PANIC STRIFE AND SCANDAL ROCK RULING CLASS

During the period of eco. nomic boom' up mid-1960s, the British ruling class stood shoulder - to - shoulder exuding Smugness and piety.

Fortunes in paper money were made based on the roaring supremacy of the dollar. The agreement at Bretton Woods had set in motion an inflationary programme to restore capitalism in western Europe and to buy off the resurgent militancy of the working class following the As a direct consequence of the economic climate a new generation of speculators and financial whizz-kids came on the scene. By the end of the 1960s they had elbowed out the more sober aristocrats of industry who had built their empires on the cast-iron law that real value came out of the backs of workers.

The new boys had no stomach for class warfare when their fortunes could simply be made by a 'rip off' on the Stock Exchange or in a property transaction.

But like their fathers and grandfathers they adopted attitude that their system was inviolate, that their posi was unchallengeable.

Some embarrassments disagreements did arise. The collapse of one or two big companies — Rolls Razor, for example-and the unfortunate scenes involving Mr John Profumo and Miss Christine Keeler were sent to try them. There were some trivial arguments about 'Macmillanism' the dreaded theory that old Harold was some kind of creeping lefty.

But these 'minor' issues were weathered with reasonable equanimity. The Tory Press, the City of London, the Tories at Westminster, the Confederation of British Industry, stood like a self-approving edifice in which never a cross word was spoken.

The economic crisis has changed all that. Scarcely a day goes by when there is not some open recrimination between one section of the ruling class and another. Michael Clapham, the CBI president, was recently caught sniping at the government's economic forecasts; the chairmanship of the 1922 committee, the influential backbench committee of the Tory Party, has been captured by a well-known critic of the Heath leadership, Edward du Cann, head of merchant bankers, Keyser Ullman; when Robert Carr presented new immigration regulations to the House of Commons last month he was resoundingly defeated by a big abstention from among his own supporters; during the two recent by-elections local Tories openly backed more extreme rightwing candidates; sections of the Tory Press have started to criticize Heath's style of government and call for much tougher action against the working class.

The depth of the economic crisis and the resistance of the working class is driving double-edged blade into the ribs of the ruling class.

The predominating mood in these circles is, inevitably, a big shift to the right. In their blindly desperate attempt to hold on to profits, the leaders of big business want the government to unleash an all-out attack on the working class.

They have the deepest misgivings about the way Heath settled the miners' strike and they feel the release of the five dockers from Pentonville was also a 'capitulation' A BLOODY NOSE It would have su ited the ruling class to have inflicted a major defeat on the working class prior to entry into the But whenever they attempted a confrontation this year-the miners, the railwaymen, the dockers and now the engineers - the working class gave Heath a bloody nose. He was forced, therefore, to seek what amounted to 'bureaucratic means temporarily to rescue the economic situation.

eL- Anatad in july tne pouna was uvaltu, which effectively meant a steady devaluation.

But instead of alleviating the economic and political crisis, Heath only intensified it.

He will proceed into the Common Market in just over a week's time with a sick currency and an undefeated and militant working class.

It is against this national background and the continuing world inflationary crisis that the rankling in the ruling class must be viewed. Workers Press has compiled a series of viewpoints which are beginning to emerge in these circles.

These people aren't pussyfooting anymore. They want a showdown with the trade unions and the use of the police and the army is freely mentioned. "The Director', the monthly magazine of the Institute of Directors, has just published the results of a survey carried out among 3,000 directors.

The answers reflect the growing disenchantment with Heath's policies. Asked if the government had abandoned its original economic objectives, 70 per cent of them replied 'Yes'.

Nigel Broackes, head of Trafalgar Investments and a close collaborator with the financial wing of the party, had no hesitation in saying: 'One criticizes the new policies, the over-late acceptance of their necessity, and the consequent haste with which they were introduced - particularly the indiscriminate subsidies to British shipyards, which seemed ridiculous in their form.' Mr J. Martin Ritchie, head of the Bowater group, the largest newsprint company in the world (which, incidentally Broackes was recently trying to take over) said: 'The present government have abandoned the principles under which they were elected with the result that we are now in a period of roaring inflation and the present initiative is unlikely to succeed as long as it is on a voluntary basis.' Other respondents to 'The Director's' questionnaire preferred to remain anonymous. The chief executive of a leisure grauted so attack the guar wanted to attack the govern.

ment's "shilly shally to the left'.

Mr J. O. Blair-Cunynghame, chairman of the National and Commercial Banking group, urged state control over wages: I would wholly agree with the philosophy recently expounded by Mr Maudling in an article in "The Times" which emphasizes the nature of the profound social revolution which has been taking place during the last decade and is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.' Party because we are led to believe that it is a party which supports free enterprise. In the main I think that this is still true...

But what an astonishing equivocation! He says they were 'led to believe' that the Tories would look after their interests. Now they're not so sure. Perhaps Bowaters may be inclined to put money into some other political formation which could possibly deliver the goods — that is the only conclusion to draw from his candidates to Heath. He was not an aristocrat, he wasn't even a major figure in the financial or industrial establishment. He was a bachelor organ-player from Broadstairs —which doesn't count much with the Berry family.

It was inevitable, however, that once he was elected the "Telegraph' would give the leader unbridled support. This has been forthcoming until the past few weeks-since, in fact, the results of the Sutton and Cheam by-election. Sured, le the goverament prebared?

He opened by stating: Sinc the defeat of the Genera Strike in 1926 it has beel almost an axiom of trade unio union leadership that an oper trial of strength with the gov ernment was to be avoided a almost any cost. This did no preclude, of course, strikes il the public sector with the gov ernment as employer.

It meant that the govern ment's ultimate authorit should not be challenged b the unions. In present circum stances, however, this can b December But let us see what else Mr Harrington sees in the crystal ball of the bourgeoisie.

Harrington points out that the ruling class put in eight years of patient planning to defeat the 1926 General Strike. He goes on:

'Defeating a General Strike consists, essentially, in keeping the community going somehow or other without the work done by the men on strike, and being able to do so indefinitely. In 1926 there was a vast reservoir of volunteer middle class labour, particularly students, on which the government could draw? Would this help be forthcoming in 1973? On the face of it, it seems a bit unlikely, particularly so far as the students are concerned.

"Which means that the government would have to rely on the instruments of public force: the police and the army. The crunch could occur when the government, faced with a strike in an essential public service, in support of a wage demand above the "norm" decided to use troops to keep the service going, and ordered the police to take very vigorous action to deal with obstructive picketing.

'Even if the TUC avoided a General Strike call, enough unions would probably come out in sympathy to confront ine government WItn some- AL - -•AR --—thing indistinguishable from it. Apart from anything else, there would be a serious risk of public violence on a large scale. It is most unlikely that police and strikers would play football matches with each other' Where do the revisionists and Stalinists stand in relatior to this scenario which is roughly what the Workers Press has been saying since this crisis-ridden government took office?

The 'Red Mole' is buried deep in its hole of confusion while the 'Morning Star' attempts might and main to pursue its policy of 'pressure on the government' to gain some kind of mythical reforms.

There are no possible reforms: there are no possible compromises. By suggesting that there is a way out the Stalinists, who are tailended