fabian tract 402 

the new politics:

a socialist reconnaissance 


contents 1 introduction 1 
2 interdependence, complexity 
and centralisation 4 
3 decentralisation and the 
4 
emergence of the new citizen 
towards new objectives 
7 
11 


this pamphlet, like all publications of the Fabian Society, 
represents not the collective view of the Society but only the 
view of the individual who prepared it, who in this case · 
hopes it will be considered as a basis for discussion. The 
responsibility of the Society is limited to approving the 
publications which it issues as worthy of consideration 
within the Labour movement. Fabian Society, 11 Dart


mouth Street, London SW1 . 

September, 1970 SBN 7163 0402 3 


introduction 

rhis pamphlet is a reconnaissance of 
;orne of the issues, arising from indusrial 
and technical change, which may be 
noving into the centre of politics in the 
1eventies; and it suggests ways in which 
L socialist party working within the 
imits of democratic consent might ap


'Jroach them. It does not seek to spell 
>ut detailed policies. 

:>arliamentary democracy and the party 
1ystem have in recent years, been criti:
ized not only for their inability to solve 
:orne of our problems but also for their 
'allure to reflect others adequately. It is 
wt sufficient to congratulate ourselves 
m having avoided some of the tragedies 
lhat have beset other countries. We 
, :annot be so very certain, as events in 
Jlster have proved, that we shaH be able 

o cope with human and communityensions better than anyone else has 
lone. 
t is not only some members of the 
mbJiic who are disenchanted. There are 
>eople inside active politics, of whom I 
tm one, who have long begun to feel 
measy, and to believe that the alienaion 
of Parliament from the people:onstituted a genuine cause for concern. 

,olitical debates concentrating on 
conomic and other management issues 

•etween government and oppositionWhether Labour or Conservative) someimes 
appear to blank out everything 
lse, especially on the mass media, 
vhile a number of other issues are not 
ufficiently discussed because they have 
tot been fitted into the current pattern 
,f political debate. 
:ince the war the underlying problems 

•f Britain's economic performance have 
, 
•ccupied a central position in all poliical 
argument and government com


•etence in handling them has been 
egarded as of over-riding importance. 
loth parties believed they would have 
been assured of election, or re-election, 
at any time if they could have demonstrated 
their ability to produce a 
balance of payments surplus, a steady 
rate of growth, fu].] employment and 
sta:ble prices all at the same time. Both 
Conservative and Labour Governments 
believe they have been defeated, in turn 
for failing to perform this quadruple 
feat. The Treasury dominates British 
government because the nation allows 
economics to dominate British politics. 
Even the proposal for Britain's admission 
to the EEC followed from the fact 
that each party, in turn, has been 
driven, somewhat reluctantly, to the 
·belief that it was only through a 
" merger " with ~he Six, that Britain 
could hope to esca;pe fn~m its economic 
straitjacket. This -more than the 
political inspiration of a wider Europe 
which has played a s·ignificant part in 
winning continental support for the 
Treaty of Rome-has been the basis on 
which our approach to the Common 
Market has been generally recommended 
to the British people. The idea 
of finding a new role in Europe after 
the loss of empire has been secondary 
in public debate. 

The public have been assumed by the 
strategists on both sides to be moved byeconomic arguments above all others. 

Important as these issues are, and will 
continue to be, they are not the only 
ones that matter, and the public may 
have sensed t.his more quickly than the 
political parties. Fewer people now 
really believe that the problems of our 
society can be solved simply by voting 
for a Government every four or five 
years. More people want to do more for 
themselves, and believe they are capable 
of doing so, if the conditions could only 
be created that would make this 
possible. 

If the Labour party could see in this 


rising tide of opinion a new expression 
of grass roots socialism, then it might 
renew itself and move nearer to the 
time when it is seen as the natural 
Government of a more fully self-
governing society. Unless we succeed in 
doing this there is a danger that the 
Labour Party might get bogged down in 
stylized responses and fail to attract the 
support of those, especialiy among the 
young, who want to see more real 
choices in politics, and less of a personal 
contest between alternative management 
teams. 

By contrast, some conservative criticism 
of the present system appeals to those 
who have become disenchanted because 
they believe that democracy, as it is 
developing, acts as a break on the 
managerial imperatives of modern 
society, and that what is needed is the 
exercise of additional authority to direct 
the nation towards the more rapid and 
efficient aChievement of its national 
economic objectives, set from the top. 
These two views about the role of 
government in relation to the people 
are only the latest expression of a 
philosophical difference that has existed 
since the 'birth of the Labour movement, 
and they throw light on a whole host of 
other issues, such as taxation, education, 
industrial policy, industrial relations and 
the degree of participation that workers 
and students and others should be 
allowed. 

If we want to make the Labour party 
more relevant, we must, as socialists 
begin with an ana'lysis of the underlying 
changes which are now taking place in 
our industrial system. 

Karl Marx, in Das Kapital, wrote : 
" Technology discloses man's mode of 
dealing with nature, the process of production 
by which 'he sustains his life and 
thereby lays bare the mode of format•ion 
of his social relations and the mental 

conceptions that flow from them." This 
view, which has •been amply confirmed 
by subsequent experience, provides a 
convenient starting point. 

We can safely leave aside the scientific 
principles that have made technological 
ad vance possible and confine our atten6on 
to the result of their application. It 
is not how modern technology works 
that concerns us, as citizens, but what 
effect it has had on life. It is the development 
of power in this, third, industrial 
revolution that has fundamentallyaffected the lives and long-term prospects 
of mankind and has helped to 
trigger off some of the most important 
political movements of our time. 

Professor Buckminster Fuller, has 
defined technology as meaning a 
capacity to get " more out of less " and 
if we try to quantify the advances technology 
has made in the last fifty years, 
in terms of sheer machine capabil'ity, we 
can get an idea of the pace of that 
change, and what it has meant. 

In 1920 an aircraft flew at 100 miles per 
hour for the first time; in 1945 the first 
jet passed the sound barrier at just about 
700 miles per hour; today a spacecraft 
moves at 25,000 miles per hour. 

In 1920 the most lethal instrument of 
destruction was the bomb or machine 
gun that could kill a few 'hundred if 
aimed at a cohesive human target ; in 
1945 two hundred thousand people died 
at Hirosh'ima from a primit·ive atom . 
bomlb ; today up -to eight million people 
could be kil•led outright and millions 
more injured by radiation i£ a singlehydrogen bomb landed in the middle of 
London, New York or Tokyo. 

In 1920 the fastest calculations were 
made on a mechanical adding machine. 
Even 'in 1945 there were no computers 
in use ; in 1970 the •latest generation of 


computers can perform a miHion calculations 
a second. 

[n 1920 radio was in its infancy ; in 
1945 there were only 60,000 television 
sets in use in Brita•in and no international 
links for it ; in the summer of 
1969 1,000 milJiion people world-wide 
>aw and heard Neil Armstrong step 
:iown the ladder on to the surface of 
the moon. 

This is the scaoJe of power the world is 
now attempting to cope with, usinginstitutions that were largely devised 
before this power reached its present 
level. In this country our parliamentary, 
political party, civil service, trade union, 
~ducational and legal systems, all of 
them now under stress, were developed 
at a time when the machine capa,bility 
was infinitesimal compared with what it 

I· 
is today. Many of our problems stem 
from institutional obsolescence. We live 
:it a time in history when both the 
personal and collective material options 
open to us, and the expectations we 
have, are far greater than ever before. 
Yet a large number of people feel that 
they have progressively less say over 
the events that shape their lives, because 
the system, however it is defined, is too 
strong for them. 

Many of the socia-l tensions in Britain 
which we are now struggling to resolve 
actually derive from this feeling of 
waning influence. It is impossible to 
believe that the only liberation required 
:.:an be achieved, as conservatives suggest, 
by freeing a few thousand entrens 
preneurs from some government interle 
ference and providing them with higher 
of material incentives by cutting personal 
levels of taxation. Nor can public) Wnership, economic planning and improved 
and more egalitarian social 
services, essentia•l as all these are in providing 
the basis for further advance, 
1lone provide the answer. There must 

be further fundamental changes to 
liberate people and allow them to lead 
fuller and more satisfying lives. 

The process of re-equipment of the 
human race with an entirely new set of 
tools, for that is what has happened, has 
produced two trends-the one towards 
interdependence, complexity and centralisation 
requiring infinitely greaterskil·ls in the management of largesystems than we have so far been able 
to achieve-the other, going on simultaneously, 
and for the same reasons, 
towards grealer decentraJization and 
human independence, requiring us to 
look again at the role of the indiv'idua.J, 
the new citizen, and his place in the 
community. 

It is to a brief account of these two 
trends that I now want to turn, in order 
to see both how to improve the complex 
systems we need and to gain effective 
control over the human ends they serve. 
Without a socialist framework of 
analysis we cannot relate the industrial, 
human and political factors to each 
other. 


2. interdependence,
complexity and centralisatio 
The growth of machine capability in 
all advanced societies whether capitalist 
or communist, has been made 
possible by the adoption of techniques 
of production which have allowed a 
degree of specialisation of labour only 
attainable in very large units. HenryFord's revolution has now spread 
world-wide and no nation w1shing 
to industrialise and raise its living 
standards, and no firm competing for 
markets, has been able to avoid following 
the same pattern of production. 
With the arrival of true automation the 
scale of production has increased still 
rurther and the optimum return on investment 
in research, manufacturing 
and marketmg is now only possible 
when the whole process can be keptnear its c~pacity. 

This is one of the factors which has 
contributed to the growth of the big 
firm within nations and the multinational 
corporations which now span 
the world, crossing frontiers as if theydid not exist and building up an annual 
turnover that in many cases 
exceeds the national budgets of even 
major industrial countries. General 
Motors, vhe greatest multi-national of 
them all, has a turnover in excess, 
in money terms, of the Japanesenational budget, and it is growing more 
rapidly. The multi-nationals operating 
in Britain have achieved a higher rate 
of growth, and of exports, than the 
national average-partly because of 
their world-wide operations and partly 
because they are operating in those 
areas of new technology which are expanding 
fastest for that very reason. 

It is widely assumed that the dominance 
of the multi-nationals will continue 
and will be extended in the yearsahead. These are the very firms that 
generate most new technology, use new 
technology and control new technology. 
They will almost certainly em


ploy more and more people by growth 
and take-over and will increasingly be 
making their key investment, research 
and design decisions on a global scale 
to gain the benefits of low labour costs 
and good industrial relations in one 
country, high skill content in another, 
good market prospects in a third, and 
advantageous tax measures wherever 
they exist. 

If the framework of control can be gotright and this will certain'ly require the 
development of effective international 
trades unions, these companies can 
act as major elements in developing 
industrialised societies more 
quickly, or in permitting the more 
rapid take-off of the under-developed 
areas of the world. Without a framework 
of political control they could, almost 
literally, take over the world. 

But it is not only the ownership and 
top management that are tending to 
become centralised. The whole system 
of world trade has become infinitely 
more complex and the economic 
prospects of every nation are now 
intimately interwoven together by a 
fabric whose threads include patents 
and royalties for inventions and production 
technology ; managementskills that may come from abroad and 
the indivisibihty of the market-quite 
apart .firom the earlier international 
links reflected by foreign share ownership 
or the influence of bankers in Wall 
Street, ~he City of London or Zurich. 

Seen as a political phenomenon these 
tendencies represent the emergence of 
an entirely new type of economic organism, 
more akin to the chartered 
company of the first Elizabethan era 
and later, than to the early type of 
capitalist firm that emerged in the 
nineteenth century as a result of the 
adoption of laisser faire economics. 
They also represent a new source of 


real power no longer anchored to the 
geography of a particular nation state, 
:md greater than many states. For the 
people who work for the multinationals 
the problem is one of remoteness 
from the centre of authority in 
-::>rganisations whose real managers they 
might never meet in a lifetime of service 
within the vast bureaucracy of the 

firm. 

Another aspect of this centralisation, 
.::omplexity and interdependence which 
also stems from technological development 
arises in the military field. Military 
technology-its power and international 
implications-first forced 
themselves upon our attention in two 
major world wars and a host of more 
limited ones, and the political signi. 
ficance of modern weapons systemsdoes not have to be stressed. What 
may not however be fully realised is 
the sheer size of military establishments. 
The Pentagon in Washingtoniisposes annually of resources that ex:
eed the sums spent by the British 
Government on all expenditure of all 
k:inds. NATO in the West, and the War;
aw Pact in the East, each in their own 
:J.Uite different ways, represent an internationalisation 
of sovereignty in defence 
matters that has gone far beyondthe sort of joint High Command 
arrangements reached under old-style 
~reaties or alliances. Joint intelligence 
work, standardised specifications and 
interdependence for equipment and 
;pares, joint targetting of weapons with 
:iouble-key safety devices, have made 
:lefence integration almost complete. 

fhe third great new power centre that 
:echnology has directly and indirectly 
:milt up is of course Government itself. 
fhis growth is partly in response 
:o the growing demands of people for 
;ollective action either to promote,
:ontrol, or deal with the social conse}
Uences of change ; and partly be


cause, as the level of power elsewhere 
rises, the management and regulatory 
function in government grows just as it 
does in business or the armed services. 

All these tendencies towards big industry, 
big defence forces and big gov-
ernments-national and local-have 
occurred in all developed societies 
whether capitalist or communist. 
Interdependence, complexity and centralisation 
are functions of technological 
development not ideology. 

International organisations-not one 
of which is yet effectively controlled by 
an assembly directly elected by a multinational 
franchise-have also proliferated, 
as nations have come together to 
grapple with the inter-relationship of 
civil and military technology. The 
United Nations, Intelsat which handles 
world satellite communications, GAIT 
and the IMF, the military alliances, EEC 
and EFTA, COMECON and OECD have all 
sprung up in a single generation to regulate 
the system, by administrative 
means. 

Any nation could theoretically turn its 
back on all this and legislate itself into 
a siege economy free from 1his intricate 
network of national and international 
power structures. But, as with the individual 
drop-out, it could only do so 
at a price in lower living standards 
that would not be politically acceptable. 


We have instead to turn our minds to 
ways of acquiring more power to 
modify, improve, influence, democratise, 
restructure and ultimately gain 
greater control of the system to make 
it serve human ends. There are no 
instant Utopias and even revolutionary 
socialism has proved only to be the 
starting point for those countries forced 
by circumstances to adopt it. The evolution 
of a system that really reaches 


the objectives that have long inspired 
socialists will take much longer to 
achieve and will disappoint manypeople who have, in both capitalist and 
communist societies, looked for some 
new dawn to break. What is clear is 
that the most radical people living 
under both systems have rejected the 
old formulae and are seeking, sometimes 
blindly and sometimes inadequately, 
for a more flexible format 
within which humane values could be 
accorded a higher priority in the development 
of society. 

But here is the difficulty. Democratic 
government today means working within 
<~;. complex system that extends far 
beyond your own frontiers, far beyond .• 
the small areas of policy that you yourself 
can control ; and it means carrying 
people with you at the same time. 
The power of a national government is 
far more limited than political leaders 
and the public either realise or like to 
admit. It is unwise today for any candidate 
to suggest, in an election campaign, 
that if elected he, or his party, 
will be able to acquire through election, 
sufficient authority to solve the 
major problems that confront the 

nation. 

One of the underlying causes of Lab-
our's defeat in 1970 could wcll have 
been that we did not appreciate the 
changing nature of our .relationshipwith the people, and that in our preoccupation 
with exercising our 
authority we failed to give leadership 
on some of the issues that required , 
above all, vigorous public education if 
they were to be successfully tackled. 

More and more people are coming to 
understand that, if we want to make 
politics, parliament and governmentrelevant again we have got to peakabout them more rea'listically. For we 
are dealing with a new sort of citizen, 

nowadays, who is far more intelligentthan most people in positions of 
authority yet accept that he is. It is 
to the nature of the new citizen 
that I now want to turn-because his 
new power derives exactly like the new 
power of big organisa·tions-from the 
impact of technology ·Upon society. 


3. decentralisation and the 
emergence of the new citizen 
The tendency of technology to produce 
bigger and !bigger units is in many ways 
a familiar one. The growth of big firnn s, 
huge military machines and big government 
has been accepted, however reluctantly, 
as a part of the life we now lead. 
Some accept them wiHingly as the 
necessary sinews sustaining the highliving standards we enjoy; others dislike 
them ibut accept their inevitability ; 
a few are actively engaged in fighting 
them, relapsing into protest or apathywhenever the machine looks like 
winning ; or into violence in those parts 
of the world w!here there is no 
mechan'ism for peaceful transformation 
and civil war or revolution is the only 
answer. Even in countries where this 
mechanism does exist, there has been a 
widespread rejection of the system bygroups of young people. 

But to limit our account of the impact 
of 'industrial change to its effect in centralising 
power and the big organisations 
that appear to control it, would be .to 
leave out of account other developmentsof equal ·long-term importance whiob 
point in quite other directions, and 
whiCh have a genuinely revolutionary 
role to play. 

For technology also releases forces that 
>imultaneously permit and encourage1ecentralisation, diversity and the fuller 
jevelopment of the human personal<ity. 
These ·trends are far less weH under;
tood and when described are often 
received with considerable scepticism, if 
10t frank disbelief. But it is, none the 
.ess true that given time and the right 
;trategy, people can exercise far more 
nfluence than they now think they1ave. If they can be shown how to 
lo it, more people might be wooed 
tway from defeatism and into relevant 

:ocial action. 

:...et us tlherefore turn our a-ttention to 
he new citizen to see how he compares 

in power and influence with his forefathers. 


The abolition of feudal slavery corresponded 
with the development of 
modern methods in industry and agriculture. 
The evolution of the factory 
system under early capitalism produced 
a tremendous social upheava·l which led 
to the emergence of the trade un'ion 
movement and then the battle for the 
vote. These various human responses, 
expressed through popular pressuregroups later created rhe Labour Party 
to fight in parliament for socialist 
reforms to create a just society. 

The vote by itself, exercised by citizens 
still deprived of the education and 
information and power that alone could 
make it real was not sufficient, but we 
should not under-estimate ·its influence. 
That governments can be removed 
bloodlessly in Britain and a few other 
countries has brought great benefit in 
terms of the popular accountability of 
political power. Slow but steady social 
progress has .been made towards a much 
fairer and more stable society free from 
the brutality experienced by countries 
denied the franchise. The winning of 
the vote must be clearly recognised for 
what it was-a major decentralisation 
of power following industrialisation. 

As industr·ialisation accelerated the process 
of decentralising power accelerated 
too, in bdth a technical and a financial 
sense. The technical sense derived from 
the start of mass production, beginning 
when the T-model Fords began rolling 
off the world's first real production line. 
It was only by mass production that the 
motor car could be brought within the 
means of millions ; and as each new 
family acquired i'ts own car it was free 
to travel when and where it wished 
instead of being limi'ted to the public 
transport timetable and route structure 
of the railways, buses and trams. Trans



port decisions were .thus decentralised 
righ't down to the car owner by the very 
same process that centralised car design 
and manufacture. 

But the effect did not stop there. 
Workers ·in the mass production industr
·ies where unit costs were low and the 
articles they made were very competitive, 
acquired the power to wrench from 
their employers by determined trade 
union action a •larger share of the profits 
made. Industrial action was much more 
effective because all large volume mass 
production is so much more vulnerable 
to stoppage. Thus centralised production 
decentralised some economic 
power. 

With higher earnings most workers were 
alble to afford to buy more goods. The 
first group to rea.Jise how important this 
new source of purchasing power was 
were the big firms themselves, wlJ.o 
diverted increasing sums of money into 
advertising designed to attract that purchasing 
power back into a demand for 
their own products. The citizen ·in his 
capacity as a customer was seen to be 
powerful-even though as workers the 
very same people were still subjected to 
the indignities of authoritarian industrial 
discipline. 

The political consequences of higherJiving standards did not end there. The 
families that enjoyed them now bad 
options opening up that had been 
previously throughout history limited to 
the very rich. They had money they 
could spend and more leisure ; and the 
right to make their own choice between 
the two. 

They acquired access to information 
and opinions previously denied to 
workers ; and demanded far better 
educational and social provision for 
their children. And all the time as the 
industrial system grew in size and 

expanded in technical capability and 
became more specialised, it also became 
progressively more and more vulnerable 
to industrial stoppages or any disturbance 
in the flow of raw materials or 
products or the transfer of funds. 

It is, at least arguable that the technological 
revolution that really matters is 
not the discovery of new materials and 
components and products-but the 
genuine social revolution it has produced 
by first creating and then distributing 
new wealth and the considerable 
potential power that goes with it. 

The revolution triggered off by economic 
growth in capitaJ.ist societies has in 
turn created such serious problems that 
the demand for collective action to deal 
with them has now become so insistent 
that measures of stale intervention on a 
hitherto undreamed of scale are now 
being urged, and undertaken. 

These developments, aJ.l involving decentralisation, 
derive from industrial 
change and are an essential part of the 
background which goes to make up the 
potential power of the new citizen, as 
yet not matched by an equivalent increase 
in rea~ responsibility conceded to 
him. 

Le't me briefly recapitulate the powers 
enjoyed by the majority of new citizens 
as I have identified them, here in 
Britain. 

1. He has the vote and hence shares the 
power to destroy the Government of the 
day. 
2. He enjoys a steadily rising real income 
or more ·leisure or a mixture of both. 
3. He has access to far better education, 
tra:ining, re-tra•ining and further education 
for himself and his family, all of 
which improve his ana•lytical capability. 

t He has access to a mass of informa.
ion about current affa·irs which was 
:tlmost entirely denied to his father and 
grandfa'ther; and he hears sO'mething of 

he alternative analyses of events:
apitalist, Marxist, Socialist, Freudian, 
: hristian, Maoist or Buddhist and the 
.ime and opportunity to broaden the 
-ange of his own direct experience and 
1is relations with wider groups of 
9oople. 

5. His bargaining power in industrial 
ilegotiations is immensely greater than 
t was, and is the greatest in those 
:tdvanced industries where interdepenjance 
has gone furthest, and the cost of 
:lislocation is greatest. 
5. He can and does make increasing 
·eal demands on government for action 
:o deal with industrial and community 
Jroblems and social spending to prolide 
the infrastructure he thinks he 
Nants. 
People today-these new citizens with 
:his new power-have responded to the 
)ressure of events by banding them;
elves together wi'tlh others of like mind 

o campaign vigorously for what they 
Nant ; and thousands of such pressure 
~roups or action groups have come into 
~xistence : community associations, 
unenity groups, shop-stewards movenents, 
consu:mer societies, educational 
;ampaigns, organisations to help the 
)ld, ~he homeless, the sick, the poor or 
mder-developed societies, militant 
;ommunal organisations, student 
Jower, noise abatement societies, and so 
)n. These, Jike the eaDly trade unions or 
)Olitical groups during the first indusrial 
revolution derive their causes, 
'heir influence and their power in some 
¥ay from industrial change. Some of 
hese groups come into being for a 
:pecific puDpose and then dissolve 
tgain; others emerge as ·continuing)rganisations with political objectives to 

press certain issues but usually not to 
nominate candidates for election locaily 
or nationaHy. They are a most important 
expression of human activity based 
on issues, rather than traditional 
political loyalties, and are often seen as 
more attractive, re1evant and effective 
by new citizens than working through 
the party system. 

They also are producing a new styJe of 
political leadership committed to a 
cause rather than the search for 
elected authority. The relationship that 
develops between this new structure of 
issue politics and the political parties, 
especially the Labour Party, cis of 
crucial importance. Some such groups 
wiJl be working for causes hostile to our 
own objectives. But the majority, being 
~he expression of human values against 
oppression by authority and the system 
of centralised power would be natural 
aHies if onl'y we can discover the right 
sort of relationship with them. We must 
not mistake their criticism for hostility, 
nor resent the fact that those who work 
in them have chosen such a role in 
preference to work exclusively within 
the Party. Eaoh side his its own part to 
play in the process of socialist construction, 
and this is, in practice, recognised 
by the fact that many individuals work 
both in the action groups and in the 
Party. Their importance lies in the 
proof they offer, by their existence and 
their successes, that people do have 
more power than many of them realise 
in achieving change from below. 

In practice, most people do not tJhink of 
themselves as having all this power, or 
even regard these groups as being an 
expression of it ; and because theydon't, they often don't even attempt to 
use it. What they are a ware of are the 
pressures that modern society imposes 
on them. They work for big organisa~
ions and feel trapped in the bureaucracies 
which run them . They are afraid 


10 
that their jobs ·Will go in some merger, 
or tlhat a new machine or process will 
render them redundant. They see their 
own skiJ,ls, which a generation agowould have lasted a lifetime, becoming 
obsolete within a decade. They find 
themselves living in a man-made 
environment that can be as terrifying 
and unintelligible as the jungle was to 
primitive man. They are surrounded by 
experts who claim to know more than 
they do, and are conscious that as 
human knowledge e:x<pands the percen-
tage of it known by them steadily 
shrinks. 
They see the escalating risks of 
war and other civil technical disasters. 
Everything changes with startlingrapidity, and a great number of the 
comfortable landmarks of national, 
racia1, local, family and personalidentity seem to be disappearing around 
them. Their children rebel against ~he 
old values and, worse still, seem to 
understand the world they live in better 
than their parents. They are treated on 
television to the horror of life in parts 
of tlhe world of wh'ich their own parents 
knew nothing, revealing problems they 
find it hard to understand, let a·lone 
solve ; or entertained by programmes of 
simulated violence exploiting the rawest 
human instincts for commercial pur-
poses. Advertising is forever raisingexpectations which for a large minority 
who suffer rea1 poverty and relative 
deprivation is little short of a continuing 
affront. 
The new citizen, despite his fears and 
doubts and lack of self-confidence, is a 
far more formidable person than 'his 
forebears. Increasingly he dislikes •being 
ordered around by anyone, e&pecia.Uy if 
he suspects that those who exercise 
authority under-estimate him. 
A growing number of them-every-
where-are just not prepared •to accept 
poverty, oppression, the denial of 
human equality, bureaucracy, secrecy in 
decision-making, or any other deroga-
tion from what they consider to be their 
basic rights -and are graduallyacquiring the power to enforce that 
upon the societies in which they .Jive. 
10 
that their jobs ·Will go in some merger, 
or tlhat a new machine or process will 
render them redundant. They see their 
own skiJ,ls, which a generation agowould have lasted a lifetime, becoming 
obsolete within a decade. They find 
themselves living in a man-made 
environment that can be as terrifying 
and unintelligible as the jungle was to 
primitive man. They are surrounded by 
experts who claim to know more than 
they do, and are conscious that as 
human knowledge e:x<pands the percen-
tage of it known by them steadily 
shrinks. 
They see the escalating risks of 
war and other civil technical disasters. 
Everything changes with startlingrapidity, and a great number of the 
comfortable landmarks of national, 
racia1, local, family and personalidentity seem to be disappearing around 
them. Their children rebel against ~he 
old values and, worse still, seem to 
understand the world they live in better 
than their parents. They are treated on 
television to the horror of life in parts 
of tlhe world of wh'ich their own parents 
knew nothing, revealing problems they 
find it hard to understand, let a·lone 
solve ; or entertained by programmes of 
simulated violence exploiting the rawest 
human instincts for commercial pur-
poses. Advertising is forever raisingexpectations which for a large minority 
who suffer rea1 poverty and relative 
deprivation is little short of a continuing 
affront. 
The new citizen, despite his fears and 
doubts and lack of self-confidence, is a 
far more formidable person than 'his 
forebears. Increasingly he dislikes •being 
ordered around by anyone, e&pecia.Uy if 
he suspects that those who exercise 
authority under-estimate him. 
A growing number of them-every-
where-are just not prepared •to accept 
poverty, oppression, the denial of 
human equality, bureaucracy, secrecy in 
decision-making, or any other deroga-
tion from what they consider to be their 
basic rights -and are graduallyacquiring the power to enforce that 
upon the societies in which they .Jive. 

4. towards new objectives 
[n sketching in the changing relation-
>hip between democratic politics, the 
1uge new organisations on the one 
and the new citizen, both ere-
lied by technology on the other, there 
ts a common thread of argument. It is 
this. Authoritarianism in politics or 
ndustry just doesn't work any more. 
Governments can no longer control 
~ither the organisations or the people 
oy using the old methods. The fact that 
.n a democracy political authority de-
:ives from the consent of the electorate 
~xpressed at an election instead of 'bynheritance, as in a feudal monarchy, or 
:hrough a coup d'etat, as in a dictator-
;hip, makes practically no difference to 
.he acceptabi1ity of authoritarianism. 
~xcept in a clear local or national 
~mergency when a concensus may:levelop in favour of an authoritarian 
iCt of state, or if imposed it is accepted , 
oig organisations, whether publicly or 
Jrivately owned, and people, whoever 
hey are, expect genuine consultation 
:>e'fore decisions are taken that affect 
.hem. 
~t is arguable that what has really hap-
:>ened has amounted to such a break-
lawn in the social contract, upon which 
()arliamentary democracy by universal 
;uffrage was based, that that contract 
1ow needs to be re-negotiated on a 
>asis that shares power much more 
~idely, before it can win general assent 
tgain. 
\s far as relations with industry and 
ton-governmental] organisations a~e 
:oncerned what is required is a much 
,:loser link with government so that 
here is a two-way flow of information 
tbout policy all the time. This infor-
nation flow is an essential ingredient 
)f all systems operations control, large 
md small, and it has the merit of 
tvoiding the much publicised eyeball-
a-eyeball crunches and confrontations 
lOce beloved of politica1 leaders and 
political commentators, and the sub-
stitution of a more intimate inter-
relationship covering the entire area of 
public interest. Government, acting in 
its representative capacity must monitor 
the activities of the corporations and 
adjust the ground rules as the need 
arises, to secure the interests of the 
community. The development of new 
regulatory agencies, like the mono-
polies commission and the prices and 
incomes board will certainly be neces-
sary to extend the area of public super-
vision. 
Both government and its agencies must 
maintain a continuing dialogue with 
management and workers and admini-
strators of non-governmental powercentres, and hold them accountable for 
the major decisions they take. 
The relationship between government 
and the new citizens will need to 
undergo a very similar transformation, 
using much the same methods and 
with much the same objectives. The 
two-way flow of information, explana-
tion and policy thinking once thought 
to be adequately provided for byperiodic general elections and parlia-
mentary debates is now not sufficient ; 
and needs to be supplemented by new 
means of contact of a continuing 
nature. Socialists must concern them-
selves at least as muoh with how gov-
ernment works, as with the policies it 
pursues. 
The need for a more mature inter-
relationship, of a continuing kind, be-
tween government and non-government 
organisations and the people, has 
acquired added importance fron,:t. the 
lengthening time scale before decisions 
become effective. Indeed the pace of 
scientific development may be quicker, 
and it is but the complexity of the 
whole i:r{dustrial, social and inter-
national system is now so great tlhat 
4. towards new objectives 
[n sketching in the changing relation-
>hip between democratic politics, the 
1uge new organisations on the one 
and the new citizen, both ere-
lied by technology on the other, there 
ts a common thread of argument. It is 
this. Authoritarianism in politics or 
ndustry just doesn't work any more. 
Governments can no longer control 
~ither the organisations or the people 
oy using the old methods. The fact that 
.n a democracy political authority de-
:ives from the consent of the electorate 
~xpressed at an election instead of 'bynheritance, as in a feudal monarchy, or 
:hrough a coup d'etat, as in a dictator-
;hip, makes practically no difference to 
.he acceptabi1ity of authoritarianism. 
~xcept in a clear local or national 
~mergency when a concensus may:levelop in favour of an authoritarian 
iCt of state, or if imposed it is accepted , 
oig organisations, whether publicly or 
Jrivately owned, and people, whoever 
hey are, expect genuine consultation 
:>e'fore decisions are taken that affect 
.hem. 
~t is arguable that what has really hap-
:>ened has amounted to such a break-
lawn in the social contract, upon which 
()arliamentary democracy by universal 
;uffrage was based, that that contract 
1ow needs to be re-negotiated on a 
>asis that shares power much more 
~idely, before it can win general assent 
tgain. 
\s far as relations with industry and 
ton-governmental] organisations a~e 
:oncerned what is required is a much 
,:loser link with government so that 
here is a two-way flow of information 
tbout policy all the time. This infor-
nation flow is an essential ingredient 
)f all systems operations control, large 
md small, and it has the merit of 
tvoiding the much publicised eyeball-
a-eyeball crunches and confrontations 
lOce beloved of politica1 leaders and 
political commentators, and the sub-
stitution of a more intimate inter-
relationship covering the entire area of 
public interest. Government, acting in 
its representative capacity must monitor 
the activities of the corporations and 
adjust the ground rules as the need 
arises, to secure the interests of the 
community. The development of new 
regulatory agencies, like the mono-
polies commission and the prices and 
incomes board will certainly be neces-
sary to extend the area of public super-
vision. 
Both government and its agencies must 
maintain a continuing dialogue with 
management and workers and admini-
strators of non-governmental powercentres, and hold them accountable for 
the major decisions they take. 
The relationship between government 
and the new citizens will need to 
undergo a very similar transformation, 
using much the same methods and 
with much the same objectives. The 
two-way flow of information, explana-
tion and policy thinking once thought 
to be adequately provided for byperiodic general elections and parlia-
mentary debates is now not sufficient ; 
and needs to be supplemented by new 
means of contact of a continuing 
nature. Socialists must concern them-
selves at least as muoh with how gov-
ernment works, as with the policies it 
pursues. 
The need for a more mature inter-
relationship, of a continuing kind, be-
tween government and non-government 
organisations and the people, has 
acquired added importance fron,:t. the 
lengthening time scale before decisions 
become effective. Indeed the pace of 
scientific development may be quicker, 
and it is but the complexity of the 
whole i:r{dustrial, social and inter-
national system is now so great tlhat 

the period of gestation from problem 
identification through the search for a 
remedy, on to the policy decision and 
finally to fully effective action maywell be a decade or more. Unless the 
information and communications network 
is really working, problems will 
be identified late, and perhaps inaccurately, 
remedies, when they come, will 
not take account of all the related factors, 
and policy decision taken without 
discussion may be frustrated in implementation 
by lacking the necessarypublic consent. 

Perhaps the hardest thing for politicians 
to understand is that government no 
longer rotates entirely around Parliament 
and the old cycle of inner party 
policy formulation-intense electoral 
propaganda-voters' mandate and legislative 
implementation, important as 
they are. Winning an election without 
winning the argument may well fn;strate 
at least a part of your purpose ; 
and conversely winning an argumentmay be sufficient to solve certain problems 
by creating an atmosphere favourable 
to the achievement of your objectives. 
This is because most democratic 
countries, including Britain, are 
what they are because of the structure 
of values of those who live in them and 
are not just monuments to the skill of 
the statesmen who have governed them, 
or the legislation that has been enacted. 
Anyone aspiring to political leadership 
who really wishes to shape the society 
in which be lives has now got to devote 
a part, and probably a majority, of his 
time and skill and effort to persuading 
people, and listening in return to what 
is said to him. 

The Labour Party is uniquely fitted to 
understand that modern democracy requires 
a revitalisation and reformulation, 
on a more sophisticated basis, of 
the old communications philosophy of 
government enshrined in the idea of 

Parliament as a talking shop. Indeed , 
unless we can develop such a framework 
we will never succeed in reconciling 
the twin realities of the age in which 
we live-on the one hand the need for 
supremely good national and international 
management of complex systems 
and on the other hand the need to 
see to it that the new citizen, who is 
also a potential beneficiary of much 
new power, is able to direct and control 
more effectively the uses to whioh technology 
is put. 

The alternative philosophy of government, 
now emerging everywhere on the 
right, takes as rhe starting point of its 
analysis the argument that modern 
society depends on good management . 
and that the cost of breakdowns in the 
system is so great that they really cannot 
be tolerated and that legislation to 
enforce greater and more effective 
discipline must now .take priority over 
other issues. The new citizen is to be 
won over to an acceptance of this by 
promising him greater freedom from 
government, just as big business is to be 
promised lower taxes and less intervention 
and thus to be retained as a rich 
and powerful ally. But this new freedom 
to be enjoyed by big business 
means that it can then control the 
new citizen at the very same time as 
Government reduces its protection for 
him. · 

A socialist, by contrast should never 
forget that he is in office in a representative 
capacity, regarding Government 
as the people's instrument for shaping 
their own destiny. He must remember 
that it is management in trust working 
through information and communication. 
Legislation may confirm a victory 
in argument already won; occasionallybe used to educate, more often to 
protect, regulate or organise, but only 
as a last resort to enforce settlements 
that cannot be reached in any other way. 


This theme of continuing responsibility 
by leaders to the people, and by the 
people to each other, runs throughout 
the twelve issues next identified for a 
further socialist reconnaissance. 

1. human dignity through 
development and diversity 
It does not follow automaticaUy from 
man's incredible scientific discoveries 
either that industrial development will 
come quick,ly enough to save us all 
from starvation, or that he will gain 
control over the new power that he has 
created, or that with higher living standards 
he can develop in real freedom. 
Indeed, the possibility that human 
dignity could be as easily suppressed bythe new centres of power as it was bythe old forces of authority certainly 
cannot be excluded. Poverty and destitution 
in the world are still widespread ; 
discrimination by race and class and sex 
is still deeply entrenched, even in the 
richest countries, and people are still 
held down by force by the exercise of 
military, political or financial power. 

Traditional socialist concern, with 
money as a measure of inequality,
remains of fundamental importance,
but it must also be seen as a problem of 
power. 'Where ownership is, or can be, 
separated from the power of management 
in industry that ownership loses 
its capaoity to dominate ; where, 
through social action, money can no 
longer purchase advantages in health 
and education it loses some of its 
capacity to maintain privilege at the 
ex.pense of the many. In recent years 
socialists have concentrated so much on 
the financial aspects of politics that they 
have underestimated tJhe problems of 
power, and have allowed themselves to 
be deflected from effective policies to 
control it directly, 'by supposing that 
nothing could be done until ownership 
was communal, and that when it was 

communal nothing remained to be done. 

If we are to make human dignity our 
first objective, not only have we got to 
eliminate poverty by using technology, 
secure the best possible management of 
our resources ; elim·inate old economic 
inequalities and guard against the creation 
of new ones ; construct new safeguards 
against the abuse of new power ; 
'but we must also see that our new-found 
capabilities do in fact permit human 
dignity to express itself in diversity. 

One of the subtlest forms of tyranny 
practised by tJhe elite, over the centuries, 
has 'been the confidence trick 
played on those who did escape from 
poverty into affluence of persuadingthem that in 'their new station theyshould abandon their own culture and 
assimilate into the culture of the elite 
which they were join·ing. Those who did 
so were thus stripped of their sense of 
identity and ~he dignity that went with 
it at the very moment when the materia•l 
restrictions on them were lifted. 

Unless everyone adopts the philosophy 
associa'ted with the phrase " Black is 
beautiful" by which is meant "I am 
proud of what I am and want to develop 
within the best tradition of my own 
culture," we shall progressively detriba1ise 
and dehumanise people as, one 
by one, they pass 'into plenty. Our 
objective must not be to create a standardised, 
unisex, multi-racial classlessness 
but actively to encourage diversity 
in the human race so that each 
feels proud of h'is or her individual 
identity. Mass produced housing and 
equ1pment and products may offer the 
physical means by which we get " more 
out of less " fast enough to providesufficient for everyone. But with that 
sufficiency we must try to ensure that 
those who obtain it will be free to develop 
in diversity and use their material 
resources to do just that. There is not 


one new Citizen but over 3,000 million 
different ones. The main organisational 
prdblem for mankind is how to create 
conditions in which •We can .Jive togetherin mutual respeot within a system which 
protects what we want to be, without 
destroying the right of obhers to be 
d'ifferent and proud of it. 

This aspiration is not a new one-but it 
happens that this generation has 
acquired the power to make it possible. 

2. towards a new view of 
world affairs 
Of aH the semantic tyrannies that make 
serious analysis difficult the use of the 
phrase " Fore·ign Affa'irs " is one of the 
most absurd. Technology started to 
abol'ish foreign affairs when the first 
real travellers conquered man's geographical 
imprisonment at vhe place of 
his birth, and by the time Marconi's 
radio messages first crossed the Atlantic 
and international aerial bombardment 
started in the First World War, foreign 
affa'irs had outgrown their old diplomatic 
defin'ition. In a world where 
colour television piotures, carried bysatellites, can reach us from anywherein less than a second, and when missiles 
with nuclear warheads can be targettedto any city, from any place in the world 
it is meaningless to regard the Cliffs of 
Dover as being of anything but scenic, 
cultural and nostalgic significance to ·the 
British people, as a frontier aga·inst 
foreigners, and the rest of the world. 

The idea that all the meaningful relations 
of any people, with others who live 
in other countries, can be squeezedthrough a network of narrow channels 
called foreign offices is at least a hundred 
years out of date. 

There are world affairs, full of problems 
which affect the whole world . 
To help solve these problems we have 

many resources, technical and material, 
human and financial, ideas and people 
and information that can be brought 
into play. There are multi-Iateral 
organisations of which every country is 
a member which cover as wide a field 
of human activ-ity as government-orlife itself. There are bi-lateral relations 
with other peoples that extend equally 
widely. Finally, there are those diplomatic 
and political contacts between 
governments whic'h have traditionally 
been handled through the ForeignOffice. It would be foolish to minimize 
the"ir importance, but they now represent 
a tiny sector of the interface 
between nations. Moreover, intergovernmental 
political relations necessarily 
concern themseives main,ly with 
clashes df supposed national interest, 
ideological d-ifferences, and all the 
points of friction which, emphasized to 
the exclusion of o~her considerations, 
can bl'ind all peoples to the reality of 
their common interest in co-o'perationin the war aga·inst hunger, oppression 
and ·indignity. 

The new younger generation in most 
countries understands this better than 
their parents. They are more instinctively 
internationaiist, and they realise 
better than their elders that the relationship 
between the races 'is a world -issue 
that will affect their future and that of 
the-ir unborn children, more than any 
other. 

We shall never discover the full potential 
for the unity of mankind through 
foreign policy or diplomatic taiks. Our 
best hope may well l'ie in trying to bypass 
our differences by opening up new 
areas of co-operation. Trade and technol'ogy, 
the transfer of knowledge and 
know how, the freer movement of ideas, 
these are what we should seek to 
promote. 

Across a world communications net



;vork, once it is established, we must 
tlso seek to pass accurate information 
tbout each other's problems and 
tehievements and transfer more of the 
.eachings of the world's greatesthinkers, so that we can all gradually 
:orne to share the same sources of 
·lUman inspiration as we educate our-
;elves and our children to realise that 
Ne live in a world no bigger in real 
.erms than the television screen on 
Nhich we observe each other's doings 
~very day. 
~ater we might consider a world bon-
ire to burn all our national history>ooks and start together to re-write 
nankind's story so that future genera-
ions might acquire in childhood a 
Norld historical perspective of human 
mccess and failure, and learn not to 
·epeat the disastrous mistakes we have 
til made 'in the name of nationalism and 
oatriotism. 
3. an intensive study of 
organisational problems 
fhe theme of institutional reform 
emerged niore strongly in Britain in the 
.960s than at any time for a hundred 
rears, following developments of the 
.arne kind in other countries. 
>olitical revolutions, industrial change, 
.chools of business studies and the evo-
ution of control theory following the 
nvention of computers, all in their own 
v~y, gave an impetus to these world-
VIde developments. It is clear that un-
ess the world as a whole can find bet-
er means of managing all its many>rganisations, and unless more efficient 
neans of creating and developing new 
·esources can be devised, the techno-
ogi?al revolution will take too long to 
eahse its full potential ; and will not 
leliver the goods necessary for their 
naterial improvement in living stand-
trds of millions of people, now living in 
15 
poverty, within their own lifetime. 
For a socialist in a non-socialist 
society to speak approvingly of the key 
role of management makes him, for 
some people, suspect, because manage-
ment is associated automatically either 
with private industry, authoritarian-
ism or bureaucracy, or most likely all 
three. But this cannot blind us to the 
fact that management skills are of the 
greatest importance and are in critically 
short supply. In any case, ownership 
has long been becoming separated from 
management, at least in large corpora-
tions, and that process of disentangle-
ment can be assisted by, among other 
things, vigorous action by the workers. 
The overwhelming majority of mana-
gers are, in effect, salaried workers, 
able to be hired and fired like those 
they supervise, even if their pay and 
conditions of service are vastly better. 
To the extent that the ownership func-
tion of control can be weakened still 
further, the manager and the workers 
should be able to identify a greatercommon interest in the wealth-creating 
processes, or else, in non-industrial 
enterprises, in a partnership to achieve 
whatever social, communal or service 
objectives the organisation in which 
they work is there to serve. 
The old crude industrial authoritarian-
ism of the past is now being attacked 
as directly by modem managementthinkers as it is by the trade unions 
who are determined to change it. For 
management, like modern government, 
is simply not practicable on an authori-
trian basis any more. It just won't work 
without a high degree of real devolution 
and a most sophisticated information 
network that feeds back continuing re-
ports on how the human, as well as the 
mechanical and financial parts of the 
system are coping with their work. The 
problems of bureaucracy are not ot;Uybeing studied by Mao and students m-
;vork, once it is established, we must 
tlso seek to pass accurate information 
tbout each other's problems and 
tehievements and transfer more of the 
.eachings of the world's greatesthinkers, so that we can all gradually 
:orne to share the same sources of 
·lUman inspiration as we educate our-
;elves and our children to realise that 
Ne live in a world no bigger in real 
.erms than the television screen on 
Nhich we observe each other's doings 
~very day. 
~ater we might consider a world bon-
ire to burn all our national history>ooks and start together to re-write 
nankind's story so that future genera-
ions might acquire in childhood a 
Norld historical perspective of human 
mccess and failure, and learn not to 
·epeat the disastrous mistakes we have 
til made 'in the name of nationalism and 
oatriotism. 
3. an intensive study of 
organisational problems 
fhe theme of institutional reform 
emerged niore strongly in Britain in the 
.960s than at any time for a hundred 
rears, following developments of the 
.arne kind in other countries. 
>olitical revolutions, industrial change, 
.chools of business studies and the evo-
ution of control theory following the 
nvention of computers, all in their own 
v~y, gave an impetus to these world-
VIde developments. It is clear that un-
ess the world as a whole can find bet-
er means of managing all its many>rganisations, and unless more efficient 
neans of creating and developing new 
·esources can be devised, the techno-
ogi?al revolution will take too long to 
eahse its full potential ; and will not 
leliver the goods necessary for their 
naterial improvement in living stand-
trds of millions of people, now living in 
15 
poverty, within their own lifetime. 
For a socialist in a non-socialist 
society to speak approvingly of the key 
role of management makes him, for 
some people, suspect, because manage-
ment is associated automatically either 
with private industry, authoritarian-
ism or bureaucracy, or most likely all 
three. But this cannot blind us to the 
fact that management skills are of the 
greatest importance and are in critically 
short supply. In any case, ownership 
has long been becoming separated from 
management, at least in large corpora-
tions, and that process of disentangle-
ment can be assisted by, among other 
things, vigorous action by the workers. 
The overwhelming majority of mana-
gers are, in effect, salaried workers, 
able to be hired and fired like those 
they supervise, even if their pay and 
conditions of service are vastly better. 
To the extent that the ownership func-
tion of control can be weakened still 
further, the manager and the workers 
should be able to identify a greatercommon interest in the wealth-creating 
processes, or else, in non-industrial 
enterprises, in a partnership to achieve 
whatever social, communal or service 
objectives the organisation in which 
they work is there to serve. 
The old crude industrial authoritarian-
ism of the past is now being attacked 
as directly by modem managementthinkers as it is by the trade unions 
who are determined to change it. For 
management, like modern government, 
is simply not practicable on an authori-
trian basis any more. It just won't work 
without a high degree of real devolution 
and a most sophisticated information 
network that feeds back continuing re-
ports on how the human, as well as the 
mechanical and financial parts of the 
system are coping with their work. The 
problems of bureaucracy are not ot;Uybeing studied by Mao and students m-

ftuenced by his thinking. Initiative, and 
even survival, can be threatened by it 
and these are of equal concern to management. 


One of the most difficult problems in 
the evolution of institutional forms is 
the construction of a decision-makingsystem that makes it possible to take 
decisions at the right level. If they are 
all made too high up the result will be 
authoritarian, bureaucratic and unworkable. 
If they are all made too low 
down the result can be duplication, incompatibility 
and anarchy. 

Here, too, the twin tendencies to centralisation 
and decentralisation have to 
be studied and their contradictions resolved. 
In practice both tendencies are 
going on simultaneously in all organisations 
as power moves up and down 
in response to changing methods. It 
does not follow that the level at whi.::h 
certain decisions need to be taken will 
remain static, and this requires a regular 
re-examination to keep the system 
in balance<. 

It is this very plasticity of management 
structures which creates such difficulties. 
Until quite recently it was assumed 
that institutions lasted for a hundred 
years, leaders perhaps for ten years,
and only policies changed frequently. 
Now the position may be reversed. The 
idea of disposable institutions created 
for a purpose, and then closed down or 
replaced, is a difficult one to grasp and 
can be most disturbing-not only in 
Whitehall. But it may well be that this 
is the right way to approach institutional, 
organisational and management 
problems, and that Mao's theory of the 
continuing revolution has, insofar as it 
means this, some relevance for all 
countries. 

For government all this study is both 
necessary and difficult. It may well 

lead to the hiving off of large chunks of 
government activities into self-contained 
units under the supervision of 
men publicly accountable, unlike civil 
servants, for what they do ; much more 
substantial devolution of real power to 
regions and localities and at the same 
time the assumption by the centre, perhaps 
temporarily, perhaps permanently, 
of some decisions that were previously 
taken lower down. 

It will certainly also mean international 
discussions to learn from foreign experience 
; experiments in ways of running 
existing international operations, 
including multi-national companies,
more efficiently and responsibly ; and 
the development of entirely new international 
management organisations to ' 
solve those problems that cross frontiers, 
as many important problems now 
do. 

The risk of unmanageability is perhaps 
one of the world's greatest long term 
problems ; and when we see the effects 
of even quite minor breakdowns in the 
management of part of our world system, 
or even the near breakdown of a 
city's organisation, the results are 
frightening enough to make us realise 
how important organisation is, and to 
make us give it a far higher degree of 
importance in socialist thinking. 

4. towards workers control 
Here in Britain the demand for more 
popular power is building up most insistently 
in industry, and the pressure 1 
for industrial democracy has now 
reached such a point that a majorchange is now inevitable, at some stage. 
What is happening is not just a respectful 
request for consultation before 
management promulgates its decisions. 
Workers are not going to be fobbed off 
with a few shares-whether voting or 


non-voting. They cannot be satisfied 
by having a statutory worker on the 
Board or by a carbon copy of the Ger. 
man system of co-determination. 

The campaign is very graduallycrystallising into a demand for real 
workers' control. However revolutionary 
the phrase may sound ; however 
many Trotskyite bogeys it may conjure 
up, that is what is being demanded and 
that is what we had better start thinking 
about. 

The claim is for the same relationship 
betiWeen government and governed in 
factories, offices and shops as was fin. 
ally yielded when the universal adult 
franchise brought about full political 
democracy, or what it might be more 
helpful to re-name, " voter's control," 
first advocated by the Chartists, and 
finally conceded in 1970 when eighteen 
year olds won their rights. 

On the face of it the perils of yielding 
' production by consent ' when we have 
already survived the far riskier experiment 
of ' government by consent ' 
would seem less daunting. It would 
have been, on the face of it, more logical 
if the experiment in democracy had 
begun with industry ; and only then, 
when proved successful, extended to 
Government. 

Certainly there is no more reason why 
industrial power at plant or office level 
should be exolusively linked to ownership 
of shares, than that political power 
should have been exclusively linked to 
the ownership of land and other property 
as it was in Britain until the 
'voters control' movement won its 
battle. 

Nor, and this is the important point, is 
there any reason why the new demands 
should be any more revolutionary, in 
the sense of paving the way for viol. 

ence, than were the old demands. It is 
true that some of the advocates of 
workers' control are believers in the 
violent overthrow of the existing order. 
But then so were some of the advocates 
of the wider franchise. In the 
event, by one of these characteristically 
skilful and long drawn out withdrawals 
in the face of the inevitable which is 
the genius of the British-that mixture 
of realism, laziness, decency and 
humanity that has given us 300 years 
free of violent revolution-the powersthat be, in the end, granted the demands 
in full. 

Consider the position on the industrial 
scene. Workers now have. throughinterdependance, enormous negativepower to dislocate the system. Workers' 
control-if it means the power to plan 
their own work and to hire and fire 
the immediate plant managementjust as MPs are now hired and fired by 
the voters--converts that existing nega· 
tive power into positive and construe· 
tive power. It thus creates the basis of 
common interest with local managers 
struggling to make a success of the 
business and to get devolved authority 
from an over·centralised bureaucratic 
board of management now perhapssitting on them from above. The gap 
between some of the best management 
thinking that is now leading to the devolution 
of power right down to the 
working level on the one hand, and the 
workers' demand from belOIW for real 
power at the place of work, is now so 
narrow as to be capable of beingbridged and indeed it constitutes a 
natural convergence of two streams of 
thinking towards a common solution 
to the problem o£ how human satisfaction 
can be found in work. 

One could go further and see in workers' 
control of individual plants as 
natural and inevitaWe a developmentof the role of the new citizen as is the 


evolution of the international company 
itself; and also imagine multinationals 
whose plants all over the 
world were subject to local workers' 
control, constituting a sensible division 
of functions and working well. 

This deve-lopment, if it comes about, 
will not do so tidily, or all at once. 
However strong the views in favour of 
it may be, they are still only shared by 
a politically conscious minority of 
workshop leadership together with their 
academic associates. The reservations 
and outright opposition from the 
majority on the management and trade 
union sides are still formidable. But 
gradually the tide is likely to turn in 
its .favour and when it does it will all 
seem less frightening if we know what 
is happening and why. 

Probably the most important thing to 
be done now, is to stimulate public di:;cussion 
about it as an emerging issue. 
It cannot, almost by definition, be imposed 
from above, having to grow from 
below in discussion betwe-en those concerned, 
creating a new leadership in the 
process of discussion and negotiation 
and conflict which must accompanysuch a radical change in the relationship 
between workers and the owners 
of capital. 

It is important that bhose who advocate 
workers' control, or are sympathetic 
to it, should not mislead anyone 
about its likely effe-ct. It will prove to 
be no more, and no less, a panacea for 
industrial workers than parJiamentary 
democracy has been for the electors. 
With real power will come real responsibility 
for dealing dire-ctly with 
some of the outer realities of our competitive 
world, including the inescapable 
market mechanisms and other 
inter-connections which will set severe 
limits on the fre-edom the new powerwill bring. This is not to say that there 

will not be real gains in self-respect, 
self-fulfillment, improved working conditions, 
better management and productivity. 
There will be. But there will 
almost certainly be failures too. These 
could hardly be worse, in their human 
consequences, than those experienced 
by many thousands of workers who became 
redundant every year under the 
owner-imposed management system of 
today. One of the real potential beneficiaries 
will be .the community itself, 
since an effe-ctive workers' control system 
probably stands the only real 
chance of creating the sort of responsibility 
in industrial affairs that is now 
lacking and that the legislative proposals 
for dealing with prices and incomes 
or industrial relations seemed or 
seem unlikely to achieve. 

It must also be noted, in passing, that 
some of the problems of control of the 
mass media would be easier to solve if 
such a radicaJ change as the one im:
plied by workers' control could be 
made to work constructively in the 
press, radio and television. 

5. direct action against 
bureaucracy 
But we cannot wait for the evolution of 
ideal organisational systems before we, 
as new citizens, begin to seek to realise 
our objectives at the working level. The 
overwhelming majority of us now work 
for, and in, large organ·isations ; or some 
part of our lives are guided or controlled 
by them, and we thus all have some 
experience of how they work. 

Bureaucracy is not necessarily, nor even 
mainly, motivated by malevolence. It 
survives because no one challenges it ; 
or worse stiU because most people do 
not even question it. Many peoplecalmly accept it even when it classifies 
us, categoPizes us, divided us up, blocks 
off our opportunities and initiative and 


presumes to teH us to what heights we 
can aspire in life. 
organisational techniques and 
good leadership oan reduce it, but we 
really cannot all wait for that to happen. 
The case for a strategy of confrontations 
with bureaucracy is very strong ; and 
indeed without it is ·is hard to see how 
we can ever 'liberate ourselves. The 
justification for any sort of direct action, 
even when it is wholly non-violent, must 
be precisely defined in a democratic 
society where the -theoreticatl possilbility 
of change by traditional means is held 
to ex-ist. But who really believes that 
without direct action represented bydemonstrations and even orderly civil 
·disObedience we would ever have won 
our present rights, or women would 
• have won the vote ; or students would 
ever have secured their present levels of 
participation ; or the constituency of 
Bristol South Bast have ever retained 
its MP by compeHing a constitutional 
change to allow the renunciation of 
peerages ? Each of these campaignsworked on the stiletto heel principle : 
that if you put all your weight on one 
place you can go through almost any-
thing. 
The quality of organisations will 
never 'be improved unless their defects 
are actively resisted. Change from 
below, the formulation of demands from 
the populace to end unacceptable in-
justice, supported by direct action has 
played a far larger part in shapingBritish democracy than most constitu-
tional lawyers, political commentators, 
historians or statesmen have ever cared 
to admit. Without direct pressure from 
below operating on and through the 
political system we should never have 
got state education, our social security 
system, the health service or any serious 
attention paid to the environment. 
Direct action also welds people together 
19 
and helps them to move on and tackle 
other problems effectively. It discovers 
talent that would otherwise have gone 
unrecognised, re-stocks the community 
with new leadership and creates new 
checks and balances against the abuse 
of power. 
Direct action in a democratic society 
is fundamentally an educational exer-
cise ; and its victories can only be won 
when they a~hieve the conversion of 
those in power through winning a 
majority of people to the viewpoint of 
the activists. In other circumstances, 
and in other countries where the 
machinery of peaceful change does not 
eX'ist, rhe use of real force from below 
is right and must be organised to 
succeed against everything that can be 
mustered against it, and it must be 
accepted and supported as legitimate in 
the battle to secure or enlarge human 
freedom. Here in Britain it is onlyjustified-and effective-as a means of 
alerting the community to what is 
wrong, and of making it clear that a 
body of new citizens want to see it putoright. 
6. a frontal assault on secrecyin decision making 
If a mature and more self-regulatingsociety is to have a real chance of suc-
cess, people must know much more 
about Why and how the decis'ions t'hat 
affect •them are actually made. Unless 
this information •is made available 
people will never discover what the 
alternatives are, early enough, to have 
any influence on which of them to sup-
port and which to oppose. 
As far as Government is concerned this 
must mean a completely fresh look at 
all the many barriers that exist to ensure 
.that ordinary people do not know what 
·is going on 'in Government. The practice 
of secrecy t'hat has grown up over the 
presumes to teH us to what heights we 
can aspire in life. 
organisational techniques and 
good leadership oan reduce it, but we 
really cannot all wait for that to happen. 
The case for a strategy of confrontations 
with bureaucracy is very strong ; and 
indeed without it is ·is hard to see how 
we can ever 'liberate ourselves. The 
justification for any sort of direct action, 
even when it is wholly non-violent, must 
be precisely defined in a democratic 
society where the -theoreticatl possilbility 
of change by traditional means is held 
to ex-ist. But who really believes that 
without direct action represented bydemonstrations and even orderly civil 
·disObedience we would ever have won 
our present rights, or women would 
• have won the vote ; or students would 
ever have secured their present levels of 
participation ; or the constituency of 
Bristol South Bast have ever retained 
its MP by compeHing a constitutional 
change to allow the renunciation of 
peerages ? Each of these campaignsworked on the stiletto heel principle : 
that if you put all your weight on one 
place you can go through almost any-
thing. 
The quality of organisations will 
never 'be improved unless their defects 
are actively resisted. Change from 
below, the formulation of demands from 
the populace to end unacceptable in-
justice, supported by direct action has 
played a far larger part in shapingBritish democracy than most constitu-
tional lawyers, political commentators, 
historians or statesmen have ever cared 
to admit. Without direct pressure from 
below operating on and through the 
political system we should never have 
got state education, our social security 
system, the health service or any serious 
attention paid to the environment. 
Direct action also welds people together 
19 
and helps them to move on and tackle 
other problems effectively. It discovers 
talent that would otherwise have gone 
unrecognised, re-stocks the community 
with new leadership and creates new 
checks and balances against the abuse 
of power. 
Direct action in a democratic society 
is fundamentally an educational exer-
cise ; and its victories can only be won 
when they a~hieve the conversion of 
those in power through winning a 
majority of people to the viewpoint of 
the activists. In other circumstances, 
and in other countries where the 
machinery of peaceful change does not 
eX'ist, rhe use of real force from below 
is right and must be organised to 
succeed against everything that can be 
mustered against it, and it must be 
accepted and supported as legitimate in 
the battle to secure or enlarge human 
freedom. Here in Britain it is onlyjustified-and effective-as a means of 
alerting the community to what is 
wrong, and of making it clear that a 
body of new citizens want to see it putoright. 
6. a frontal assault on secrecyin decision making 
If a mature and more self-regulatingsociety is to have a real chance of suc-
cess, people must know much more 
about Why and how the decis'ions t'hat 
affect •them are actually made. Unless 
this information •is made available 
people will never discover what the 
alternatives are, early enough, to have 
any influence on which of them to sup-
port and which to oppose. 
As far as Government is concerned this 
must mean a completely fresh look at 
all the many barriers that exist to ensure 
.that ordinary people do not know what 
·is going on 'in Government. The practice 
of secrecy t'hat has grown up over the 

year, in Britain and all other countries, 
goes back to the very distant past. The 
medieval privy councillor's oath pledging 
utter secrecy and administered to 
each new Minister on his knees when 
assuming office is a symbolic, but 
interesting example. It was written ceo-
Juries before democracy was even 
contemplated, at a time when the only 
responsibi'lity of a Minister was to the 
Crown. The Official Secrets Act of 1911, 
to which each official is also sworn, entrenches 
secrecy in statute. 

Obviously there are matters of highnational security, short-term diplomatic 
or other negotiating positions, commercial 
secrets and information about 
individuals that have to be dealt with by 
Ministers, and officials, on a strict need-
to-know basis, which it would be a plain 
betrayal of trust to divulge-even to 
other Ministers and officials who do not 
require the information, let alone the 
public. But beyond rhat most of the 
current business of Government could 
easily be made more generally known to 
those who were interested in it. There 
could certainly be a full description of 
the Cabinet Committee structure 
together with aU its sub-committees, 
Ministerial and official, including a full 
list of their membership. It is hard to 
criticise the mass media for trivialising 
politics by continually harping on personalities 
and gossip, while the real 
story of developing argument within the 
government machine, which is quitewell equipped to resolve differences and 
reconcile varying interests, is still held 
behind a tight security screen. 

The just'ification given for secrecy is 
usually based on a complete and deliberate 
confusion of the national interest 
.with the political convenience of 
Ministers, buttressed by the natural 
preference of civil servants for the fuU 
protection of their role as completely 
anonymous ministerial advisers. 

Fortunately this screen of silence is 
being pierced more and more often byhard working, knowledgeaible and 
responsible journa·ilists, he1ped by better 
briefings and, increasingly, by ex-
Ministers writing their memoirs. Leaks, 
now accepted as a fact, do not however 
provide a sufficient account of what 
is going on. Some slight official relaxations 
have taken place. The amendment 
of the 50 year rule to 30 years was a 
move in the right direction ; the invention 
of Green Papers which allow 
Ministers to share their thinking before 
decisions are finally taken was a real 
advance. The new specialist select committees 
can now probe policy much 
more deeply ; and the Ombudsman can 
search official records in pursuit of 
enquiries into suspected maladministration. 


A move towards much more opengovernment would not need amending 
Jegislation. A clear policy decision in 
favour of a progressive relaxation of 
secrecy, in practice, would be quitesufficient to deal with the problem. It 
would constitute a real gain for the 
community and woll'ld also ·be good for 
,government, in that Ministers and 
officials would be in a position to 
receive more relevant comments and 
advice from those outside, who would 
know more accurately what was at issue 
and when the matter concerned was due 
for decision. 

I have put the government's responsibility 
to provide more information first 
1because it lies directly within its own 
power to change its practice. But the 
same arguments apply with equal force 
to the puiblication of much more information 
by industry. The case for this is 
so very well known, and has so often 
been argued, that it does not need 
labouring. But since knowledge is 
power, a more general statutory requirement 
to publish information would be a 


ery imporl'ant way of seeing that the 
ower of private corporations is shared 
nd they thus become more account-
ble. 
'he need for reducing rhe level of 
ecrecy should be in the mind of 
overnment in 'its dea•lings with all 
•odies tlrat exercise general, or local, 
·ower. Things done in the open are 
1ore likely to be self-policing. Most 
1rivilege and maladministration depend 
'n secrecy for their survival and if the 
.arsh searchlight of public scrutiny can 
e shone into some dark corners of 
'ower the remedy, whether statutory or 
.ot, wi1l then recommend itself. 
~his theme of publicity versus secrecy 
hould be a major one for a future 
Jalbour Government and the onus of 
1roof should be squarely placed on 
b.ose who want to preserve the mystique,f secrecy rather than on those who 
vant to lift it. To do this would almost 
ertainly slow down the process of 
ecision-making because of the lengthy 
onsultations that would take place-
mt it would provide a more effective 
eans of considering in advance the 
nter-action of decisions on each other 
.nd on the community, and without it 
ve cannot hope to change the balance 
n favour of the people. 
7. the democratisation of 
. he mass media 
)arliament exercised significant power 
n Brita'in long before it was demon-
ratic, deriving from its freedom to 
,.ssemble, to discuss and debate. These 
ights were so important in the struggle 
or poHtical power that the nineteenth 
entury popular battle for participation 
oncentrated on the right of access of 
•rdinary people to Parliament. 
~od'ay, rhe freedom of d~bate and dis-
ussion remains central to the control 
21 
of power. But unless this freedom is 
amplified by high speed printing presses 
or powerful transmitters it need not 
amount to very much more than the 
right to set up a rostrum at Speakers' 
Corner in Hyde Park. Regular access 
to the public at large is virtually the 
prerogative of publishers, newspaper 
proprietors, the massive BBC, com-
mercial TV programme companies and 
those business organisations that use the 
mass media to advertise their products 
-and their values. That about sums upthe list of rhose with effective power to 
publish, apart from organisations which 
·issue their own material. 
It is just not good enough. No wonder 
that some people are driven to demon-
strations, using a technique of informa-
tion dissemination that has not changed 
for 2,000 years or more. Minority views 
and even specialist opinions stili do not 
get adequate expression in the press or 
on the air, unless they are expressedthrough an event-preferably acquiringits newsworthiness through expected, or 
actual, d'isturbances, in which case the 
communication moguls will read·ily 
report it all as news. The main message 
may never get through this way, though 
those who watch or read about it do 
gradually become aware that a largebody of people are "protesting about 
something " and the more interested 
amongst them may think ab'out it or 
seek more information . 
The public, as a whole, are denied 
access or representation in these new 
talking shops of the mass med·ia as com-
pletely as the 95 per cent without the 
vote were excluded from Parliament 
before 1832. The real question is not 
whether the programmes are good, or 
serious, or balanced or truthful. It is 
whether or not they allow the people 
themselves to reflect, to each other, the 
diversity of interests, opinions, griev-
ances, hopes and attitudes to their 
ery imporl'ant way of seeing that the 
ower of private corporations is shared 
nd they thus become more account-
ble. 
'he need for reducing rhe level of 
ecrecy should be in the mind of 
overnment in 'its dea•lings with all 
•odies tlrat exercise general, or local, 
·ower. Things done in the open are 
1ore likely to be self-policing. Most 
1rivilege and maladministration depend 
'n secrecy for their survival and if the 
.arsh searchlight of public scrutiny can 
e shone into some dark corners of 
'ower the remedy, whether statutory or 
.ot, wi1l then recommend itself. 
~his theme of publicity versus secrecy 
hould be a major one for a future 
Jalbour Government and the onus of 
1roof should be squarely placed on 
b.ose who want to preserve the mystique,f secrecy rather than on those who 
vant to lift it. To do this would almost 
ertainly slow down the process of 
ecision-making because of the lengthy 
onsultations that would take place-
mt it would provide a more effective 
eans of considering in advance the 
nter-action of decisions on each other 
.nd on the community, and without it 
ve cannot hope to change the balance 
n favour of the people. 
7. the democratisation of 
. he mass media 
)arliament exercised significant power 
n Brita'in long before it was demon-
ratic, deriving from its freedom to 
,.ssemble, to discuss and debate. These 
ights were so important in the struggle 
or poHtical power that the nineteenth 
entury popular battle for participation 
oncentrated on the right of access of 
•rdinary people to Parliament. 
~od'ay, rhe freedom of d~bate and dis-
ussion remains central to the control 
21 
of power. But unless this freedom is 
amplified by high speed printing presses 
or powerful transmitters it need not 
amount to very much more than the 
right to set up a rostrum at Speakers' 
Corner in Hyde Park. Regular access 
to the public at large is virtually the 
prerogative of publishers, newspaper 
proprietors, the massive BBC, com-
mercial TV programme companies and 
those business organisations that use the 
mass media to advertise their products 
-and their values. That about sums upthe list of rhose with effective power to 
publish, apart from organisations which 
·issue their own material. 
It is just not good enough. No wonder 
that some people are driven to demon-
strations, using a technique of informa-
tion dissemination that has not changed 
for 2,000 years or more. Minority views 
and even specialist opinions stili do not 
get adequate expression in the press or 
on the air, unless they are expressedthrough an event-preferably acquiringits newsworthiness through expected, or 
actual, d'isturbances, in which case the 
communication moguls will read·ily 
report it all as news. The main message 
may never get through this way, though 
those who watch or read about it do 
gradually become aware that a largebody of people are "protesting about 
something " and the more interested 
amongst them may think ab'out it or 
seek more information . 
The public, as a whole, are denied 
access or representation in these new 
talking shops of the mass med·ia as com-
pletely as the 95 per cent without the 
vote were excluded from Parliament 
before 1832. The real question is not 
whether the programmes are good, or 
serious, or balanced or truthful. It is 
whether or not they allow the people 
themselves to reflect, to each other, the 
diversity of interests, opinions, griev-
ances, hopes and attitudes to their 

feJ.Iow ctt!Zens and to talk out their 
differences at sufficient length. 

The democratisation, and accountability 
of the mass media will be a major issue 
for the seventies and the debates on it 
are now •beginning. The press and 
boardcasting authorities have a respon'
sibility for providing enough accurate 
information, at the time when it really 
matters, to allow people to acquire'greater influence. The people, for their 
part, have the right to demand a greater 
ease of access to rhe community through 
~the mass media and some more effective 
red·ress 'by a 'body with power to 
examine complaints, especially against 

•the broadcasting authorities. What is 
wanted is more diversity of expression 
and not, repeat not, the centralisation 
of power in the hands of government 
or a -bureaucratic monopoly. 
The potentiality of greater industrial 
democracy in the mass media forcing 
the owners of existing outlets to share 
their power with those who work for 
their papers, or on their stations, may 
have a significant part to play in this. 
Fortunately, new techniques in printing 
and recording which are relativelycheap and easy have been coming into 
use in recent years and more are now 
on their way. The possibilities these 
offer both in allowing 'people to plan

•what they want to see and hear ·in their 
own homes (as they can with books and 
records) and in opening up low cost 
publishing, in all its forms, to the new 
pressure groups are of great potential 
importance, and should be encouraged . 
8. new priorities in education 
Education, like information and communications, 
is moving into the centre 
of political controversy. Indeed it 
has already become the focal pointof debate and political controversy. 

1Education is the key to the development 

of the individual ; it equips him to work 

and earn ; it aHows him to share in the 

worid's richest treasures of wisdom and 

art and it offers him some of the keys 

to political power. The denial of access 

rfor the many, by an elite, has proved to 

1be a most powerful instrument for long


term popular subjugation. The majority 

of children have been-and still are 

being_,!branded as failures at 11, then 

told l'hey do not merit real secondary 

education ; only to discover later that, 

as a result, they cannot qualify for 

higher education. Then, for the rest 

of their lives, they are kept out of many 

pos·itions of responsibility, which are 

reserved for graduates. 

The battle for comprehensive education • 
is only half-way won at the secondary 
level, and is only just beginning at the 
level of higher and further education, 
where the massed ranks of the elitists 
are already in position to repel the 
expected assault by the many, with the 
familiar cry of "more means worse." It 
will be just as hard, but just as necessary, 
to win that battle and the sooner it 
is won the better. 

But the need for change goes much 
further than the provision of equality of 
opportunity. Education has been made 
subservient to examinations which were 
devised, at worst to ration education, 
and at best to test certain, and not necessarily 
the most important, qualities in 
men and women. Education has got far 
too far segregated from the problems 
of the community. It is all crammed in 
too early in life, Jeaving most adults • 
without really adequate provision for 
training and re-training and scope for 
reflective analytical thinking at an agewhen most people could get, and give, 
so much more if only the opportunities 
were provided. 

Qualifications have become an idol to 


>e protected at all cost. Experience is 
~eneraHy under-estimated and adequate 
>pportunities do not yet exist to lift 
hose who have it to greater heights of 
levelopment. The old, who were the 
raditional teachers of the young, have 
>een all but shut out from their natural 
·ole in education to tell the young what 
hey knew, and in turn to be revitalised 
>Y the ceaseless interrogation of their 
mpatient young pupils. Academic 
tudies have been elevated out of all 
Jroportion to their real importance, and 
:ven in science, greater honour still 
tttaches to pure research than to appli-
:ation where many, if not most, of the 
·eally difficult and intellectually taxing 
md important problems that must be 
olved are to be found. Specialisation 
'1as been allowed to run rampant even 
hough the overwhelming majority of 
~raduates never practise in their field of 
;pecial study. 
oth the need for really highly skilled 
Jeople of all ages to be trained in the 
'Jroad area of management and the neerl 
'or a fuller life for individuals within 
n1r society require us to look again at 
mr educational philosophy and system. 
\.t the moment we still accept a wastage 
>f human ability which is so massive 
hat if we could only tap a small pro-
>ortion of the reserves of talent that 
:xist, we could raise both our standard 
>f life, and the quality of it, much more 
·apidly than now seems possible. But 
rve can only achieve this if we concen-
rate far more attention on raising the 
evel of the average in both people and 
Jerformance rather than continuing to 
"ocus so much of our effort on the so-
:alled best ; and if we are also preparedo see the potential of education in help-
ng us to overcome the hard-core 
>rOiblems of the poor, the sick and the 
lepr·ived. A real programme for educa-
ion that set itself these ne~ objectives 
vould be bitterly resisted, but without 
23 
a change in our existing educational 
priorities we shall go on exploring the 
frontiers of knowledge as brilliantly as 
we have done ; and then wonder why 
the prdblems of application and com-
munity organisation seem so insoluble. 
9. beyond parliamentary 
democracy 
The main theme of this pamphlet is that 
the new citizen wants and must receive 
a great deal more power than all exist-
ing authority has so far thought it 
right, necessary or wise to yield to him. 
This demand for more real power by 
people is slowly but irresistibly build-
ing up on every front here and in every 
country in the worM. Some people 
want it to replace the power of the 
tyrants who oppress them, others to 
protect existing rights or to assert new 
ones which they believe their dignityand self-respect require. 
The British Parliament cannot expect 
to be exempted from this general de-
mand for greater participation both 
from within and without. The welcome 
erosion of the power of the whips has 
gone much further than most peopleoutside politics realise in restoring to 
MPS the power to limit the automatic 
exercise of executive power by cabinets. 
The next stage in public participationin government is bound to come from 
the first serious reconsideration of the 
possibility of adding some direct de-
cision-making; or at any rate com-
prehensive opinion-testing mechanism, 
to that of the ballot box, on specific 
issues. 
The most discussed form of direct de-
cision-making has been the idea of 
holding nation wide referenda on speci-
fic issues-either those which trans-
cended party loyalties and were of 
>e protected at all cost. Experience is 
~eneraHy under-estimated and adequate 
>pportunities do not yet exist to lift 
hose who have it to greater heights of 
levelopment. The old, who were the 
raditional teachers of the young, have 
>een all but shut out from their natural 
·ole in education to tell the young what 
hey knew, and in turn to be revitalised 
>Y the ceaseless interrogation of their 
mpatient young pupils. Academic 
tudies have been elevated out of all 
Jroportion to their real importance, and 
:ven in science, greater honour still 
tttaches to pure research than to appli-
:ation where many, if not most, of the 
·eally difficult and intellectually taxing 
md important problems that must be 
olved are to be found. Specialisation 
'1as been allowed to run rampant even 
hough the overwhelming majority of 
~raduates never practise in their field of 
;pecial study. 
oth the need for really highly skilled 
Jeople of all ages to be trained in the 
'Jroad area of management and the neerl 
'or a fuller life for individuals within 
n1r society require us to look again at 
mr educational philosophy and system. 
\.t the moment we still accept a wastage 
>f human ability which is so massive 
hat if we could only tap a small pro-
>ortion of the reserves of talent that 
:xist, we could raise both our standard 
>f life, and the quality of it, much more 
·apidly than now seems possible. But 
rve can only achieve this if we concen-
rate far more attention on raising the 
evel of the average in both people and 
Jerformance rather than continuing to 
"ocus so much of our effort on the so-
:alled best ; and if we are also preparedo see the potential of education in help-
ng us to overcome the hard-core 
>rOiblems of the poor, the sick and the 
lepr·ived. A real programme for educa-
ion that set itself these ne~ objectives 
vould be bitterly resisted, but without 
23 
a change in our existing educational 
priorities we shall go on exploring the 
frontiers of knowledge as brilliantly as 
we have done ; and then wonder why 
the prdblems of application and com-
munity organisation seem so insoluble. 
9. beyond parliamentary 
democracy 
The main theme of this pamphlet is that 
the new citizen wants and must receive 
a great deal more power than all exist-
ing authority has so far thought it 
right, necessary or wise to yield to him. 
This demand for more real power by 
people is slowly but irresistibly build-
ing up on every front here and in every 
country in the worM. Some people 
want it to replace the power of the 
tyrants who oppress them, others to 
protect existing rights or to assert new 
ones which they believe their dignityand self-respect require. 
The British Parliament cannot expect 
to be exempted from this general de-
mand for greater participation both 
from within and without. The welcome 
erosion of the power of the whips has 
gone much further than most peopleoutside politics realise in restoring to 
MPS the power to limit the automatic 
exercise of executive power by cabinets. 
The next stage in public participationin government is bound to come from 
the first serious reconsideration of the 
possibility of adding some direct de-
cision-making; or at any rate com-
prehensive opinion-testing mechanism, 
to that of the ballot box, on specific 
issues. 
The most discussed form of direct de-
cision-making has been the idea of 
holding nation wide referenda on speci-
fic issues-either those which trans-
cended party loyalties and were of 

supreme importance-or those on 
moral questions which are now bygeneral consent left to a free vote of 
the House. 

The arguments against adopting such a 
course are too well known to need 
elaboration : it would undermine representative 
government, pave the way 
for dictatorship sustained by plebiscites; 
frustrate all liberal reform ; pander to 
the worst instincts of the public and so 
on. Both front benches and the overwhelming 
majority of back bench MPS 
-either because of their intimate knowledge 
of politics, or possibly from an 
understandable reluctance to see their 
representative status eroded by being 
shared with their constituents-are 
wholly opposed to any concession 
whatsoever on this score, and anyone 
who even raises the subject is immediately 
made aware of the fact that he 
has broken one of the unwritten rules 
of the club. 

But quite apart from the intrinsic 
merits or demerits of referenda as a 
means of decision-making in a democracy, 
we have to face the fact that a 
demand for a referendum has begun to 
emerge over the Common Market 
issue where there are such sharp differences 
of opinion within each party that 
it would not be possible to decide the 
issue at a general election even if the 
leadership of the two major parties 
were taking contrary views. A decision 
taken by the House of Commons that 
committed Britain to membership of 
EEC might or might not conform to the 
popular view as ascertained by the 
(somewhat discredited) public opinion 
polls. But if it did not, and those who 
were opposed to entry refused to accept 
the reasons given for joining (or vice 
versa) something like a breakdown in 
the social contract might occur. 

Some demand for a procedure for a 

national consultation on this, or some 
other issue, is bound to be strongly 
pressed at some stage, and if it is to be 
rejected, and its rejection made acceptable, 
far stronger and more compelling 
arguments than those hitherto advanced 
against it will have to be produced and 
argued convincingly. 

The idea of a national institute of public 
opinion which acted as the independent 
agent for assessing and reportingthe national view before Parliament 
reaohed its final decision on some issues 
is another possibility. This would lack 
the mandatory nature of formal referanda 
which wo uld present certain difficulties, 
whilst at the same time furnishing 
a significant focus for debate 
that would encourage the protagonists 
on either side to release far more facts 
than are now made available, and compel 
them to campaign on the issue up 
for decision instead of, as now, always 
on the far less precise issue of their 
own qualifications for office. 

The establishment of machinery for 
testing the strength of certain views 
under official but independent auspices, 
comprehensively and not by sampling, 
might also be a constructive way of 
diverting the energy now put into street 
protest, into educational campaigns in 
support of a certain view before the 
formal consultation was allowed to 
take place. 

It does not follow that organised comprehensive 
consultations would have to 
be limited to matters requiring an immediate 
decision. Indeed, given the 
time lag between decision and full execution, 
and the case that has been 
argued for real consultation with the 
public before strategic options of various 
kinds are closed, it might well be 
possible to allow people to express a 
view about broad priorities for the 
future-what has been called antici



.Jatory decision sharing-that would be 
1elpful to Government and reassuring 
·or the public. 

'l'or should it be thought that direct 
Jarticipation of this kind need be 
imited to national issues. It might be 
;pecially appropriate for, or indeed the 
mly instrument of consent capable of 
>eing used to guide decisions on a 
ocal level or as part of a campaign to 
;ain more effective participation in 
ton-governmental organisations. the 
>rofessions, trade unions or any other 
>ody where the members wished for a 
nuch larger say m their own 
ffairs. 

t might also be that through interationally 
run consultative referenda 
te could begin the slow but inevitable 
recess of democratising some of the 
ew international bodies and organisatons, 
where at present unknown adlinistrators 
have too much real power 
·lSt because they are only imperfectly 
Jpervised by national Ministers at in~
rnational conferences, and are never 
onfronted by an electorate or even an 
lected assembly to whom they are 

::countable. 

'h~se then are some of the ways in 

•h1ch more power for the people might 
e demanded, and in which it might be 
tought right, or at the very least pruent, 
to yield. 
. "':'ould, however, be wrong to end a 
:ctton on popular power without retinding 
ourselves that if change from 
,elow is to be-as seems likely-a:owing force in politics and industry-the most effective pressures will come 
om those who band themselves to~
ther to win support from their fel


•Ws, and then present their demands 
•r change or improvement with the 
eight that comes from arti(mlating a 
al requirement in a representative 
capacit~. That way lies the do-it-yourself 
society that is now being born. 

10. redefining the role of 
national government 
If government .has now. got to accept 
that many of 1ts functions are beingtaken over by international institutions 
beyond its shores, or are to be devolved 
or hived off, or shared with the peopl~ 
below w~~ are claiming greater rights 
as new CitiZens, we shall have to consider 
afresh exactly what the role of 
nationa'l government is to be. 

In dealing with institutions abroad or 
other ce;'ltres of power, it must speak 
for th~ mterests of the British people, 
assummg a representational role; and 
when it bas done its best, it must conveyback to its own people the reasons for 
unpopular policies which may have 
~en devised to serve longer term 
mterests, or ones that are wider than 
those of any one country. In short, it 
has to convey the outer reality of life 
to those who live in its home territory. 

In dealing with the bodies subordinate 
to itself in their range of responsibilities, 
~overnment must set some of the objectives, 
lay down the limits of derived 
authority, and if conflict arises it must 
reconcile the differences of interest that 
wi.Jl occur between them. 

National government must retain the 
supreme responsibility for the nation's 
fortunes in the broadest sense of the 
term and be the custodian of its national 
culture and identity. It must concern 
itself with security, now redefined to 
include the provision of a degree of protection 
for the :individual against many 
of the new hazards of life that goes far 
beyond the provision of defence against 
invasion and civil disorder. It must 
legislate the framework structure of 
rights within which people can confi



dently live and work, including the 
provision of new safeguards against the 
abuse of information it has gathered for 
its own purposes or which has been 
gathered by non-governmental organisations 
or firms. It must allocate the 
nation's resources, not only of money 
raised by taxation, but perhaps even 
more importantly of qualified and 
skilled manpower and apply them to 
meet needs that are most pressing. It 
must present the alternative strategies 
for public discussion, before the final 
and irreversrble decisions are made. It 
must secure the accountability of all 
power centres operating within the f·rontiers 
of the state, and may find that 
control on behalf of the people is best 

secured by organic consultation. 

It must also develop a consultancyfunction to help people to do things for 
themselves by the provision of technical 
or other information or advisory services, 
and it must actively discourage 
the idea that the government can, or 
should itself, seek to solve all the problems 
confronting everyone. Indeed, it 
should look very critically at the well-
established myth that government exists 
to do thin·gs to people, instead of 
making it possible for them to do thingsfor themselves. Authoritarianism proper 
will still be necessary in the event of 
military, civil, economic, industrial, 
technical of communal emergencies, 
which could occur at any time. But 
except for those occasions it should seek 
always to act by consent, after fuH 
debate. 

In short, government should concern 
itself mainly with the big decisions 
within the state, concentrating its attention 
on its major objectives ; adjusting 
the system and the organisation structures 
to allow their realisation at various 
levels ; and inter-acting intelligently and 
professionaJ.ly with aU those parts of 
other systems that touch upon govern


ment's own broad range of responsibilities 
for promoting the human welfare 
and dignity of its citizens. 

But wherever it is necessary to intervene 
it must have a capability for doing 
so, as competently as possible, either 
directly or through one of its own 
agencies. One of the reasons why 
government today does play such a 
large part in industry and the community, 
is that more and more people 
expect it to do whatever is necessary to 
protect human beings from any misfortune 
that may befall them. That is 
one clear message that the new citizen 
has already got through to governments 
of a.JI parties. 

11. a new role for political 
leaders 
It naturally follows from this argument 
that the role of political leadership is 
likely to change in a number of significant 
ways in the years ahead. New-style 
political leaders at national level will 
need to establish a new sort of 
relationship with the people. They will 
have to recognise that the real limitation 
on their power to shape events will be 
the extent to which they can connect 
themselves through proper information, 
and communications systems, with the 
two new realities of our time -the 
managements of other centres of power, 
and the new citizen with his developing 
organisations. 

Political leaders may have to interpret 
their role as requiring them to remain 
well this side of the " we Ithey " frontier 
even when, through election, they will be 
in charge of government operations. 
That frontier between government and 
·governed has changed its character 
·significantly and ought to be seen as Jess 
rigid . They will see it as their job to 
<listen more intently to what is being said 
and to provide more effective means for 


scertaining public opinion, and for con-
tecting together the issues that are 
>rougbt to their attention by these 
neans ; to analyse, educate, to persuade,
ts well as to exercise executive responsi-
lilities. They will necessarily need to 
:eep in close touch with the new leader-
hip emerging from below, and to en-
~age in organic consultation with other 
•ower centres as the main instrument 
or making all power accountable. 
~hey will know that unless they can in-
ect their ideas, evolved after real dis-
ussion, into the structure of values of 
be society in which they work they may 
>in elections, but they won't achieve 
ll their objectives. They will need to 
•e much more modest in their claims 
, or what they can do, but much more 
onfident in their predictions of what 
e people they serve can achieve, for 
hemselves, if only they are allowed 
reater responsibility and are willing to 
se their new power, constructively and 
Jlly. 
'hey will have to be leaders, t;ather 
1ore in the Moses tradition, drawing 
1eir power less from the executive 
uthority they have acquired by elec-
on and more from influence, helping 
eople to see what they can achieve for 
1emselves, and acting as a consultant, 
quipped with all the necessary support 
nd facilities, to allow them to do it. 
'his is not a charter for anarchism, nor 
dream of creating a wholly self-
~gulating economic and political sys-
!m. Leadership there must be, but not 
II from the top. Leadership is insepar-
ble from responsibility and responsi-
ility is inseparable from power, and 
·, as I have argued, power is now be-
lg disseminated more widely, leader-
lip will have to be more widely shared 
)0. Indeed, in a world bulging over 
rith new power, the sheer volume of 
·ork for leaders to do is so great that 
nless far more men and women take 
1eir share of the load of leadership 
27 
and management, and become respon-
sible, the whole system will break down 
through sheer unmanageability. No one 
could possibly be wise enough, or 
knowledgeable enough, or have the 
time and skill to run the world today 
even if he had all the authority and all 
the expert advice he asked for to do 
the job. Individual people have got to 
do it themselves and argue it out as 
they go along. 
More than five hundred years before 
the birth of Christ, Lao-Tzu, the 
Chinese philosopher, had this -to sayabout leadership : " As for the best 
leaders, the people do not notice their 
existence. The next best the peoplehonour and praise. The next the people 
fear, and the next the people bate. But 
when the best leader's work is done the 
people say, 'we did it ourselves'." 
To create the conditions that will allow 
the people to do it themselves is the 
central task of leadership today. 
12. rethinking the role of 
the Labour Party 
If any of the territory reconnoitred in 
this pamphlet proves, on closer study, 
to be suitable for a further advance to-
wards democratic socialism, the only 
party in Britain capable of guidingpeople towards it is the Labour Party. 
But it must necessarily follow that the 
way in which it approaches its task, the 
nature of its own organisation and its 
own leadership role could also be 
altered if some of the arguments spelled 
out here have got any validi-ty. 
As a political party concerned to 
acquire power under the present system 
it cannot afford to pre-occupy itself too 
much with the philosophical considera-
tions or mid-distance forecasting tba,tunderlie much of what has been argued 
here. But it cannot present itself again 
scertaining public opinion, and for con-
tecting together the issues that are 
>rougbt to their attention by these 
neans ; to analyse, educate, to persuade,
ts well as to exercise executive responsi-
lilities. They will necessarily need to 
:eep in close touch with the new leader-
hip emerging from below, and to en-
~age in organic consultation with other 
•ower centres as the main instrument 
or making all power accountable. 
~hey will know that unless they can in-
ect their ideas, evolved after real dis-
ussion, into the structure of values of 
be society in which they work they may 
>in elections, but they won't achieve 
ll their objectives. They will need to 
•e much more modest in their claims 
, or what they can do, but much more 
onfident in their predictions of what 
e people they serve can achieve, for 
hemselves, if only they are allowed 
reater responsibility and are willing to 
se their new power, constructively and 
Jlly. 
'hey will have to be leaders, t;ather 
1ore in the Moses tradition, drawing 
1eir power less from the executive 
uthority they have acquired by elec-
on and more from influence, helping 
eople to see what they can achieve for 
1emselves, and acting as a consultant, 
quipped with all the necessary support 
nd facilities, to allow them to do it. 
'his is not a charter for anarchism, nor 
dream of creating a wholly self-
~gulating economic and political sys-
!m. Leadership there must be, but not 
II from the top. Leadership is insepar-
ble from responsibility and responsi-
ility is inseparable from power, and 
·, as I have argued, power is now be-
lg disseminated more widely, leader-
lip will have to be more widely shared 
)0. Indeed, in a world bulging over 
rith new power, the sheer volume of 
·ork for leaders to do is so great that 
nless far more men and women take 
1eir share of the load of leadership 
27 
and management, and become respon-
sible, the whole system will break down 
through sheer unmanageability. No one 
could possibly be wise enough, or 
knowledgeable enough, or have the 
time and skill to run the world today 
even if he had all the authority and all 
the expert advice he asked for to do 
the job. Individual people have got to 
do it themselves and argue it out as 
they go along. 
More than five hundred years before 
the birth of Christ, Lao-Tzu, the 
Chinese philosopher, had this -to sayabout leadership : " As for the best 
leaders, the people do not notice their 
existence. The next best the peoplehonour and praise. The next the people 
fear, and the next the people bate. But 
when the best leader's work is done the 
people say, 'we did it ourselves'." 
To create the conditions that will allow 
the people to do it themselves is the 
central task of leadership today. 
12. rethinking the role of 
the Labour Party 
If any of the territory reconnoitred in 
this pamphlet proves, on closer study, 
to be suitable for a further advance to-
wards democratic socialism, the only 
party in Britain capable of guidingpeople towards it is the Labour Party. 
But it must necessarily follow that the 
way in which it approaches its task, the 
nature of its own organisation and its 
own leadership role could also be 
altered if some of the arguments spelled 
out here have got any validi-ty. 
As a political party concerned to 
acquire power under the present system 
it cannot afford to pre-occupy itself too 
much with the philosophical considera-
tions or mid-distance forecasting tba,tunderlie much of what has been argued 
here. But it cannot present itself again 

as the champion of democratic socialist 
development without paying some 
attention .to what this could mean for 
its own structure, nature and role. The 
debates that must necessarily take place 
on just these very matters could release 
a great deal of creative energy within 
the party and the movement. Only if 
we can learn how to do that to ourselves, 
can we really be confident of our 
ability to do the very same thing on the 
much larger, national, scale which will 
certainly be necessary if any of our 
visions of the future of Britain are ever 
to be realised, by us all, as people, rediscovering 
the fact that this is our 
country and its future is what we want 
to make it-nothing less and nothing 
more. 

conclusion 

Most of the emphasis in this whcle 
argument has deliberately been about 
the method of politics rather than the 
content of specific policies to deal with 
specific problems. It is becoming more 
apparent every day that the best chance 
of getting the content right will come if 
the method is right. Certainly the case 
for real industrial democracy, for 
greater equality and the ending of privilege, 
the case for higher public expenditure 
to meet community needs and for 
strengthening human rights would 
emerge more strongly from the institutional 
changes designed ·to give people 
far more scope themselves. One reason 
why Labour Jost power in 1970 may 
well have been because this theme did 
not come out strongly enough, and the 
ground of political debate was too 
tightly geared to economic decisions, 
and concentrated on the role of Government 
to the exclusion of the part 
that the people themselves could play 
in solving their own problems. 

People who want to change the com


munity in which they live, the conditions 
under which they work, and the 
world in which their children will grow 
up, are now everywhere engaged in a 
struggle to get ·the power thaJt will allow 
them to do all these things. It must be 
a prime objective of socialists to work 
for the redistribution of political power 
to allow them to acquire more of i·t to 
work out their own destiny in their own 
way. Strong government to control the 
abuse of power will certainly be necessary; 
strong leadership too to articulate 
clea·r objectives, but above all the 
creaJtion of a strong and responsible 
society in which more people exercise 
more responsibility than those in 
authority anywhere yet seem ready to 
yield to them. In the seventies the debates 
inside the party and between the 
party and !the public will increasingly 
need to centre around this key question. 


fabian society 


The Fabian Society exists to further 
socialist education and research. It is 
affiliated to the Labour Party, both nationally 
and locally, and embraces all 
shades of Socialist opinion within its 
ranks-left, right and centre. 

Since 1884 the Fabian Society has enrolled 
thoughtful socialists who are prepared 
to discuss the essential questions 
of democratic socialism and relate them 
to practical plans for building socialism 
in a changing world. 

Beyond this the Society has no collective 
policy. It puts forward no resolutions of 
a political character, but it is not an 
organisation of armchair socialists. Its 
members are active in their Labour 
Parties, Trade Unions and Co-operatives. 
They are representative of the 
labour movement, practical people concerned 
to study and discuss problems 
that matter. 

The Society is organised nationally and 
locally. The national Society, directed 
by an elected Executive Committee, 
publishes pamphlets, and holds schools 
and conferences of many kinds. Local 
Societies-there are some 80 of them-
are self governing and are lively centres 
of discussion and also undertake research. 


Enquiries about membership should be 
sent to the General Secretary, Fabian 
Society, 11 Dartmouth Street, London, 
SW1; telephone 01-930 3077. 

the author 

Anthony Wedgwood Benn is Member 
of Parliament for Bristol South-East. 
He was Minister of Technology 1966-70 
and Pos•tmaster General 1964-66. He 
was Chairman of the Fabian Society 
1964-65 and is married to Caroline 
Benn. 

Cover design by Jonathan Green-
Armytage. Printed by Civic Press 
Limited (Tu), Civic Street, Glasgow, C4. 

SBN 7163 0402 3 


recent fabian pamphlets 


READING UST 

I 

CONh/'iUJ l u LltiRARY 

research series 

252 Peter Mittler 
268 M. Rende! and others 
272 Ben Whitaker 
273 Society of Labour Lawyers 
276 Society of Labour Lawyers 
277 D. Rubinstein, C. Speakman 
279 Louis Turner 
280 Society of Labour Lawyers 
281 Roy Moore 
282 a Fabian group 
283 Lord Kennet 
284 Alf Morris 
286 David Bull 
287 Peter Draper and others 
288 Lord Walston 
289 D. Bourn, N. Howard 

The mental health services 3s 
Equality for women 5s 
Participation and poverty 2s 6d 
Justice for all 8s 
Legal education 5s 
Leisure, transport and the countryside 4s 
Politics and the multinational company 5s 
Occupational accidents and the law 3s 
Self management in Yugoslavia 5s 

Planning for education in 1980 5s 
Controlling our environment 3s 
Value added tax: a tax on the consumer 3s 
Action for welfare rights 3s 
The NHS : three views 4s 
Farm gate to Brussels 69 
The future of telecommunications 5s 

tracts 


323 Richard M. Titmuss 
331 Richard Wollheim 
353 Brian Abel-Smith 
364 D. Downes, F. Flower 
374 Brigid Brophy 
390 Anthony Lester 
395 Tony Lynes 
396 Tony Lynes 
397 John Hughes 
399 R. H. S. Crossman 
400 Anne Lapping (ed) 
401 Rodney Fielding 

The irresponsible societySocialism and culture 
2s 6d 
6s 
Freedom in the welfare state 1s 6d 
Educating for uncertaintyReligious education in state schools 
Democracy and individual right!
Welfare rightsLabour's pension planThe rue : a plan for the 1970s 
Paying for the social services 
Community action 
A socialist foreign policy 
2s 6d 
3s 
3s 
2s 
4s 
5s 
3s 
6s 
4s 

young fabian pamphlets 


11 a study group Womanpower 5s 
17 D. Atkinson and others Students today 5s 
18 Vincent Cable Whither Kenyan emigrants ? 4s 
19 Anthony Osley Free communism : a Czech experiment 5s 
20 Nicholas Bosanquet Pay, prices and Labour in power 3s 

books 


Bernard Shaw and others 

R. H. S. Crossman and others 
Margaret Cole 
Brian Abel-Smith and others 
B. Lapping and G. Radice (~) 
Peter Townsend and others 
Peter Townsend and others 
Fabian ess[ays (sixth edition) 
New Fabian EssaysThe story of Fabian socialism 
Socialism and affluence 
More power to the peopleSocial services for all ? 
The fifth social service 

cased 30s 
cased 35s 
papen 15s 
paper 12s 
paper 25s 
paper 15s 
paper 18s