International Marxist Group Archive

Magazines, bulletins and booklets of the IMG and its forerunners, 1961–1984

A Caveat by Syd Hill

The Week Vol. 3, No. 3, 20 January 1965 · p. 4 of the scan · 221 words

The scan: The Week v3 no3.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Tesseract OCR) from a scan of a stencilled typescript and has not been corrected. Expect misread words; titles in particular are often garbled where the issue printed no contents list. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: capitals heading; heuristic; title from the OCR of the heading.

it is to assist in breaking down the class structure—it must redistribute the nation’s wealth. The degree of priority given to community needs over private profit-making must therefore be demonstrated by an expansion of the public services. And this in turn must be reflected in the wage packets of the workers in those services. These are the kind of standards our Union will apply as it examines the details of an incomes policy as they emerge in the coming months. The degree of enthusiasm we accord that policy will depend on how far it satisfies those standards.” The fact that public employees’ wages are frequently scandalous, even in cases where they are working under Labour controlled authorities, is only one of the results of the ideas of ‘mixed economy’ which dominate too many people in the Labour Movement. Instead of using the public sector to make the economic pace, to undermine the private sector, and to advance the interests of labour, it is held back as a sort of perpetual Cinderella, or handmaiden to the capitalist order of things. Both local enterprise and the nationalised industries should set the standards of employment in our country, taxing private industry in order to do so. If incomes policies are not prepared to move in this direction, they are certainly unworthy of support.

ei)

← Young Socialist RallyDare We Disarm ? →

Something wrong on this page?