Letters

Talent

I enjoyed Marc Mulholland’s survey of socialist pronouncements on talent and the relation of individual skill to the education and opportunity available in society (‘The problem of unequal abilities’, February 11). It’s not about whether you have to pay people: it’s the gap between some salaries and the majority.

Of course, apologists for the remuneration gap tend to fall back on the market - that great objective arbiter of how much you get: this manager’s salary is the market rate, such-and-such knew what the market wanted, so-and-so read the market correctly and the market has recompensed them.

But is that how it actually works? How many people believe wholly in the market? Would Cameron declare that, if a Syrian could supply a service better or even just cheaper, the job should go to them rather than a British candidate? It would be political suicide for him to believe in the free market to that extent.

One entrepreneur hero of our time is the late Steve Jobs. Without him there would be no Apple computer, right? He created Apple. That was his talent - he is famous for it.

Some may have heard of another Steve - Steve Wozniak. He designed video games and what became the Apple I computer. His friend, Jobs, however, got a position with Atari, when Atari thought that Jobs had invented Wozniak’s game. Wozniak then invented an arcade computer game, but Jobs was paid for that too, though he gave Wozniak a cut. They set up Apple and poached some people to be executives. In 1984 Apple Co introduced the Macintosh and put out a commercial during the 1985 Super Bowl. Jobs had already started wearing black turtleneck jumpers and had bought a Manhattan apartment. Well, you get the idea. Maybe Jobs was more plausible.

What if either of the Steves had been Ugandan? Would they have got to the US to start their company? Or would they have failed like that Syrian that Cameron will not support? What about the input and influence of American education and investment in technology? (Most 20th century inventions are American.) What about the banks, the local ‘skills’ in advertising and marketing, not to mention the mega economic base of California?

Human beings aren’t Robinson Crusoe, as Marx pointed out, totally creating their world with just a few inherited objects and unassisted, for a long time, by anyone else. We’re not free as demons or hard-wired like robots, but ‘polytechnic workers’ (to use Marc’s and Marx’s phrase) - companionable, flexible and improvising within structures. Most of us are in fact smoothing the work of institutions that don’t always run as they should on paper. Survival depends on it.

In history rather than myth, natural talent counts for 30%, ‘society’ for 70%. That’s not good enough to justify paying anyone crap wages and a few staff officers millions.

Mike Belbin
email

Morons

“Should socialists aim to offer incentives to the ‘gifted and talented’?”

Even posing the question - which is ludicrous, by the way - shows that the CPGB has a fair share of ‘middle class’ morons in the party (I associate ‘middle class’ and ‘moron’ together). The question is rooted in racialism and the ideas of the colonial occupiers, who view the people as inferior and themselves as superior. It shouldn’t be posed in a socialist publication - even posing it indicates racialist attitudes. It’s a question beloved by American white supremacists, who see the African-American people as inferior. It’s a false, loaded and insulting question, based on a wrong proposition.

The human race is an intelligent species by its very nature. Dividing the human race is fundamental to capitalist rule. It’s a sign of human crisis. We must integrate or be wiped out by war. Any education system that divides people isn’t an education system at all. We need a comprehensive system of education. We must unite the human race. That’s what socialism is all about.

Elijah Traven
Hull

Euro-democracy

The European Union is a bureaucratic semi-state built by the European ruling classes to further their interests within Europe and compete more effectively with the US, China, Japan, India, Russia and Brazil, etc in the world market. The development of Euro-capital has gone furthest in 19 of the 28 EU states in the euro zone.

The EU, and even more the euro zone, is thus divided ever more sharply into Euro-capital and Euro-democracy: in other words, the blood-sucking vampires and the working people of Europe. If Euro-capital is now more highly integrated than ever, it has exposed the fact that Euro-democracy is lagging way behind. There is a massive democratic deficit, which gives free range to the criminals and the vampire classes.

Euro-democracy is an expression of the collective power of working people across Europe. It resides in the democratic struggles of the people, not in the European parliament - a creature set up and controlled by the European Commission on behalf of Euro-capital, much like the British crown controls what goes on in the Palace of Westminster.

In this respect ‘little Britain’ is among the most backward and conservative parts of the EU. The British crown is outside the euro and remains determined to steer clear of any Euro-democracy which might threaten the City of London - the blood banks where the world’s vampires store their surplus supplies.

The UK’s European referendum is no more than an opportunity for the crown to extract more concessions for the City, whilst promoting its anti-working class, racist, neoliberal agenda. It is not enough, however, to say that the working class should not vote in any way to endorse Cameron’s dirty little deal.

The referendum is an opportunity for the City and the big corporations to gain more profits in a gamble that Cameron can win a ‘remain’ majority. Gambling and fixing the result is what they are experts at. But it is equally an opportunity for European democracy to take a step forward by winning support and mobilising for a programme for a European democratic revolution.

The programme of a European social republic has not been agreed by the progressive working class, socialist and environmentalist forces across the EU. That shows how weak we are. But we can say that the programme of democratic revolution must stand for a democratic and federal social republic. It must contain the constitutional right of nations to self-determination.

The right to self-determination does not exist in the EU. It is in the hands of the European ruling classes, not the English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Greek or Portuguese people. European national self-determination would certainly make it impossible for English votes to force Scotland out of the EU. Indeed it would spell the end of the ‘little Britain’ union which has been rendered obsolete by the EU.

The British unionists must stand for an exit. It is the only logical position against the threat to the UK from a European democratic revolution. Most of the ‘little Britain’ left do not understand or support the constitutional-legal right to self-determination. They have been incapable of recognising the distinction between self-determination and their own ruling classes opportunistically granting a referendum, as they did for Scotland in 2014 and now over the EU.

The programme of a European social republic and democratic (or working people’s) revolution is not, however, limited to European-level democratic mobilisations and, for example, calls for a European constituent assembly. The Greek people do not have to wait for the rest of us. We don’t have to wait for Holland, Spain, Belgium, etc to abolish the remnants of the European monarchies. We can do our bit in the UK.

The European democratic revolution is not a crude, simultaneous event, but a combined and uneven process. It does not contradict the Greek, Spanish or UK democratic revolutions. On the contrary, a democratic revolution in the backwater of ‘little Britain’ would not merely catch up, but become the vanguard of democratic revolution across the continent.

So abolishing the monarchy, House of Lords and the Acts of Union, which would mark the beginning of democratic revolution in the UK, are not separate from, but part of, the European revolution. Whether England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland take the lead, working people would have to reach out to democratic allies in the rest of Europe.

The UK Independence Party is absolutely right that the conservative programme of defending the British union is for keeping control of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and leaving the EU. Voting ‘no’ in the Scottish referendum and voting for exit from the EU go together. But if you are the City of London, then voting ‘no’ for Scotland and ‘remain’ in the EU makes perfect sense.

Steve Freeman
Left Unity and Rise

Garbled guff

The Socialist Party continues its long-running anti-EU stance. There is all the usual garbled guff about a ‘bosses’ club’, which, of course, it is - any countries cooperating under capitalism are a bosses’ club. But would a separated UK be any less imperialist?

There is a case to be made that Britain outside the EU would be a lot nastier, with a ‘leave’ result riding on a storm of xenophobic and particularly anti-migrant feeling, and a Tory government forced both to reflect that and to carve out a new political and economic niche in the world. Little Englanders looking to a renewed ‘Great’ Britain. That would be a definite defeat for the working class, for migrants, for internationalism and for socialist ideas.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is an issue that has been seized on in particular by ‘the left’, but the arguments around this are spectacularly specious. The narrative is: TTIP is anti-working class (true), and therefore we oppose it; it is being negotiated with the EU, which is likely to accept it (true), and therefore we oppose the EU. This conclusion seems logical, but it would have been laughed out of court by the ancient Greeks, who developed rules of logic and debate.

Let’s think about this. Britain has a pro-TTIP Tory government. At the moment TTIP has to get the agreement of many nations. If Britain leaves the EU, what is to stop a direct negotiation on TTIP, and might that actually be quite easy to achieve? Oh shit!

Lana Zhet
Teesside

Undecided

I am still undecided about the ‘correct’ way to vote. But, as I look around for answers, I was struck by the op-ed piece in The Guardian of February 17, which is for ‘in’. Their cogent argument is that voting ‘out’ means that we are then left with, even if not allied with, the rabid-fantasist imperial xenophobes.

But they point out that continued EU membership is necessary because: “Labour’s pro-European case is based on big strategic progressive pillars - including shared security against climate change and crime, cross-border solidarity among peoples and making the best use of Europe’s collective strength in the world.”

I read that to mean that they see a sort of inter-imperialist (or should that be ultra-imperialist?) fantasy, where Germany, France and the UK could submerge their rivalry enough to compete with the US, Russia, China, etc more effectively. Quite what “cross-border solidarity” is supposed to mean, apart from Fortress Europe, god knows.

So, it is important in my opinion to take seriously - ie, analytically, but not knee-jerk reflexively - what a ‘bosses’ club’ means in terms of total effect. We are going into a more intense period of inter-imperialist rivalry. Quite how this translates for revolutionary communists into a strategy, and what is to be our agitation and propaganda, I wish I knew.

A United Socialist States of Europe? Just how Euro-centric is that, at a moment when China is being scapegoated? There are calls for import controls across Europe, while Chinese steelworkers are being put out of work faster than European ones! So what do we call for? Not ‘Save our steel’, which pits Europe’s workers in affected industries against workers across the globe, whose conditions are equally disastrous.

I realise that I am not providing anything but questions, but too many current ‘answers’ are formulaic and fail to address the global crisis of economies and working class organisation. More discussion before a June referendum is very necessary.

Tom Richardson
Middlesbrough

Same here

Irrespective of our political differences with the CPGB, we welcome its stand on the issue of the EU referendum. Like the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency in Britain and its international comrades, you refuse to support either continuing membership in the imperialist EU or British national imperialism.

The British supporters of the RCIT have taken a similar stand, as we outlined last August in a relevant resolution, as well as in an extensive essay (‘Boycott Cameron’s trap: neither Brussels nor Downing Street! For abstention in Britain’s EU Referendum!’ and ‘The British left and the EU referendum: the many faces of pro-UK or pro-EU social-imperialism’).

In fact, it is a shame that most of the British left either support critically (or not so critically) the ‘little Britain’ option (eg, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party in England and Wales) or the pro-EU option (Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Workers Power). They fail to take an independent, internationalist working class stand on such a crucial issue. In the past, when Workers Power was still a revolutionary organisation, it had the same position as the RCIT Britain and the CPGB have today.

However, it will be crucial this year, with the upcoming referendum, to help the working class in Britain to take a viewpoint based on the principle of class independence.

Laurence Humphries
RCIT

Surreal NHS

My partner works full-time as a highly motivated, conscientious and entirely dedicated hospital nurse, as she has done for the past 25 years. When originally deciding to become a nurse and subsequently when achieving her qualifications to do so, alongside her fundamental wish to care for patients, she was equally drawn by the ethos and social principles of working within the NHS (indeed, as were the vast majority of her nursing student colleagues).

As part of her professional conscientiousness, my partner has made sure to engage in ‘lifelong learning’: in other words, kept herself fully abreast of developments in both medical knowledge and practice - just this year upgrading her nursing degree to full ‘honours’ status.

Running along in the background of this tale is the fact that, about four years ago, my partner was obliged to transfer from her NHS contract of employment to a new set-up, where she was employed by a ‘community interest company’. Generally applying to all those working in community healthcare, the thinking behind this process originated during the era of - and thus under the auspices and via the policies of - Tony Blair’s New Labour, when introducing what they called their ‘Agenda for Change’ within the NHS.

In December 2015, my partner’s reluctantly accepted but duly imposed CIC employer announced that it had decided not to apply to renew (in April 2016) its own five-year contract with the regional primary health authority and local GP doctors’ clinical commissioning group, as it “cannot do so on a viable basis in the current financial climate”.

Very recently, at a time when my partner was signed off on a short period of GP-sanctioned sickness leave, she was phoned at home on several occasions either by her ward sister or matron, specifically in order to ‘check on her progress’ and urge her to “return to work as soon as possible” (I quote exactly).

That pestering and coercion eventually culminated in a phone call from her direct line manager, the ward sister, who resorted to shouting and issuing only half-veiled threats about my partner’s security of employment - all as part of what, in effect, were attempts to bully her back to work. (All members of staff are expected to adhere to a guideline ‘scale of points’ for time taken off work due to illness - again a practice introduced as part of their ‘Agenda for Change’/Wal-Mart-style terms and conditions.)

As such, the incident I’m outlining and indeed the behaviour on the part of the ward’s ‘medical management’ is explained (but, of course, not excused) by the existence of quite extreme staff shortages at the hospital concerned. That problem largely being caused by recurring sickness amongst my partner’s colleagues, running in parallel with many months of both the NHS centrally as well as my partner’s local CIC having introduced an official policy of strongly discouraging, or even flatly not allowing, the operational frontline of any hospital to call upon either commercial agency or NHS ‘bank’ workers to fill any resultant gaps.

Following my partner’s eventual return to work, very sensibly she made an official complaint in writing to her employer, the CIC, about what she herself described to them as “the appalling and disgraceful treatment and moreover the demoralising disrespect” she had received. She has now received a formal apology of sorts, albeit couched in a variety of Harvard Business School ‘newspeak’.

And what about the likely knock-on detrimental effects upon the health and welfare of those now indefinitely short-staffed team of specialist community nurses, healthcare assistants and indeed management - all due to their additional workload and resultant stress? Those nothing but honourable and decent folk who had been expecting the arrival of my partner as a new (and in fact replacement) colleague and, by precisely the same token, those with whom she’d hoped to share both her valuable qualities and proven professional abilities.

And so it goes on, as dictated by the current methods and principles and socio-political motivations-cum-machinations that lie behind the structuring and financing of our UK healthcare system. Maybe running it into the ground is part of its eventually even more extensive/neo-con planned privatisation?

Bruno Kretzschmar
email