Letters
Making allowances
Dear Editors,
The review of Beyond Capital in the December Socialist Standard deals
with the question of wage determination as affected by the balance of
class forces, there being no automatic passing on of workers' higher
living costs or taxes in higher wage levels. But government's unceasing
tinkering with the social wage in the form of benefits and subsidies
shows that they are very much concerned with their role in maintaining
and trying to regulate such a link.
The role of post-war Family Allowances in
influencing wage levels is well known to Socialist Standard readers
over the years. Rent control, introduced to prevent a wage explosion in
the first world war, is another example.
More recently government has openly acknowledged
Family Credits to be a top-up for low wages. Junior Employment Minister
in the 1994 Conservative government, Philip Oppenheim, was reported as
saying (Observer 28 August 1994):
“Employers cannot be expected to have regard to the family commitments
of each of their employees. This must be the role of the tax and
benefit system, which ensured that households have sufficient income
upon which to live. That is why we introduced Family Credits and other
benefits for lower-paid employees with a family to support. It would
make no sense to outlaw every job which did not pay wages high enough
to support a family.”
At the time now Deputy Prime Minister Prescott criticised the
Conservative Party policy of this topping-up low wages, saying, “Family
Credit is now part of wage negotiations”, encouraging low pay.
What is surprising is not Prescott's tacit admission
of his earlier ignorance of the purpose of much social welfare
legislation, but the Conservative Party's frankness in acknowledging
the purpose of such “benefits” as being government policy in their
attempts to regulate wage or, certainly income levels for the low-paid.
It is a case of government being compelled to throw
its weight in the balance of class forces mentioned in the review, in
order to maintain competitiveness and profitability of the national
economy. Seen as a necessary response to capitalism's compulsions and
priorities, political and economic, it might well be considered
“automatic”.
BILL ROBERTSON, Brighton
Dear Editors,
Now that the RMT has been expelled from the Labour Party, the party
they helped found 100 years ago, I wonder how long it will be before
they are expelled again if the Scottish Socialist Party develop into a
total British party whose reformist policies will no doubt evolve into
what the Labour Party practice, as any other party who promises to
manager Big Business.
JOE BOUGHEY, Newton-le-willows,
Merseyside
Dear Editors,
Further to the obituary published in
the February Socialist Standard, I have received the following story
from one of Alec's friends in Johannesburg:
"During the apartheid era he (Alec) was visited on many occasions by
the 'Special Branch'. Alec had an enormous picture of Karl Marx on the
wall and when asked by one of these detectives 'Who's that man?', he
quite blandly said it was Johannes Brahms. Fortunately they believed
him!"
I would have included this in the obituary if I'd had this story at the
time
of writing!
PHYLLIS HART, Westerham, Kent
return to
homepage
