot-tish people have had their say in thereferendum. So there will be only one question - as

above - not the two that ‘more-devolu-tion’ campaigners had hoped.The powers to proceed with the inde-

pendence referendum have also beenpassed by the UK Parliament in West-minster - under a Section 30 Order - tothe devolved Scottish Parliament inHolyrood.When Scotland’s First Minister, Alex

Salmond MSP met with UK PrimeMinister David Cameron MP in Edin-burgh on 15 October 2012 and signedthe ‘Edinburgh Agreement’ outlining theterms of the referendum, it had all thefeel of a pre-boxing match weigh-inwhere the pugilists pose for the cameras,beamed those plastic PR smiles, shakehands and iterate well-practised wordsthat tell everyone the big fight - over300 years in the making - will now beginin earnest. The shadow boxing is over.In The Socialist Correspondent, No. 14,

Spring 2012: ‘Scotland to vote on inde-pendence’, we posed a series of ques-tions which we thought then remainedlargely unanswered. These were:

� Would an independent Scotland beable to join the EU as a new countrywithout joining the Eurozone?� Would an independent Scotland,even if it refused to host Trident, remainin NATO?

““SShhoouulldd SSccoottllaanndd bbee aann iinnddeeppeennddeenntt ccoouunnttrryy??”” TThhaatt iiss tthheeqquueessttiioonn SSccoottttiisshh vvootteerrss wwiillll bbee aasskkeedd iinn aa rreeffeerreenndduumm iinn tthheeaauuttuummnn ooff 22001144..

By MARTIN GIBSON

A view of the ScottishParliament from SalisburyCrags (Arthur’s seat).




� What would happen to the RBS,Halifax/Bank of Scotland debts?� How much would Scotland dependon oil revenues and how long will the oillast?� Would Scotland be better or worseoff in an independent capitalist Scotland?� Would an independent Scotland bemore vulnerable (like Ireland, Iceland,Greece) in the current capitalist world?� Would England be saddled with apermanent Tory majority at Westminsterto the detriment of working people andhow would this affect Scotland andWales?� What would be the impact ofseparation on, for example, the mediaand the BBC?� Would solidarity between theworking people of Scotland and those ofEngland, Wales and Ireland be enhancedor lessened by the advent of anindependent Scotland?� Would an independent Scotlandmake it easier or more difficult to winsocialism?All but one of these questions still

remain to be answered and some ofthem will never be answered unless anduntil Scotland is independent. The one question that has been an-

swered to some extent is the questionabout NATO membership, US Tridentnuclear bombs and the future of the UKTrident submarine base at Faslane onthe west coast of Scotland.At the Scottish National Party confer-

ence in Inverness in October 2012delegates narrowly supported, by 394votes to 365, a leadership motion tochange long established anti-nuclearand anti-NATO party policy andallow Scotland to remain part ofNATO in the event that it becomesindependent.The leadership motion argued

that an independent Scotland’smembership of NATO would be“conditional” on the removal of nu-clear weapons from Faslane whichwould become a conventional navalbase.Angus Roberstson MP, leader of

SNP MPs at Westminster, arguedthat it was the right time to “up-date” party policy and bring it intoline with those peaceful anti-nuclearmembers of NATO such as Den-mark and Norway.Two rebel MSPs - John Finnie

and Jean Urquhart - both from theHighlands, resigned from the SNPover what they believed was achange of principle.Ms Urquhart, a CND member

for 35 years said, “I believe in an in-

dependent Scotland, not a NATO-de-pendent Scotland.”An independent Scotland in the Euro-

pean Union is another SNP policy tocome under attack following JoseManuel Barroso’s (President of the EUCommission) statement that a newly in-dependent Scotland would have tore-apply for membership of the EU.Mr Salmond has argued that this is

wrong and that during the time it takesbetween a Yes vote in the 2014 referen-dum and Scotland negotiating its sepa-ration from the UK, it would alsonegotiate, as a region of the UK, its entryinto the EU as an independent state.In addition to retaining membership of

the EU, the SNP has also declared that

it would retain the British Monarchy, theBritish Pound, the Bank of England andthe BBC.From their eagerness to remain in

NATO and the EU and retain Britisheconomic and constitutional institutions,SNP strategists believe it will help themimprove their appeal to the crucial 10%to 12% of voters who remain undecided.A recent poll put support for inde-

pendence at 32%, while opposition stoodat 47%. This fluctuation of between30% to 40% for separation and 50% to60% against has remained prettystubborn since the devolved ScottishParliament was established by TonyBlair’s New Labour Government in1999.That’s why the SNP leaders hope they

can get a ‘good wind’ from their timingof the referendum in the autumn of2014.2014 will see the “world come to Scot-

land” with the Commonwealth Gamesheld in Glasgow in July. Alex Salmondhas already declared that these are“Scotland’s Games.” But most important politically from

the Nationalists’ point of view, 2014 alsomarks the 700th anniversary of theBattle of Bannockburn (24 June 1314)when Scotland’s army led by KingRobert the Bruce defeated the Englisharmy of King Edward II. Many other battles were to follow

between Scotland and England over thenext 300 years, but it was only with theascent of the Scottish Stuart dynasty tothe throne of England in 1603 that hos-tilities between the two countries abated.In 1603 - following the death of

England’s Queen Elizabeth I -Scotland’s Stuart King, James VIbecame James I of the new UnitedKingdom of Great Britain. Thisbecame known as the “union ofthe crowns.”. It would, however, be another

100 years for the “union of theParliaments” to come about withthe Act of Union in 1707. With thisAct, debt-ridden Scotland becamethe junior partner in the largest Im-perialist enterprise the world hasever known, the British Empire.There were of course the Stuart

Dynasty’s two failed attempts - the1715 and 1745 Jacobite rebellions- to regain the British crown.These were but hiccups in the newand incredibly lucrative Imperialenterprise. Despite 400 years ofScottish and English monarchicalunion and 300 years of Parliamen-tary union, that victory at Ban-nockburn still holds a special placein Scottish history.

January 201239% in favour of independence50% against11% undecided.

June 201235% in favour of independence55% against10% undecided.

October 201230% in favour of independence58% against12% undecided.

A sample of just over 1000 Scot-tish voters by Ipsos Mori duringlast year, showed a decline insupport for independence:

SNP First Minister, Alex Salmond MSP and Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP.


Neo-Liberalism and New Labour

Its key principles are strongly supportedby all major political parties in the con-temporary United Kingdom, it is thebasis for the coalition programme and itwas a very important element in the pol-icy pursued by New Labour during itsrecent period in office.A recent article in the Guardian neatly

summarises the whole issue of its pro-market and anti-state character, “Neo-liberalism is grounded in the ‘free,possessive individual’, with the state castas tyrannical and oppressive. The wel-fare state, in particular, is the archenemy of freedom. The state must nevergovern society, dictate to free individu-als how to dispose of their private prop-erty, regulate a free-market economy orinterfere with the God-given right tomake profits and amass personal wealth.State-led "social engineering" must neverprevail over corporate and private inter-ests. It must not intervene in the "nat-ural" mechanisms of the free market, ortake as its objective the amelioration offree-market capitalism's propensity tocreate inequality. (Stuart Hall Guardian,12 Sept. 201)

11.. LLIIBBEERRAALLIISSMMSS

At the outset it is important to realisethat the term liberalism is a very trickyone which has been used in a variety ofdifferent ways. There are clear differences between

classical liberalism, the new liberalismand neo-liberalism. Another problem isthat everybody wants to attach the no-tion of liberal to their political ideologysince in ordinary speech it tends tomean generous and open, two charac-teristics which any political ideologywould hope to be viewed as possessing.

Classical liberalismThe origins of liberalism lie in develop-

ments in political theory in the eigh-teenth century in the context of opposi-tion to the arbitrary power of monarchs.Liberalism began as a revolutionarycreed based on individual freedom. Liberalism developed in opposition to

aristocratic and autocratic forms of gov-ernment which denied personal freedomand democracy. It was the ideologywhich was central to both the Americanand French revolutions. At the time this was a progressive and

revolutionary ideology. Laissez-fairewelfare ideology is derived in part fromthe classical political economy of Smithand Ricardo, with strong support forprivate property and the market andhostility to state intervention.The principles of classical liberalism

include:� free speech;� legal equality and the rule of law;� freedom of movement and assembly;� freedom from arbitrary acts of gov-ernment;� economic freedom (laissez faire); and,� political freedom.These values represented the interests

of small scale manufacturers and agrar-ian business at this stage of developmentof capitalism where technology wasrelatively underdeveloped. According to the liberal viewpoint,

where freedom exists everyone is able todevelop their own capabilities to the fulland conditions are present for the great-est possible economic, social andcultural development. Liberalism emphasises individualism

and personal freedom. Personal freedommeans freedom from interference, espe-cially by the state, which should have aminimal role. The state should ensureinternal and external order and establishorderly conditions for freely undertakeneconomic activity – markets must oper-ate freely.This form of liberalism was central to

the ideology of Victorian England

during the period of the Industrial Rev-olution and the establishment of themodern British stateand its institutions. It culminated in

the liberalism es-poused and imple-mented by WilliamGladstone (pic-tured) in the late19th century, ofwhich the LiberalParty became thekey bearer. The dominant

ideology of Victo-rian capitalism re-flected the interests of an expanding andrising industrial capitalist class whichwould eventually come to dominate pro-duction. Gladstone supported the laissez faire

(free trade) views of Cobden and Brightand, at least when it came to rhetoric,was opposed to imperialism. Gladstonewas wedded to a very limited role for thestate and viewed the maintenance of therule of law as the core state function. Economic policy was based on

restricted state intervention, holdingdown public expenditure and havingbalanced budgets.

The new liberalismAt the start of the 20th century, someliberal thinkers came to believe thatsupport for unrestricted free marketscreated such severe conditions thatmany people could never develop theircapabilities to the full and therefore thestate should intervene to create theconditions where liberal aspirations forthe full development of every individualcould be met. The new liberalism was partly associ-

ated with the national efficiency move-ment which was an attempt by thecapitalist class to improve the efficiencyof capitalism under pressure from grow-ing foreign industrial competition andcompeting imperialist powers. It aimed to improve the efficiency of

the labour force. Many manufacturersfelt that they would be better able tocontrol their labour force and to reduce

Neo-Liberalismand New Labour NNeeoo--lliibbeerraalliissmm hhaass bbeeccoommee tthhee ddoommiinnaanntt ppoolliittiiccaall iiddeeoollooggyyooff oouurr eerraa..

By TOM BURDEN



the threat of possible radical politicalchange by making concessions that im-proved working-class economic security. This was an era where large-scale mo-

nopoly capitalism was increasingly com-ing to dominate economic production.This implied the need for social reformsof various kinds and the Liberal Party inthe early years of the 20th century(1906-1914 Liberal government) be-came the vehicle for introducing reformswhich included a limited scheme for oldage pensions in 1908 and a scheme ofsocial insurance covering sickness andunemployment introduced in 1911. These reforms were the foundations of

what later came to be established as thewelfare state.

TThhee wweellffaarree ssttaattee aanndd nneeww lliibbeerraalliissmm The modern welfare state was largelybuilt in line with the principles of thenew liberalism.A key role in the final development of

the welfare state was played by the con-ditions of popular radicalism which de-veloped during the second World War. During the Second World War major

changes in class relations and ideologytook place. The Labour movement ad-vanced through participation in the gov-erning coalition. Trade unions were given greater

power over national policy, especially inlabour force planning, and in the work-place, there was considerable support foregalitarian policies, especially in taxation,and through rationing. The role of women was revolutionised

through their widespread participation inproduction and other war tasks: socialdislocation and stimulus to change alsoresulted from the widespread evacuationof working class children and throughthe arrival of large numbers of foreign,especially American troops. Radicalisation also took place within

the armed forces partly through the pro-vision of educational services to troops.Proposals for post-war reconstructionwere widely publicised and discussed.The two key thinkers whose ideas

under-pinned the development of thewelfare state at this time were Keynesand Beveridge. Both were associated with the new

liberalism and both worked within theLiberal Party. These thinkers wished tosafeguard the long-term prospects ofcapitalism and to maintain the values ofindividualism which they believedsustained it. Keynes’ theories involved a system of

government intervention to increase statespending in order to create jobs whilepreserving the market and individualeconomic and political freedom.

Beveridge’s proposals for the welfarestate were contained in his war-time re-port of 1942 which proposed a compre-hensive social security system and alsocalled for policies to secure full employ-ment, along with the establishment of anational health service and familyallowances.The Keynesian welfare state has been

identified as a key characteristic of allwestern-liberal democracies at similarstages of economic development and canbe seen as the culmination of social dem-ocratic social engineering. The welfare state was a model of so-

cial protection designed to ensure a fitand healthy population, echoing con-cerns earlier in the century. Much of thelegislation for the British welfare statewas brought in by the Labour govern-ment of 1945-50. When the Conserva-tives were re-elected in 1951 theymaintained the commitment to Keyne-sian full employment policies and thewelfare state.A key aspect of the development of the

welfare state was an attempt to maintaincapitalist values of self help and individ-ualism and to incorporate the workingclass into the political system by provid-ing benefits for it (i.e. National Insur-ance benefits) which were partlyorganised through the participation ofemployers. Another key concern was to ensure the

efficiency of the labour force throughimproved health and making sure thateven low wages were sufficient to main-tain a family through the provision offamily allowances which in effectsubsidised low wages by increasing thedisposable incomes of the low paid.

Neo-LiberalismThe term neo-liberalism is these daysused to describe the contemporaryversion of liberalism which has come todominate British political discourse. It was most coherently promulgated in

the work of Hayek who wrote a massivecritique of state intervention and thewelfare state published in 1944 entitled"The Road to Serfdom". Hayek viewed all state intervention as

oppressive and was a thoroughgoing op-ponent of any form of state welfare.What is referred to in this article as neo-liberalism, is sometimes called "the newright". The term “Thatcherism” hadsimilar meaningIt is no accident that neo-liberalism

rose to prominence during a period ofeconomic crisis following the oil pricerises, inflation, and recession of the early1970s. These economic and socialchanges threatened the political andeconomic stability of capitalism.

The ideology of neo-liberalismreflected the growing dominance andconfidence of capitalist interests acrossthe world. It drew upon the long historyof liberalism, in particular the positivedepiction of economic freedom andcompetition as the best means of ensur-ing low prices and efficient production,

NNeeww rriigghhtt ccrriittiiqquuee ooff ssttaattee pprroovviissiioonnThe economic and social policy implica-tions of neo-liberalism were most clearlyworked out by Milton Friedman (pic-tured). In principle all serv-

ices should be providedby the market sincethen people can ex-press their preferencesfreely in terms of whatthey are willing to payfor. Competition be-tween providers in a free market will en-sure that services will be producedefficiently. However, if for practical or historical

reasons state social provision exists, itmust be run on lines which are consis-tent with market principles. Consumersmust be able to choose betweenproviders. Providers must compete withone another. The recipients are seen asconsumers (buying a product) ratherthan clients (receiving a professionalservice).This policy involves the creation of

provider markets, sometimes called‘quasi-markets’, in which state servicesare provided by competing state fi-nanced units with some degree of choiceexercised by, or on behalf of, the recipi-ents. State schooling in Britain has beenreformed using these principles in the1980s and 1990s. The British nationalhealth service was reorganised in thisfashion after 1989.

PPrrooffeessssiioonnaalliissmmFor the new right, then, an important ex-planation for the costs of the welfarestate could be found in the power of pro-fessional groups which sought to expandspending on public services. The task, therefore, was to reduce the

power of these groups by exercisingmanagerial control over them, throughinspections, targets, and strict budgetingIn relation to the welfare state there is

a rejection of professionalism whichplays a key role in major services, such aseducation and health care and welfareprovision.

NNeeoo--lliibbeerraalliissmm aanndd mmaannaaggeemmeennttooff tthhee eeccoonnoommyyThe ideal for liberals is for a minimumof state management and control and



ownership of economic resources.Everything should be left to the freemarket which in theory should producethe most efficient outcome benefitingeverybody. A key belief of neo-liberals is that any

forms of state control and regulation aresomehow stifling the innate creativity ofthe capitalist class, the dynamism ofwhich would be released to the benefitof all if regulation were minimised. Keyelements of this approach to theeconomy are: � DDeerreegguullaattiioonnThis involves abolishing existing systemsof regulation of economic activities andsocial provision so as to give the marketfull sway. Another feature of regulation iswhat was called "light touch" regulation,this could be a synonym for almost noregulation at all, as it was in the case ofthe banking industry in Britain.� TTaaxxaattiioonn iiss ttoooo hhiigghhAgain it is believed that somehow per-sonal and corporate taxation stifles eco-nomic creativity and entrepreneurialism.The acceptance of the belief that taxa-tion is akin to robbery has become a keyfeature of British political debate. Few politicians are willing to speak

publicly in favour of state expenditureand of financing this through increasedtaxation.In Britain, both personal taxation of

those on high incomes and company tax-ation could well be described as "op-tional". The taxation regulations areriddled with "loopholes" many of whichhave been carefully designed and whichsuccessive chancellors frequentlythreaten to remove. This never happens! The obsession with low taxation has

had a very unfortunate effect on politicaldebate in Britain. Whenever any pro-posal for a change in policy of any kindis made, the immediate responses is tosuggest that this might require increasedpublic expenditure and therefore in-creased taxation. Policy as a whole ismainly designed to keep public expendi-ture and taxation down. The political parties themselves, then

begin to engage in auctions about whichparty will reduce public expendituremost. At one point, the Labour andConservative parties were competingwith one another in public about whowould get rid of the most public sectorjobs (i.e. civil servants)� AAuusstteerriittyyCuts in public spending and reductionsof taxation have been a common re-sponse to economic crisis throughout the20th century. Key elements of austerity policies have

been attempts to keep wages down by

cutting the real wages of state employeesand increasing the competition for jobs,perhaps by making it easier for foreignworkers to compete in the British labourmarket. These policies have frequently been

justified by the use of homely analogiesrelating to the household economy, "liv-ing within your means", "balancing thebudget".

� LLaabboouurr fflleexxiibbiilliittyy This idea was a frequent slogan em-ployed during the era of New Labourperhaps by explicitly cutting them, as oc-curred in the 1930s, and through poli-cies which restrict wage rises to the levelof inflation (thus cutting the spendingpower of workers)Labour flexibility seemed to mean re-

moving any constraints on employers totreat their labour force in any way thatthey wished, hiring and firing at will, re-moving employment rights of workers,attacking trade unions. The policy in-volves holding down wages and weaken-ing the ability of the labour force to resistchanges unfavourable to it

� BBuussiinneessss eeffffiicciieennccyyPolicies to boost the efficiency and prof-itability of business are known techni-cally as a "supply-side" policies. Thesecan be contrasted with policies designedon the lines of the theories of MaynardKeynes where governments attempt toincrease employment by raising publicspending, perhaps through state invest-ment in industry or tax cuts. Supply-side policies are basically de-

signed to support the private sector ofindustry which is held in the neo-liberalview to be invariably more efficient thanstate provision. Under neo-liberalism,state provision is kept to a minimum.

� PPrrooccuurreemmeenntt State procurement policies generally areused to ensure that the private sector isused to provide goods and services forthe state sector, key examples of thisoccur with IT procurement contractsand with contracts for weapons and mil-itary equipment of various kinds. Bythese means, the overall share of nationalincome going to capital is increased andthe strength of the capitalist class is alsoenhanced.

� PPrriivvaattiissaattiioonnAnother key neo-liberal economic policyis to directly shift state provision to theprivate sector through some form of pri-vatisation either, directly selling shares instate industries, to the public or otherbusinesses, or through some form of en-couragement to private providers to takeover directly activities previously under-taken by the public sector.

An important example of this em-ployed widely by New Labour was thePrivate Finance Initiative (PFI) used tofinance school and hospital building, an-other means used has been to requirepublicly controlled bodies such as localauthorities or television companies to putcontracts for services out to tender andallowing private sector organisations tobid for the contracts.

22.. NNEEWW LLAABBOOUURR’’SS AADDOOPPTTIIOONNOOFF NNEEOO--LLIIBBEERRAALLIISSMM

An interesting question concerns thepossible reasons why neo-liberalism wasso enthusiastically adopted by NewLabour. New Labour liked to describeitself as “business friendly”. As part of its appeal to the middle

ground, the tendency of the LabourParty during periods of capitalist crisis isto revert to economic orthodoxy asrecommended by business and the City.This has been well documented byRalph Miliband most notably in his bookParliamentary Socialism.An important reason for the adoption

of new liberalism by new Labour wasthat it seemed to offer the opportunity ofimproving public services without hav-ing to spend more money on them by in-creasing taxation. It could then presentitself to the electorate as a party com-mitted to low taxation, and social im-provement.

MMaannaaggeerriiaalliissmmA neglected feature of the new labourpolicy reforms of the 1980s was man-agerialisation or ‘new managerialism’which involved giving an enhanced roleto management. Managerialisation involves a more

business-like approach which puts theemphasis on efficiency and measures ofperformance rather than meeting ‘needs’.It began with the recruitment of man-agers from business to introduce privatesector management methods.Managerialisation has often been ac-

companied by the rhetoric of ‘new wave’management involving ‘quality’, cus-tomer care, ‘empowerment’, and givingsubordinates a sense of ‘ownership’. Managerialisation has involved a re-

duction of the power of professionalsand its replacement with local manage-ments based on devolving control ofbudgets. For New Labour this kind ofmanagerial rhetoric could be made tosound like a modernised version ofsocial democracy, with frequent talk ofempowerment, participation and consul-tation.1. Consumers individually and collec-



tively are now to determine the patternof public provision.2. Increased consumer power is sup-

posed to come from treating users of so-cial services as customers (of a serviceindustry) rather than clients (of profes-sional experts). Provider markets are ameans of doing this. In Britain the cus-tomers of some social services are nowalso given more information throughhospital and school ‘league tables’ whichrank service providers according tomeasures of the quality of their output.This is meant to improve the efficiencyof consumer choice.Another reason for the enthusiastic

adoption of managerialism in the formof targets, concerned the establishmentof inspectorates such as Ofsted. Theseinspectorates could perform an impor-tant ideological role in demonstrating thewasteful and ineffective character ofpublic provision by frequently criticisingthe institutions through which social pol-icy was being delivered, such as schoolsand hospitalsIn Britain, neo-liberal ideas have been

continually advanced by such bodies asthe Institute of Economic Affairs and theAdam Smith Institute, these were partic-ularly influential at the time of theThatcher government. In the early-years of New Labour

think-tanks such as Demos were a keyinfluence on thepolicies pursued bythe government ofTony Blair (pic-tured). This organisation

played a role in de-veloping ideas whichbecame very popu-lar amongst keyLabour figures in-cluding the strangenotion of the"weightless econ-omy" in which man-ufacturing was viewed as a subsidiary orwasteful activity and the growth in theeconomy was to be driven by “knowl-edge industries” such as advertising,banking, computer games, and other vir-tual forms of production.

PPuubblliicc pprroovviissiioonn aanndd nneeoo--lliibbeerraalliissmmThe principles of managerialism havebeen used to impose on the public sec-tor the necessity to make a "profit".Aping private business has also con-tributed to the payment of huge salariesand bonuses for those in senior publicpositions. Various other features of private busi-

ness have been eagerly imposed on thepublic sector such as the use of brand-

ing, marketing, and inflated job titlessuch as Chief Executives of colleges anduniversities replacing PrincipalsAnother way in which the adoption of

managerialism has affected society isthrough the infection of the public sectorwith a range of business principles.

IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall aaggeenncciieessGlobal organisations have been playingan increasingly important part in policyover the last few decades. The WorldHealth Organisation (WHO) and bodieslike the World Bank and the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) have a significantrole in policy making:Many of these bodies have played a

key role in spreading neo-liberalismthroughout the governments of themajor capitalist states. Modern capitalistgovernments deal with these on an al-most daily basis.1. Their influence may come from

control of resources which they can dis-pense to states for specified purposes.2. They may also be able to intervene

in domestic debates on policy throughpublication of reports, conferences andother public events.3. They may be able to influence pol-

icy at ‘insider’ level through direct con-tact with policy makers such aspoliticians and senior civil servants.

33.. CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS

TThhee ccooaalliittiioonn aanndd ccoonnsseennssuuss iinn BBrriittaaiinnThe current British government, osten-sibly a coalition between the Liberal andConservative parties, could be describedas organised around a programme ofmaintaining the existing system of classdominance in Britain. Throughout the 20th century coalition

has been a frequent feature of Britishgovernment. This was the case in bothworld wars, also for much of the 1930s,and de facto, for much of the 1970swhere Labour had an agreement withthe Liberal Party. While the Blair and Brown govern-

ments were in power, in effect, we had acoalition between the Labour and Con-servative parties. Whenever support for a crucial vote in

parliament was threatened by theprospect of a large scale revolt byLabour MPs, Labour Prime Ministerswere happy to rely on Conservative par-liamentary votes to ensure that con-tentious policies prevailed. This was the case with the policy on

academies, trust hospitals, as well as theIraq war, and its use was threatened ifthe issue of the replacement for Tridentcame up for a vote.

In Britain also personal and public ex-penditure has been expanded throughthe device of increased state and per-sonal debt. The depiction of taxation as robbery,

and of public expenditure as being in-variably wasteful, inefficient and unnec-essary are central propositions of theneo-liberal ideology now common to allmajor parties in Britain, and to the in-ternational institutions promoting auster-ity measures and deficit cutting. Neo-liberalism has become the domi-

nant ideology of our era. It fits veryclearly with Marxist analyses of the na-ture of a bourgeois or capitalist ideology.Marx wrote that "the ruling ideas ofevery age are the ideas of the rulingclass" it can easily be seen how neo-lib-eralism fits this description.In class terms the main beneficiaries of

neo-liberal policies were the capitalistclass and its lieutenants.So far as the distribution of income is

concerned, neo-liberalism can be viewedas a very effective means of making therich richer and the poor poorer boththrough the changes it brings about inthe operation of the economy andthrough the changes made in statewelfare provision. One of the central contradictions of

capitalism has always been the insistenceon widespread and avoidable poverty atthe same time as some people live in ex-treme luxury The growing gap between the rich and

the poor has formed the subject of con-siderable controversy and some protestin Britain and other countries whichhave gone down the same road, in recentyears. An interesting recent political develop-

ment has been the attention devoted bysome protesters to individual and corpo-rate tax avoidance.The lack of purchasing power

amongst the working class creates theever-present danger of economic crisis inthe form of what used to be called crisesof over production, which have some-times been termed. crises of realisationin which insufficient goods and servicesare able to be sold to maintain an ade-quate level of profit. The class that gains most from the or-

ganisation of the state in line with neo-liberal principles is the class that lives onprofit. This is very much in line with the

Marxist principle that the state is "aCommittee for managing the collectiveinterests of the capitalist" class. in addi-tion, since "all history is the history ofclass struggle" opposition to neo-liberal-ism and its effects forms an importantelement in modern class politics.


Demolition will only exacerbate shortage

The Heygate was built in 1974. Tallconcrete blocks joined by concretebridges surrounded central communalgardens. More than 3,000 people lived in its

1,200 homes. Architect Tim Tinkersays, ‘The idea in those days was thatlocal authority housing should be forall.’Stephen Moss, in the Guardian on 4

March 2011, wrote, ‘The flats he de-signed were light and airy, and the nowdespised walkways were created to keeppeople away from cars.’Wikipedia writes, ‘The estate was

once a popular place to live.’The Heygate was a victim of cutbacks

in housing budgets by successive gov-ernments, backed up by an attack on the‘brutalist’ style of architecture, very con-

venient for politicians who wanted to cutback on public provision of housing. By the 2000s the Heygate had fallen

into severe disrepair, though architectssay it is structurally sound and could berefurbished.Instead, the council tenants have been

moved out and housed elsewhere. Evic-tion proceedings under the Landlordand Tenant Act were taken out againstany resisters. The remaining leaseholders are hold-

ing out because they say they have beenoffered about half the average propertyprice in Southwark, which means theywill be forced to move elsewhere.The plan is to build 2,500 new homes

for sale. In October 2012, SimonHughes MP, called for the Heygateplanning application to be withdrawn

because it proposed just eight socialrented homes (i.e. homes atcouncil/housing association level rents).In 2004 a brochure circulated to

tenants and leaseholders proposed a totalof 50% affordable housing. A statementfrom Heygate Leaseholders Group says,“The 1,200 homes here on the Heygatewere truly affordable to local people.The 2,500 luxury new homes set to re-place them will cost upwards of£500,000 to buy, and if there are anynew ‘affordable’ homes provided thenthe most affordable of these will likelycost around £275 per week to rent.”The statement sees the fate of the

Heygate as part of “state-sponsored seg-regation: the large-scale displacement ofthose on lower incomes by high earnersand overseas buy-to-let investors.” Itadds, “A long-standing community hasbeen destroyed.”The development is being run by

Southwark Council in partnership withproperty developer Land Lease. It isthe first phase of the £1.5 billion Ele-phant and Castle regeneration scheme,the biggest in Western Europe. The demolition of the Heygate will

only exacerbate the housing shortage inSouthwark.Woodberry Down estate in Hackney,

north London, is another ‘regeneration’project. In one corner stand a tall block of flats

and other glossy new luxury homes forsale, in a prime position overlooking apicturesque reservoir. A pleasant foun-tain plays in the forecourt. Three-bed-room flats cost around the £600,000mark. Berkeley Group is the developerof what it calls Woodberry Park. Berkeley Group, a London based

housebuilder founded by Tony Pidgley,is to pay a dividend for the first timesince 2008 after a rise in profits. Thedividend of 15p per share will be paid inApril 2013. As a shareholder, TonyPidgley will receive around £1m fromthe dividend.Berkeley has spent £500m in the past

four years on buying sites. In the sixmonths to October 31 2012, Berkeley’srevenues increased 69% to £686m andpre-tax profits rose 41% to £107.5m.

Demolition will only exacerbate shortageTThhee HHeeyyggaattee hhoouussiinngg eessttaattee iinn tthhee ssoouutthh LLoonnddoonn bboorroouugghh ooff SSoouutthhwwaarrkk iiss ssttaannddiinngg eemmppttyy bbuutt ffoorr ttwwoo lleeaasseehhoollddeerrss.. IItt iiss aawwaaiittiinngg ddeemmoolliittiioonn..

By PAT TURNBULL

Heygate Estate, 2009.


Olympics’ legacy not all fun and games

At a budget meeting in March SheffieldCity Council will consider a cost-cuttingproposal to demolish the 25,000 seatstadium.A council spokesman said, “These are

extraordinarily difficult times and wehave said that we will have to look attough budget options because of thedevastating Government cuts to publicspending and local government.”Tony Minichiello said, “The saddest

thing about this is what it says aboutOlympic legacy. Don Valley was whereit all began for Jessica and demolishing

it means kids in Sheffield will not havethe opportunity that Jessica has had.”Paralympian Martine Wright, who

lost both legs in the London bombingsof 2005, has criticized UK Sport’sdecision to cut all funding for sittingvolleyball.She said, “We feel sitting volleyball of-

fers an outlet not only for recreation andsporting talent, but also a rehabilitationvehicle for injured personnel. As a newteam, we performed to our expectationsin London and were looking forward tocontinuing to make progress.”

Olympics’ legacy notall fun and gamesTToonnyy MMiinniicchhiieelllloo ccooaacchheess JJeessssiiccaa EEnnnniiss,, hheeppttaatthhlloonn ggoollddmmeeddaalllliisstt aatt tthhee 22001144 LLoonnddoonn OOllyymmppiiccss.. HHee hhaass ccaalllleedd aapprrooppoossaall ttoo ddeemmoolliisshh tthhee DDoonn VVaalllleeyy SSttaaddiiuumm ((ppiiccttuurreeddaabboovvee)) iinn SShheeffffiieelldd aann ““iinnccrreeddiibbllee bbllooww..””

By PAT TURNBULL

Martine Wright won the Helen Rolla-son Award for outstanding achievementin the face of adversity at the 2012 BBCSports Personality of the Year awards.Three companies involved in illegally

re-selling tickets to the Olympics havebeen fined a total of £70,000 at West-minster Magistrates’ Court.Sportsworld, an authorised ticket re-

seller for the London Olympic Gamesorganisers, sold on 74 tickets worth£420,000 to its sister company EventsInternational (EI). EI then sold many of the tickets at

much higher prices to a company calledImperial Corporate Events, which pack-aged them with accommodation andraised the price again.What started as a £1,600 ticket for

the 100 metres final (won by UsainBolt) ended up costing one customer£10,000.


Debate on Soviet economic planning

“Once upon a time”, Francis Spuffordbegins his fictionalised history, “thestory of red plenty had been serious.”For a while it looked as though socialismwould “beat capitalism on its own termsand make Soviet citizens the richest peo-ple in the world.” While Spufford thinks the attempt

failed, unlike most Western analysts –who take it for granted that a marketeconomy performs better than aplanned or state-controlled economy –he explores the cultural dimension,rather than the purely economic. The academic collection, edited by

Vincent Barnett and Joachim Zweynert,also looks at the intellectual context.And although The Socialist Correspon-dent’s readers may find the constantcontrasting of “conservatives”, that is,socialists, and “reformers” irritating, atleast the books, in their different ways,take the trouble to examine properly thethoughts and theories of those actuallybuilding a socialist society. ‘Red Plenty’ is a “story based on true

events”. It features a grumpy old pro-fessor of cybernetics (Leonid) who bat-tles bureaucratic indifference; Emil, hisbrilliant student; a feisty and idealisticsingle mum (Zoya) and her youngerlover (Valentin); and various other in-habitants of Academyville, Siberia. They spend many hours, in between

skinny dips in the lake, debating cyber-netics, socialism and their hopes inapartment kitchens and around campfires in the woods. Walk-on characters include a coarse

and bullying First Secretary (Kruschevpictured) – the chap who banged hisshoe at the UN General Assembly, re-member? – and a shifty pair of Acade-micians, one a “reformist” and the otherfrom the “old school” of political econ-omy. Predictably it all ends in disap-

pointment as tanks roll into Prague. For all that, the novel is full of fasci-

nating details and references, with 70pages of notes and bibliography, alongwith short historical introductions toeach section. Of course anyone who spent any

length of time in the Soviet Union willread the descriptions with a wry smile,since Spufford quite clearly gained hisimpressions after the fact. Even so, the book tries to capture the

optimism of the times and fleshes outmany of the figures that we also meet inthe academic volume. The latter’s central chapters are de-

voted to socialist economists includingChayanov, Kantorovich and Varga. Ofparticular interest (to me) is a chapterby my dad, Michael Kaser, on thedebate surrounding the revision of a keytextbook, The Manual of PoliticalEconomy, which took place in the 1940sand 1950s.

TThhee cchhaarraacctteerr ooff aa ssoocciiaalliisstt ppoolliittiiccaall eeccoonnoommyyAccording to the 1928, and first edition,of the Manual, prepared under thedirection of Evgeny Preobrazhensky,

exchange value cannot exist under a so-cialist system as there is no buying andselling. In practice markets existed, including

local markets and the black marketwhere people could sell home-grownproduce or misappropriated goods.Every town had an official municipalmarket for fresh produce and otherhousehold items. The expectations prevalent in the

early phases of the Russian revolutionthat exchange value would not play arole under socialism required revision inthe light of experience. The practical issue to be decided in a

socialist economy is whether the eco-nomic plan should maximise use value(in other words, satisfy consumer de-mand) or labour value (and reward pro-ducers, that is, the workers andfarmers); or to achieve specific nationalgoals (house construction, reforestationor space exploration, for example). In a capitalist system, profits are max-

imised, which are derived, firstly, fromthe exploitation of workers, whose wagesfall short of the full labour value, and,secondly, realised through sales (ex-change value). Soviet economists were divided on the

question. Some favoured satisfying con-sumption; others thought national proj-ects should be prioritised. Clearly thereis no right answer and logically one can-not maximise more than one type ofvalue: there has to be a trade-off be-tween objectives. But how does oneknow where to strike the balance? The debate over the ultimate aim of

socialist construction generated a sub-sidiary argument over the role of mar-kets. The phrase ‘the law of value’ couldbe interpreted as implying that in anyeconomic system, socialist or not, therehad to be equality between the value ofgoods and services produced, the labourembodied, and the value of consump-tion.(1)In a market economy the balance is

achieved through the price mechanism.Under socialism, the economic mecha-nism to balance the economy was the al-location, or rationing, system. Earlyplanning sought to achieve balance

Debate on Sovieteconomic planningGREG KASER reviews two recent re-assessments of the Soviet economic model. � Francis Spufford, 2010, Red Plenty: Inside the Fifties’ SovietDream, Faber & Faber.

� Vincent Barnett & Joachim Zweynert (editors), 2008,Economics in Russia: Studies in Intellectual History, Ashgate.



using physical metrics (in tons, numberof units, metres, etc.). But this only provided an approximate

picture. Any discrepancies in theplanned allocation of inputs to each stageof production had a knock-on effectalong the chain and onto final output.Misallocation meant stockpiles in oneplace and shortages in another and un-fulfilled targets generally. As the Soviet economy grew rapidly in

the 1930s it became obvious that physi-cal balances could not be calculated ac-curately. Moreover people could notalways find what they needed in theshops and might be forced to pilfer fromtheir workplace to obtain goods, likebuilding materials, in short supply. The alternative to physical metrics was

monetary accounting. But once you usemoney as a measure of production andconsumption you require information onprices. Since prices had been controlledsince 1921 they often did not reflect thecosts of production. Planners were caught in a bind. For-

mulae were proposed to calculate guideprices on the basis of wages, purchasesof materials and an allowance for the de-preciation of fixed assets (machinery andbuildings), but the computational prob-lem remained: how to add up and,through iteration, ensure that productionand consumption balanced at everymoment everywhere?

TThhee nnaattiioonnaall eeccoonnoommiicc ddiissccuussssiioonnBy the close of the ‘1930s it was clearthat the first two Five-year Plans hadgenerated their own problems. The new textbook needed to take in

lessons learnt and Stalin (pictured)requested relevant committees, the acad-emy of sciences and industrial institutesto prepare a revised version of the Man-ual of Political Economy. The exercisewas led by Nikolai Voznesensky, whotook charge of GosPlan at the end of1938. Michael Kaser writes: “The appoint-

ment of Lev Leontiev, Konstantin Os-trovityanov and Evgeny Varga ascorresponding members of the USSRAcademy of Sciences in 1939, may beseen as preliminary to ending the dog-matic prohibition [on the application ofso-called ‘bourgeois’ economics], whichwas announced in an anonymous articleof 1943, stating that the ‘law of value’was authorised for consideration withinthe context of socialist economics. Thatarticle, published in the theoretical organof the Soviet Communist Party (Underthe Banner of Leninism), started with acritique of the contemporary state of So-viet economic policy.” Voznesensky and Leontiev presented

a draft of the new Manual to Stalin in1942, which envisaged two objectiveeconomic laws at work in a socialist po-litical economy: the law of value regulat-ing exchange and the law of planned andproportionate development that limitedoverall production to actual productivity(and thus to the mix of man and ma-chine in the economy that is associatedwith available technologies).(2)Leontiev promoted payment by results

as an objective necessity under socialism.A number of practical steps were alsotaken. Accurate statistics began to be col-lected once more and used in planning;closer relations were established betweenindustry and scientific institutes; and theThird Five-year Plan (1938-41) was for-mulated within the framework of a 15-year GenPlan “in order to link objectivesto existing potential.”The Second World War interrupted

the Manual’s publication but in 1950 amajor conference was convened to re-ex-amine the issues. As Stalin was to writein his paper on Economic Problems ofSocialism in the USSR (1952), a key

question concerned the operation of thelaw of value. He argued that commodityproduction had not ceased in the SovietUnion but that this need not lead to there-establishment of capitalism. “Commodity production leads to cap-

italism only if there is private ownershipof the means of production; if labourpower appears on the market as a com-modity which can be bought by the cap-italist and exploited in the process ofproduction; and if, consequently, the sys-tem of exploitation of wage workers ex-ists across the country.” He saw two basic systems of produc-

tion in operation: the state enterprisesand the collective farms, with the latterengaging in market exchange with thetowns and state enterprises. There was also trade with foreign

countries. Stalin went on to say that thelaw of value regulated production in thecooperative sphere and “influenced” so-cialist production. “Our enterprises can-not, and must not, function withouttaking the law of value into account …since it trains our business executives toconduct production on rational lines anddisciplines them.” The trouble was that the law of value

was not being applied consistently andthis led to problems in fixing prices (themonetary expressions of value). In the pamphlet, Stalin accepted ex-

plicitly some of the key points beingmade by Voznesensky but disputed oth-ers. According to his obituary of 1963,Voznesensky had written that “socialistplanning required knowledge of the eco-nomic laws of production and distribu-tion in order to obtain a proportionatedevelopment of the economy. … [More-over,] scientific socialism cannot denythe role of the law of value [in] fixing re-tail prices or the evaluation of losses andprofits in a socialist economy.” Other economists, such as Stanislav

Strumlin, advocated the use of a dis-count rate to calculate the economicvalue of capital (labour embodied in ma-chinery and structures) and proposedthat the fundamental objective of pro-duction was consumption. The measures implied cutting back

support to heavy industry and raisingreal wages, which had fallen in terms oftheir purchasing power. A new set ofplanning prices was calculated for thedraft 1951-55 Plan. The push towardsusing values (and prices) in planningcaused Stalin concerns nonetheless. As the Cold War heightened interna-

tional tension, the abandonment of thephysical balance method appeared anunwise experiment in the context of theneed to re-arm and the threatenedeconomic blockade by NATO.

Planners were caught in abind. Formulae wereproposed to calculate guideprices on the basis ofwages, purchases ofmaterials and an allowancefor the depreciation of fixedassets (machinery andbuildings), but the computa-tional problem remained:how to add up and, throughiteration, ensure that pro-duction and consumptionbalanced at every momenteverywhere?



Thus Stalin proposed that a basic lawof socialism be recognised: “the securingof the maximum satisfaction of the con-stantly rising material and cultural re-quirements of the whole of societythrough the continuous expansion andperfection of socialist production on thebasis of higher techniques.” This meant that national development

requirements pre-empted other consid-erations and the law of balanced andproportionate development had to yieldto the ‘basic law’ and was thus not fullyan objective characteristic of a socialistsystem. It was a half-turn back to the politics

of the 1930s, when the Party announcedthat the Bolsheviks “could storm anyfortress.” Voznesensky found himselfcaught up in the so-called Leningradcase involving the alleged embezzlementof state funds for the Leningrad TradeFair of 1949 and was executed in 1950. Thereafter the economic discussion

stalled and the draft Manual never sawthe light of day. Profit and loss account-ing at enterprises was not introduceduntil 1965 under Alexei Kosygin, whohad worked closely with Voznesensky,and the realignment of wholesale priceswas postponed until 1967.

KKaannttoorroovviicchh aanndd ooppttiimmiissaattiioonnIt is at this point that Francis Spuffordpicks up the story. The hero of ‘RedPlenty’ is Leonid Kantorovich, who pro-vided the mathematics to solve the prob-lem of how to maximise one objectivewithout losing sight of the constraints orother objectives. Working at a veneer factory in 1938 he

developed a mathematical method that“would make a measurable percentagesaving on the raw materials they neededto make a given amount of product.” Spufford imagines the moment of in-

spiration: “He had thought about ways todistinguish between better answers andworse answers to questions which had noright answer. He had seen a method whichcould do what the detective work of con-ventional algebra could not. … The methoddepended on measuring each machine’s out-put of one plywood in terms of all the otherplywoods it could have made. … Clearly,the world had got by quite well until nowwithout his idea. The people arranging theflow of work to factories had been able todo so with a fair degree of efficiency byusing rules of thumb and educated intu-ition, or else the modern age would not beas industrialised as it was. But a fair degreeof efficiency was very far removed from themaximum degree of efficiency. If he wasright – and he was sure he was, in essentials– then anyone applying the new method toany production situation in the huge fam-

ily of situations resembling the one at thePlywood Trust should be able to count on ameasurable percentage improvement in thequantity of product they got from a givenamount of raw material. … [And] if youmaximise, minimise, optimise the collectionof machines at the Plywood Trust, whycouldn’t you optimise a collection of facto-ries, treating each of them as an equation?You could tune a factory, then tune a groupof factories, till they hummed … and thatmeant that you could surely apply themethod to the entire Soviet economy.

He could see that this would not be pos-sible under capitalism, where all factorieshad separate owners, locked in wastefulcompetition with one another. There, no-body was in a position to think systemati-cally. The capitalists would not be willing toshare information about their operations;what would be in it for them? That waswhy capitalism was blind, why it gropedand blundered. It was like an organismwithout a brain. But here it was possible toplan for the whole system at once. Theeconomy was a clean sheet of paper onwhich reason was writing. So why not op-timise it? All he would have to do was topersuade the appropriate authorities to lis-ten.”That, however, proved more difficult

than it appeared. Kantorovich’s paper onthe subject circulated unpublished from1942 onwards but was eventually takenup by Soviet industry with gusto. He fi-nally published a book in 1959, with anEnglish version in 1962.

His method became known as linearprogramming or optimisation. It revolu-tionised the logistics of the US Army aswell as economics. In 1975 Kantorovichwas awarded the Nobel Prize in Eco-nomics, an honour he shared withTjalling Koopmans, for “their contribu-tion to the theory of optimal allocationof resources.” He had already won aStalin Prize in 1949 and a Lenin Prizein 1965. I remember my own mounting excite-

ment in reading an exposition by Koop-mans as a student in Cambridge’sMarshall Economics Library.((33))

Linear programming was a powerfultool that could be applied in operationsresearch to analyse the flow of workthrough a factory, the flow of coal frommines to power plants on the railwaysystem, or an economy as a whole. The economy could be modelled and

its optimal balance between productionand consumption, savings and invest-ment, imports and exports, etc., calcu-lated. The prices of all goods could alsobe derived in terms of a common input(like labour, which is present in all com-modities). Alternatively, one could use the utility

(or use value) of commodities as thecommon denominator and expressprices in money terms. All that wasneeded were the computers with a ca-pacity to handle the numerous equations. In the 1970s, Cambridge, Milan and

Rome were centres for a research pro-gramme that sought to re-anchor eco-nomic analysis in terms of values usingthis advance in mathematics. It sought toaddress the nature of capital itself as em-bodied activity. But the findings were, I think, misin-

terpreted by more traditional Marxistsand neo-liberals alike, and – described as‘neo-Ricardian economics’ – were dis-carded. (David Ricardo developed thelabour theory of value in the 19th cen-tury). So it is ironic, but not particularly sur-

prising, to find Marx also dismissed as“a very minor post-Ricardian” in theBarnett-Zweynert volume, who is now“very much a dead dog” as far as con-temporary economics is concerned.

GGooooddss,, ggooooddss,, ggooooddssAn early scene in ‘Red Plenty’ describesreactions to the American Way of Lifeexhibition in Sokolniki Park, Moscow, in1959. The pavilions displayed conven-ience foods, colour TVs, plastic kitchenutensils, man-made fibres, supermarkets,suburbia and, of course, the big car thateven an average earner could afford tobuy. Khrushchev set about trying to beat

“He could see that thiswould not be possible undercapitalism, where allfactories had separateowners, locked in wastefulcompetition with one an-other. There, nobody was ina position to think systemat-ically. The capitalists wouldnot be willing to shareinformation about their oper-ations; what would be in itfor them? That was whycapitalism was blind, why itgroped and blundered. Itwas like an organism with-out a brain. But here it waspossible to plan for thewhole system at once ...”



the Americans at their own game. Withsufficient computing power all mannerof goods could be envisaged, in the rightquantities and available at affordableprices. Spufford comments: “after the Second

World War, when the numbers comingout of the Soviet Union started to becomemore and more worryingly radiant, it be-came a major preoccupation of the newlyformed CIA to try to … [lower] the glow-ing stats from Moscow … yet they werestill worrying enough to cause heart-searching among Western governments.”“Comrades, let’s Optimise!” became

the slogan as “new cybernetics institutesand departments sprung up right acrossthe Soviet Union. … Mathematical mod-els were being built for supply, demand,production, transportation, factory loca-tion, short-term planning, long-termplanning, sectoral and regional and na-tional and international planning. Auto-mated control systems for factories hadbeen commissioned. A group of RedArmy cyberneticians were proposing anAll-Union data network that could beused by civilians and the military alike.… The premise of the whole intellectualeffort was the practical improvement,very soon, of the Soviet economy; of allits ten thousand enterprises, and of thesystems that integrated and co-ordinatedthem.” But although the Soviet economy kept

on growing, the rate at which it ex-panded began to slacken. As Spuffordrecounts the story, all that was missingwas rational pricing. In the book, Emil – based upon the

real life Abel Aganbegyan – has a meet-ing with Kosygin, at that time (1965)Chairman of GosPlan, to try to convincehim that the Akademgorodok researchershad the software to calculate a set of op-timal prices for all goods. But Kosygin rejected the idea that the

planners should determine prices using,in effect, a virtual market in cyberspace.Prices were politically sensitive. “Sorry,no,” says the fictional Kosygin, “we’lljust have to muddle along with the priceswe’ve got. We’re not going to tear up a working

system for the sake of some little theo-retical gain in efficiency.” To which Emilretorts: “the wrong prices will ruin every-thing!” “Oh, Professor,” Kosygin replies,

“You have no idea what the wrong pricecan do.”

TThhee ccaassee ffoorr ppllaannnniinnggThere is a case for markets as well asplanning on the socialist path of devel-opment. One of the problems in theUSSR was the relative lack of choice for

consumers and the imperfect means forsignalling consumer preferences to pro-ducers. The Soviet economic model provided

everyone with not just the basics but adecent standard of living. When othercountries suffered from a poor grain har-vest, they were forced to pay higherprices for bread, but the Soviet peoplewere protected from price inflation. On the other hand, all bakers used the

same set of recipes, so while there was achoice of bread types, it was limited andinnovation was stifled. As soon as smallbusinesses were permitted, hundreds ofnew bakeries sprang up across the coun-try offering a far wider range in terms oftypes, quality and price. There was widespread recognition that

the production system needed reform tobetter meet consumer demand. But the‘free market’ was seen by socialists andliberals alike as incompatible with plan-ning. In this regard, Spufford stays close to

the mainstream narrative in which so-cialism and planning ‘failed’. Whetherthis was down to Kosygin and GosPlanignoring the potential of Kantorovich’smodel may be part of the story but itlooks like a fairy tale within his largerfairy tale of how the Russian people weredeceived and left disappointed. A lot of planning is undertaken within

capitalist economies and there were (andare) markets within socialist countries.How these mesh together has not beenmuch investigated.

The push to establish a ‘market econ-omy’ in place of the ‘planned economy’under Gorbachev (pictured below)drowned out serious consideration ofwhat form of value a socialist societyshould seek to optimize and how tostructure the appropriate institutions toenable the USSR to develop as a pros-perous nation along socialist lines. There was never a blueprint to follow,

of course. As the pioneer, the USSR hadto make it up as it went along. InSpufford’s view, while “the Kosygin re-forms of 1965 put a lot more money infactory managers’ pockets … the controlsystem for industry grew more and moreerratic; the information flowing back tothe planners grew more and more cor-rupt.” Consumer demand was not being sat-

isfied by either the plan or the market inpractice and it constrained overallgrowth. Thus the Soviet economy began to fall

behind the USA not only in being un-able to offer consumers more goods andchoices but also in terms of defence, sci-ence and technology. The system of production is a cycle

from the mobilisation of resources to thesupply of goods and services and the sat-isfaction of demand. The cycle depends on information

feedback to adjust the proportions ofwhat is made. If plans and markets in-terfere with each other, instead of beingcomplementary, then things get messy. To conclude, therefore, that the plan-

ning system was to blame (and that themarket was the solution) is to miss thecomplexity involved in the stalling of theUSSR’s development.

FOOTNOTES1. The law of value is defined as theexchange of commodities on the basisof the average socially necessarylabour embodied within them; seeJohn Eaton, 1947, Political Economy:A Marxist Textbook, London: Lawrence& Wishart: p 180. 2. A textbook issued by Progress Pub-lishers states: “Planning makes it pos-sible to establish economicproportions which help to raise the ef-ficiency of social production and tomaximise the economies of labour-time on the scale of society as awhole”; Sergei Ilyin and AlexanderMotylev, 1986, What is Political Econ-omy? ABC of Social and PoliticalKnowledge, Moscow: Progress Pub-lishers: p. 303. 3. Tjalling Koopmans, 1957, ThreeEssays on the State of EconomicScience, New York: McGraw-Hill.

The Soviet economic modelprovided everyone with notjust the basics but a decentstandard of living. Whenother countries sufferedfrom a poor grain harvest,they were forced to payhigher prices for bread, butthe Soviet people were pro-tected from price inflation.


West’s real war aims in Afghanistan

What kind of interests are the NATOtroops on the Hindu Kush defending?Neither the Taliban nor its lucrativeopium trade has been eliminated. In-deed, President Obama was forced toadmit that the Taliban has remained “arobust opponent.” What real aims are being pursued in

Afghanistan? Above all else it is aboutenormous oil reserves which lie about600 miles north-west of Afghanistan.They are the point at issue.Well-informed Afghanis make a cred-

ible case for it being Pakistan which,with American agreement, created theTaliban, in particular to protect aplanned pipeline. More than that: theAsian Development Bank was expectedto finance the construction with twobillion US dollars.However, the US strategy of overtak-

ing Russia and China in the competitionfor the Central Asian oil and gasresources proved to be a failure.The oil interests of the USA require a

massive diplomatic presence in theregion of the Caspian Sea. Robert Finn, who later became Wash-

ington’s ambassador in Afghanistan, isan expert in Caspian oil. In 1992 he in-augurated the US embassy in Baku andeffected the signing of the ‘CenturyTreaty’ between Azerbaijan and westernoil concerns.The US administration also strongly

promoted the planned construction ofan oil pipeline from Baku to Ceyhanwhich would run through Azerbaijan –in fact through the northerly Armenianenclave of Nagorny-Karabakh – to theGeorgian Black Sea port of Batumi andthen through the restless region of Turk-ish Kurdistan to Ankara’s deep seaMediterranean port of Ceyhan.A different plan, pursued by the

Argentinean oil and gas concern Bridas

– the third largest com-pany in this field inLatin America – wasthe construction of apipeline from Turk-menistan throughAfghanistan to Pak-istan’s harbour ofGwandar on theArabian Sea. This project was

more promising sinceit concerned oil and gasprovision to the countries

West’s real waraims in AfghanistanWWhhiillee NNAATTOO ccoonnttiinnuueess ttoo ppaayy iittss bbllooooddyy ttrriibbuuttee ttoo tthheeaalllliiaannccee ssppeeaarrhheeaaddeedd bbyy tthhee UUSSAA iinn AAffgghhaanniissttaann,, tthheeqquueessttiioonn sseeeemmss jjuussttiiffiieedd:: wwhhyy ppaarrttiiccuullaarrllyy AAffgghhaanniissttaann??

By Dr. VERA BUTLERTranslated from the German Journal RotFuchs.

of Asia. However, the costs of the 918mile long natural gas route, estimated attwo billion dollars, and the four billiondollars for the 1005 mile long oilpipeline were far beyond the capabilitiesof Bridas. A consortium with the Union Oil

Company of California (UNO-CAL) was set up. This super

concern is particularly noto-rious for its disregard forecological and humanconditions. In 1997UNOCAL mergedwith AMOCO. Thiscompany united inthe following yearwith British Petro-leum (BP).But the situation in

Afghanistan had be-come so much worse that

the intended Afghan transit

A F G H A N I S TA N


West’s real war aims in Afghanistan

means of an undersea pipeline to the Is-raeli harbour of Ashkelon. A branch of the Egyptian pipeline was

to lead to Lebanon, with sections to Jor-dan and Syria. Turkey made an alter-native proposal, to overcome thecountry’s previous dependence on Rus-sia and Iran. For energy corridors in the eastern

Mediterranean region, crossing the terri-tory of Syria is unavoidable. Moscowand Damascus agreed a gas treaty fordeliveries in a volume worth 160 millionEuros. The Russians were participants in a

number of energy projects in Syria. Oneof them concerned the construction ofthe Syrian segment of the Egypt-Jordan-Syria pipeline, another united the SyriaGas Company (SGC) and Russia’s

Stroytransgaz – a daughter of Gazprom– in the development of Syrian projectsfor the use of gas reserves which hadbeen discovered in the region of Homs. It is revealing that precisely this region

has become a centre of the revolt againstthe Assad government. What a surprise! The marine base of the Russians in

Syria was established to protect these in-terests of the Arab country. Israeli fight-ers flying over Syrian territory, and troopmanoeuvres on the Golan Heights, tornfrom Syria by Tel Aviv since 1967, makesuch protection indispensable. As ever this step unleashed the

demonisation of Russia, Syria, Iran andChina, which was designated by theWashington Times as ‘the new axis ofevil’. In 2001 General Wesley Clark, the for-

mer NATO Commander-in-Chief inEurope, declared bluntly in an interviewthat ‘the USA had planned to attackIraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, So-malia and Iran as part of a multi-facetedmilitary undertaking. The operation wasto begin in Afghanistan, continue in Iraqand end in Iran.’ This was according tothe British newspaper ‘The Guardian’ on23 October 2001.All this is still not a complete answer to

our initial question: why Afghanistan inparticular?A geological survey conducted by the

USA led to the discovery that in theAfghan province of Helmand largeamounts of the rare earths ianthanum,

route was seen as too risky. The prob-lem was a constant civil war which wasconducted in the nineties and the lack ofa strong, internationally recognised gov-ernment in Kabul. To bring the situation under control,

the US government sponsored and sup-ported, in alliance with Pakistan, the Tal-iban, whose name translated means‘Students of Islam’. They did this, in disregard of the lat-

ter’s terrorist acts, on condition that theTaliban was ready to provide security forthe building of the pipeline which wouldbring the oil and gas from Central Asiato the previously mentioned port ofGwandar. On 29 May 2002 Presidents Pervez

Musharraf (Pakistan), Saparmurat Niya-zov (Turkmenistan) and Hamid Karzai(Afghanistan) met in the Pakistan capi-tal of Islamabad to sign an agreementwhich provided for the construction of a3.2 billion dollar gas pipeline from Turk-menistan to Pakistan’s port of Gwandar. The yearly capacity was to reach a

downright astronomical amount. Theplanned 900 mile route went throughAfghanistan’s Herat-Kandahar corridorwhich was under the control of the Tal-iban until they were driven out.However, Kazakhstan continued to

have its oil flow from Kashagan andPengiz to the Russian Black Sea port ofNovorossisk. From there it went bytanker to the Bulgarian harbour ofBurgas. Russia, Greece and Bulgariasigned an agreement on the constructionof the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline. In this way the oil would travel the rel-

atively short stretch of Bulgarian andGreek territory to the Aegean Sea –within reach of the ports of Turkey andof the western Mediterranean, namely ofItaly, France and Spain. In 2003 China’s National Oil Com-

pany (CNPC) acquired for 625 millionUS dollars a ten per cent share in the oilfields of Kashagan so that black goldcould flow into the far eastern People’sRepublic. On 12 May 2007 Russian President

Putin and his Kazakh and Turkmenianpartners signed an agreement on thecanalisation of energy transports fromKazakhstan and Turkmenistan overRussian territory. The strategy of the USA and the EU

to shut out the Russian influence onenergy supply collapsed like a house ofcards.Another notable pipeline junction

came into being in the region of the east-ern Mediterranean. In mid-2005 Egyptand Israel signed an agreement to thetune of 2.5 billion dollars, which plannedthe 15 year provision of natural gas by

cerium and neodymium are to be found,in the crater of the extinct Kanneshinvolcano. It is believed that this is one of the

richest deposits in the world. CurrentlyChina controls the working of 97% ofthe world’s sources of such minerals andmetals. Rare earths are of vital impor-tance for the electronic and othermodern industries. Neodymium, whose price in US dol-

lars is 470 per kilo, is essential for theproduction of powerful magnets, as re-quired, for example, in electric cars. Cerium is important for the produc-

tion of flat screens for televisions. Thediscovery unleashed great interest inmining concerns and governments. To-gether with other deposits of valuableraw materials, the key to Afghanistan’seconomic development must lie there,declares the western media. “The US Geological Service (USGS)

has a long history in Afghanistan,” de-clared its director, Marcia McNutt. “Wehope that our irrefutable analysis of thesite, of the opportunities for mining andof the flow of these minerals will help theAfghans to grasp the true extent of theirriches.” (And doubtless these will also bevery welcome to the Yankees!). The scientists of the USGS had to

conduct their search for raw materialsunder extreme conditions as the area ofKhanneshin is the stronghold of the Tal-iban. They reached the volcano by hel-icopter and were guarded by US marinesas they undertook their tests.The USGS team recorded 1.3 billion

tons of Khanneshin rock on its chartsand estimates that they will containenough rare earths to meet the needs ofthe present world for a decade. The total value is estimated at 7.9 bil-

lion dollars. This takes into account onlycertain particularly valuable minerals. Ifothers are present, this could produce afurther value of up to 83.3 billiondollars. Apart from that, the investigation has

up to now only covered the top 110 me-ters of rock. The strata could be sub-stantially thicker.The USGS has also located massive

deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, zincand iron in different parts ofAfghanistan. Perhaps the great iron oredeposits in Hajigak, about 140 kilome-tres from Kabul, are in fact the mostvaluable. Here it is a question of the ‘tri-fle’ of 664 billion dollars. Twenty con-cerns have already signalled their offersfor the acquisition of these deposits.So Afghanistan is of strategic interest

for the ‘West’, especially as her naturalriches present the prospect of immeas-urable profits.

Afghanistan is of strategicinterest for the ‘West’,especially as her naturalriches present the prospectof immeasurable profits.


Oscar’s synthesis of beauty and ideology

Working up until his death, Niemeyerleft a legacy of incredible structures allimbued with a deep sense of humanityfostered by a lifelong membership of theBrazilian Communist Party. Perhaps the greatest summation of the

eternal youthfulness, work and ideals ofNiemeyer can be heard from his oldfriend Fidel Castro at the opening ofNiemeyer’s Museum of ContemporaryArt in Rio in 1999, “Dear Friends, it has

been years since I last saw Niemeyer,but what surprises me is that he looksyounger now than he did then! ... Weremember Michealangelo and the greatpainters of all time, and so we willremember Niemeyer, with the greatestadmiration, for his works and for hisnoble ideas.” Born Oscar Ribeiro de Almeida

Niemeyer Soares Filho in Rio in 1907into a wealthy family of publishers, the

young Oscar had little interest in educa-tion, regularly skipping school to playfootball with his fellow Cariocas. However, after acquiring a passion for

drawing and sketching, Niemeyer soondeveloped an interest in architecture.He graduated in 1934 from the EscolaNacional de Belas Artes in Rio, beforejoining the office of the esteemed Brazil-ian modernist Lucio Costa. Here, Niemeyer worked on a number

of high profile buildings allowing him togain the necessary skills and knowledgeto open his own practice in 1941.Niemeyer’s reputation and repertoire

flourished from this point onwards as he

Oscar’s synthesis ofbeauty and ideologyOOnn DDeecceemmbbeerr 55tthh 22001122,, iinn hhiiss 110044tthh yyeeaarr,, tthhee ggrreeaatt BBrraazziilliiaannaarrcchhiitteecctt aanndd ccoommmmuunniisstt OOssccaarr NNiieemmeeyyeerr ddiieedd..

By JAMES TAIT

Niemeyer at his Palacio doAlvorado, Brasilia 1958; andbelow in his 90s.



designed a range of cultural, residentialand religious buildings both in Brazil andinternationally. In 1956, Niemeyer received probably

his most important commission: todesign the new capital of Brazil, the cityof Brasilia and he chose as his collabora-tor, his old mentor Lucio Costa. Costa was engaged to design the lay-

out and overall plan of the city, whileNiemeyer designed Brasilia’s buildings. Among these were the residence of the

President (Palácio da Alvorada), theNational Congress of Brazil, the Cathe-dral of Brasília (above), and the city’sresidential buildings. These structures exhibited both

Niemeyer’s audacious vision for thisfuturistic new world and his immenseskill in manipulating concrete with all thedexterity and flair of a master sculptor. The design of Brasilia also had strong

socialist principles at its core - all theapartments would be owned by thegovernment and rented to its employees.Brasília did not have "nobler" regions,meaning that top ministers and commonlabourers would share the same building. It would be this combination of beauty

and ideology that would defineNiemeyer’s architectural career.

Throughout his career spanning overseven decades, Niemeyer would win anumber of prestigious architecturalawards including the Pritzker Prize(Founded by the Pritzkers, one of theUSA’s richest families) in 1988 and theRoyal Gold Medal for Architecture fromthe Royal Institute of British Architectsin 1998. It is testament to Niemeyer’s extraor-

dinary talent that he did so while beingan openly passionate and dedicatedcommunist. Following a right wing military coup

in 1964, Niemeyer was forced to fleeBrazil and relocated to Paris. He did notreturn to his native country until 1985when the military dictatorship’s ruleended. Niemeyer’s dedication to thecause of socialism also did not gounnoticed. Awarded the USSR’s Lenin Peace

Prize in 1963, whose recipients includeNelson Mandela, Fidel Castro and PabloPicasso, Niemeyer was also president ofthe Brazilian Communist Party from1992 to 1996.However, Niemeyer’s communist affil-

iations were not simply political, theypervaded his life’s work. His was an ar-chitecture rooted in a deep desire to im-

prove lives through the spaces and struc-tures he created. Speaking of his approach, “I create my

architecture with courage and idealism,but also with an awareness of the factthat what is important is life, friends andattempting to make this unjust world abetter place in which to live.” Much to the chagrin of many of his

critics however, the structures created byNiemeyer were not the typically rectilin-ear, dull concrete ‘commie blocks’ thebourgeois architecture press convinced(and still do) their readers that ‘commu-nist’ or ‘leftist’ architecture was charac-terised by. Oscar’s architecture soared.Niemeyer exploited the properties of

concrete like no other before or since, ina way which allowed his structures toappear almost weightless and ethereal. From the hyperbolic crown of

Brasilia’s Cathedral (above) to the tee-tering off the edge of a cliff Niteroi Con-temporary Art Museum (page 25)almost 40 years later, a common ambi-tion to almost eliminate visible support-ing structure is starkly evident. This ambition to create seemingly

implausible physical forms and internalspaces has facilitated a lifetime ofbuildings both futuristic yet timeless;

The Cathedral of Brasilia, completed in 1970. Composed of hyperboloidconcrete fins and stained glass, perhaps the most famous of Niemeyer’smany religious buildings despite him being an atheist.



numinous yet irreverent. Niemeyer also introduced an almost

primitive sensuality rarely seen in midcentury modernist architecture. Curves dominated his work, facilitated

both by his fertile imagination and theplasticity afforded by his material of choice- concrete. His love of the curve stemmedfrom both the mind and the heart, at onceciting inspiration from the ‘curved uni-verse of Einstein’ and the ‘the curves inthe body of the woman we love.’ In a manipulation of the popular

Modernist maxim that ‘form followsfunction’, coined by American architectLouis Sullivan, Niemeyer instead be-lieved that ‘form follows beauty’ - a typ-ically romantic Latin Americanperspective on the puritanical ethos ofmuch of his contemporaries.Niemeyer’s maverick approach to the

tenets of Modernist architecture inspiredmany to follow in his footsteps. British architect Norman Foster, of

London Gherkin fame, used to pore overNiemeyer’s drawings for inspiration as astudent in the 1960s. Speaking ofNiemeyer, Foster said, “Few architectsin recent history have been able tosummon such a vibrant vocabulary andstructure it into such a brilliantlycommunicative and seductive tectoniclanguage.”One such building which epitomises

the typical Niemeyer synthesis of beautyand ideology is the Communist Partyheadquarters in Paris, completed in 1971. Built in the traditionally working class

19th arrondissement, the undulatingglass curved facade of the main buildingdominate and illuminate an otherwisedrab streetscape of modern apartmentblocks and dilapidated 19th centuryworkers’ houses. The PCF headquarters, in the spirit of

the organisation, also ensure maximumpublic engagement with the creation ofusable public space at its base.Niemeyer’s creation offers a welcomingembrace to its visitors, utterly at oddswith the ‘iron curtain’ cliche employedby the Communist Party’s detractors.It is inside however that this building

excels. Visible as a simple white dome(above) from the outside, the main con-ference hall is a symphony of light andspace internally, defined by a shimmer-ing array of spiralling metal ceiling tileslending an almost baroque, cathedral likecharacter to the main debating chamber. For the PCF’s many delegates,

Niemeyer desired to and succeeded increating an environment which couldcompete with Europe’s grandest andmost opulent cathedrals.It is precisely this dichotomy which

both enthralled Niemeyer’s followers anddetractors in equal measure. For his

followers Niemeyer created structures ofoptimism and hope, rooted in humanityand offering a better future both visuallyand socially to its users. To his detractors Niemeyer’s avant

garde architecture was symbolic of acommunist ideology whose utopianideals were an unattainable pipe dreamdestined for failure. The perfect riposte to this claim was

heard when Brazil's current president,Dilma Rousseff, responded toNiemeyer’s death, quoting his words:"We have to dream, otherwise things donot happen," while adding her owntribute: "Few dreamed so intensely, ormade as many things happen, as he did."Oscar Niemeyer was a hero, not sim-

ply for the legacy of the astonishingbuildings he left behind but equally forthe values which created and radiatefrom those buildings. In a profession increasingly dominated

by press hungry ‘stararchitects’ sellingtheir souls to the latest oil rich state,Niemeyer’s approach is inspirational. As he himself said, “Architecture was

my way of expressing my ideals: to besimple, to create a world equal to every-one, to look at people with optimism,that everyone has a gift. I don’t wantanything but general happiness. Why isthat bad?”. It is not, Oscar; it most certainly is not.

Interior of the Parti Communiste Francais headquarters, Paris.



Nacional Crongress of Brazil,Brasilia, 1960 - which is still theseat of the Brazilian Governmenttoday.

Niteroi Contemporary Art Museum, Rio - 1996.


Famine Roads built by the starving Irish

Boland (pictured) adds, "In 1847, theRelief Committees, coming to Irelandfrom the economic councils of LordTrevelyan and the British government,decided the Irish should work for theirfood. In the simple and most under-stated testament of heartlessness, theyrequired strength of those who hadnone. Where those roads end in thosewoods is where those building themdied."Charles Edward Trevelyan, the Assis-

tant Secretary to Her Majesty's Treas-ury, was the senior civil servantresponsible for administering'famine relief' on behalf of thecolonial authorities. As a syllabus on the Irish

Famine produced for the New Jer-sey Commission on Holocaust andGenocide Education records:“Hefirmly believed in the economicprinciples of laissez-faire, or non-interference by the government.Trevelyan opposed expenditureand raising taxes, advocating self-sufficiency. He was convinced ofMalthus' theory that any attemptto raise the standard of living ofthe poorest section of the popula-tion above subsistence level wouldonly result in increased populationwhich would make mattersworse.”In October 1846, Trevelyan

wrote that the overpopulation ofIreland "being altogether beyondthe power of man, the cure hasbeen applied by the direct strokeof an all-wise Providence in amanner as unexpected and as un-thought of as it is likely to be ef-fectual." Two years later after perhaps a mil-

lion people had died, he wrote, "Thematter is awfully serious, but we are in

the hands of Provi-dence, without apossibility of avert-ing the catastropheif it is to happen.We can only waitthe result." Later that year

Trevelyan declared:"The great evil withwhich we have tocontend is not the physical evil of thefamine, but the moral evil of the selfish,

perverse and turbulent character of thepeople."In 1848 Trevelyan was knighted for

his services in Ireland; he was afterwardsposted to India, where he was appointedas colonial Finance Minister. He wasmade a baronet in 1874.In her article in the Literary Review,

Eavan Boland remarks: “The deliberateawkwardness of the proposition – thatthe science of cartography is limited – isbuilt into the title and the title is the firstline. Why do that? Because I wanted tostart this poem, charged as it was forme, with a deliberate mouthful of rea-son and argument. I wanted to send ittowards the reader the way an educatormight send an account of empire to aclass: announcing acceptable ideas withan illusory logic.”Boland, born in Dublin in 1944,

comes from the Irish establishment, herfather the first Irish ambassadorto Britain and the UN, hermother a well-known artist. Her privileged background did

not, however, insulate her fromanti-Irish prejudice during herchildhood in England, and hasnot softened her anguish at herhistory.Boland's full opening statement

– which incorporates the title –reads: “That the Science of Car-tography is Limited [...] is what Iwish to prove.” The phrasing is legalistic, like

the opening of a court case: That the Science of Cartography IsLimited- and not simply by the fact that thisshading offorest cannot show the fragrance ofbalsam,the gloom of cypresses,is what I wish to prove.The immediate digression after

the dash does what Boland in hercommentary says a map cannotdo ("The poem begins wheremaps fail"), giving us a sensuous

evocation of place. The two descriptive phrases, with

their biblical resonance “the fragrance ofbalsam, the gloom of cypresses” estab-

Famine Roads builtby the starving Irish""TThhee ffaammiinnee rrooaaddss bbeelloonnggeedd ttoo tthhee sseeccoonndd yyeeaarr ooff tthhee IIrriisshhffaammiinnee,,"" ssaayyss tthhee IIrriisshh ppooeett EEaavvaann BBoollaanndd,, ddiissccuussssiinngg hheerrhhaauunnttiinngg ppooeemm,, ''TThhaatt tthhee SScciieennccee ooff CCaarrttooggrraapphhyy IIss LLiimmiitteedd''wwhhiicchh aabboommiinnaatteess tthhee BBrriittiisshh ppoolliiccyy ooff ppuuttttiinngg ssttaarrvviinngg IIrriisshhppeeaassaannttss ttoo wwoorrkk bbuuiillddiinngg rrooaaddss..

By SIMON KORNER

SKIBBEREEN 1847An illustration by the Cork artist, James Mahony (1810-79) for theIllustrated London News.



lish a beautiful imagined world, the lowhumming sounds in “balsam' and'gloom”, and the whispering s's in “fra-grance”, 'balsam' and “cypresses” theopposite of the dry language of argu-mentation. Both balsam and cypresses also carry a

symbolic weight, of healing and death re-spectively.The use of these two different linguis-

tic registers enacts the way facts, as de-fined by the historical victors, can effacea different kind of knowing, that of ex-perience and feeling. In the secondstanza:When you and I were first in love we droveto the borders of Connachtand entered a wood thereThat opening “When” acts like Once

upon a time, taking us into the realm ofstory, and the half-rhyme of “love” and“drove” within the beautifully eveniambic pentameter reinforces this. This feeling of oral narrative is created

also in the very simple verb “entered”without preface or explanation. The lovers enter a kind of selva

oscura – Dante's dark forest – in whichthe Italian poet found himself at the be-ginning of his Inferno, an allegorical set-ting, the wood both literal and of themind, the heart.The stanza break makes the next line:

'Look down you said' happen suddenly,its concise delivery again like an old tale. The historical facts begin with “this

was once a famine road”, though this isnot dry scholarship – the word “once”continues telling a tale, one told counterto the received “truth.” The narrator is being guided, as Dante

was, her own history reinforced for herby her lover. The poem depicts a mo-ment of re-connection with the famine,the caesura acting out the mind inprocess of realization. The looking downis both literal and an inward scrutiny ofher own history:Look down you said: this was once afamine road.I looked down at ivy and the scutch grassrough-cast stone haddisappeared into as you told mein the second winter of their ordeal inShe sees ivy, grass, while the “rough-

cast stone” is immediately swallowed by“disappeared” - positioned at the start ofa line – and seems to recede into the un-dergrowth.The phrase “their ordeal” doesn't spell

out whose ordeal it is – but it's clear bothlovers know, their intimacy demonstratedin this shared knowledge. It is not only aprivate intimacy but an intimate connec-tion between them and the dead, the un-spoken bond of a shared history. Their love is being sealed, as it were,

not by individualistic declarations, but bystanding together in solemn remem-brance. The voice giving the facts speaksplainly, clearly:in the second winter of their ordeal, in1847, when the crop had failed twice,Relief Committees gavethe starving Irish such roads to build.The two “ins” bookending the line:

“in the second winter of their ordeal, in”act as a kind of announcement of thefacts to come. On the page the physicalsymmetry is a kind of restrained, classi-cal portico – with that first “in” givenuncapitalised, deliberately unrhetorical.Though this is low-key, “winter” is emo-tive – as opposed to the neutral word“year”, as is “ordeal”. This is empathichistory, acutely aware of the victims'suffering.

In the three-line section beginning'”1847”, the plain speech eschews music,as though adornment would be inappro-priate here. The line-break erects thedate glaringly at the start of a line, tocommemorate, as if on a tombstone, thedead. The word “gave”, and the imper-sonal “Relief Committees” which do thegiving, are used ironically – the apparentphilanthropy followed by “the starvingIrish.”The poem divides at the line: “Where

they died, there the road ended.” Theline itself has two halves, the second mir-roring the first: “Where” echoed by'”there”; “died” balanced by “ended.”The quietness of this line, standing iso-lated in the text, obliterates any notionof English benevolence. The second part of the poem leans on

That the Science of Cartography Is Limited

That the Science of Cartography Is Limited- and not simply by the fact that this shading offorest cannot show the fragrance of balsam,the gloom of cypresses,is what I wish to prove.When you and I were first in love we droveto the borders of Connachtand entered a wood there.Look down you said: this was once a famine road.I looked down at ivy and the scutch grassrough-cast stone haddisappeared into as you told mein the second winter of their ordeal, in1847, when the crop had failed twice,Relief Committees gavethe starving Irish such roads to build.Where they died, there the road endedand ends still and when I take downthe map of this island, it is never soI can say here isthe masterful, the apt rendering ofthe spherical as flat, noran ingenious design which persuades a curveinto a plane,but to tell myself again thatthe line which says woodland and cries hungerand gives out among sweet pine and cypress,and finds no horizonwill not be there.

from Eavan Boland, In a Time of Violence, Carcanet, 1994



the first. From the moment of epiphany,we move to its effect, which has stayedwith the poet into the present:Where they died, there the road endedand ends still and when I take downthe map of this island, it is never soI can say here isthe masterful, the apt rendering ofthe spherical as flat, noran ingenious design which persuades a curveinto a planeThe picking up of “ended” with “ends

still”, insisting on the past's continuingreverberations, is given added force bythe tumbling forward of the lines'rhythm, the urgent “and when I takedown/the map of this island.”. The griefis live, as with any trauma. The oddtruncation of lines in this second part ofthe poem – “it is never so / I can sayhere is”, for example – fractures thestructure, replicating the incompleteroads. The finely wrought phrases “apt ren-

dering of / the spherical as flat” and“persuades a curve / into a plane” evokecivilization, harmonious intellectual de-velopment, but this gentle rationality(“persuades”) is fatally undermined bythe barbarism of what took place. The narrator has been robbed of any

appreciation of the “masterful” clever-ness it took to map Ireland, and can'never' simply admire it – given the glar-ing omission of the famine roads on the

maps. The smooth face of civilization in-evitably reminds her (“tell myselfagain”) of the lies she must go onenduring. This is why words denoting saying

and telling recur. It's a poem about com-peting narratives; the narrator is tellingherself – being told – a truth against thedominant one. Hence the storytelling elements: stories

being powerful weapons against “fact”',the certainties of imperialism. Themomentum expresses her rage.The stanza break at the end dams up

the cumulative flow, leading to the terri-ble pathos of: the line which says woodland and cries hungerand gives out among sweet pine and cypress,and finds no horizonwill not be there.The final line falls away into nothing-

ness, into death. The tense is future, yetthe fact is always already known, end-lessly erased, the erasure setting off griefin a purgatorial cycle.The crescendo works by means of re-

peated “and”, and by reprising the lostbut never forgotten sensuousness of thestart (“sweet pine and cypress”), whichreminds us of the young love which fromthe outset could not be innocent – butmost powerfully by the opposition of'says' and “cries”, the neutral against theemotive, fact against feeling: “the linewhich says woodland and cries hunger”.

Irish family being evicted. Moyasta, County Clare, circa 1879

The impersonal geographical term“woodland” contrasts with the humanword “hunger.” And all the time inthese final lines the repeated “i” sounds– “line”', “cries”, “pine”, “cypress”,“finds”, “horizon” ring in our ears, seemto cry out.Boland's logical proof of cartography's

limitations is “proven” via personal rev-elation, asserting with righteous angerthe continuing agony of being silenced,of injustice going unrecognised.Eavan Boland's commentary on the

poem begins: “On the wall in front ofmy desk was a map. It was a map of theworld. Or more properly, a map of em-pire. Look what I own it said. See whatyou have lost. “I was certainly aware, long before I

wrote this poem, that the act of map-making is an act of power and that I - asa poet, as a woman and as a witness tothe strange Irish silences which met thatmixture of identities - was more andmore inclined to contest those acts ofpower. “The official version - - and a map is

rarely anything else - - might not be sus-pect as it discovered territories andmarked out destinations. But the factthat these roads, so powerful in theirmeaning and so powerless at their origin,never showed up on any map of Irelandseemed to me then, as it does now, bothemblematic and ironic.”

issn1758-5708 correspondweinter: nfebruaryt2013 …article on the leveson inquiry, it “duly...

Documents