The Italian regional elections have finally been held-twenty years after they were due. The predicted results have led to Communist (PCI) and Social-Proletarian (PSIUP) majority in one region and a projected Socialist/Communist coalition in two others. The results are less of menace to the ruling class than they might have been in 1948. But they still pose problems-for the Left as well as for the Right.
The results were interpreted by the Bourgeois press asd victory for the "centre-Left," the coalition of Christian Democrats, Socialist, Social Democrats and Republicans which has constituted the national government of Italy for the past six years. But the situation is not so clear cut.
The losses on the left were mostly due to the abject tailendism of the Social-Proletarians (PSIUP), who have hitched their wagon so firmly to the Communists that they have lost their potential as a radical left opposition. Many PSIUP supporters in fact seem to have followed, whether consciously or not, the line taken by the Student Movement and left groups, and abstained. Meanwhile, within the Centre-Left, it was the minority parties who made gains, • largely at the expense traditional Right. Two points stand out: one, the Social Democrats have picked up the support of reactionary voters and are confirmed as a new part of the Right, the rallying-point of reactionary anti-Communism; the other, the surprising resilience of the old Socialist Party, formerly the great mass party of the working class but in steady decline since 1948. The key questions posed by the election conçern the Communist Party. Firstly what advantage will it draw from its outright victory Emilia-Romagna and its probable position as leader of a Left-coalition in Tuscany and Umbria? Will the Communists be as modest (or as reformist) in their ambitions in regional administration as they have been in the municipalities they control? Probably. The regions they have won are not those in which the industria] working class strong, and their diffuse social base is not such as to give them the necessary militant support for a confrontation with the central government. The strong showing of both Socialists and Social Democrats in the election is likely to strengthen the hand of the mostly overtly reformist wing of the PCI, whose strategy has always been to attempt to woo away the Socialists and the left of the Christian Democrats from the Centre-Left and to avoid too sharp a provocation to the Right.
The prospect, then, is that the long war of attrition between Communists and Christian Democrats will continue for some while, with a strong possibility of an eventual Communist victory. This is a pros pect which fills many sections of the Lef with dismay. The able manoeuvres of the PCI and its Trade Union allies have blun• of the class struggle in the interests of a sophisticated inter-class bid for parliamentary power, and the militant activity of last autumn has been absorbed into economism. What the ections show most clearly, shuflings are not a direct however, that parliamentary reflection of the development of forces within the country. So if the extra-parlia mentary left can get beyond the stage of only opposing the economism of the PCI with own brand maximalist economism, and if it can gain a strong foot hold in the industrial centres, then it can use Communist strength as a shield behind which it ould be possible to develop it own forces; provided of cours that the CLOUDS handle their differences without essary self-dest In short, it is not bad that the PCI may gain from the present situation provided the revolutionary forces can also consolidate Pollution is a field that has all the expert in non-issues, the Duke of Edinburgh is openin onferences on pollution and behin the scenes a motley array of technocrats, retired majors and rural Tories are fighting for the nation's purity. Messrs. Wilson and Nixon fresh from their rural preservation schemes in Nigeria and South-East Asia have had us all agog with their grandiose schemes for a cleaner world. The similarity between parliamentary elections and detergent advertisements (Wilson versus Heath: Omo versus Daz) is becoming even more marked with each political party promising a cleaner Britain!
The basic fact about pollution (ignored by most liberal criticisms) is that it represents an often deliberate attempt by industrial concerns to pass their cleaning costs to the community at large. One sewage plant at Plymouth, for example gives unofficial instructions to its employees to discharge raw sewage into the sea if the plant is overloaded, in spite of the fact that this is prohibited. Now industry has recognised how dangerous pollution is to its reputation and last year companies like ICI television commercials to clean up their image.
When industry talks to itself it is often more frank than its publicity hand-outs. In a Pollution Supplement in weekly magazine called Industry Week (owned and published by the Confederation of British Industries) we find in the issue of December 5th 1969 this revealing comment: "Industrial concerns exist not to serve people, but to make profits. As this entails that the greatest return should be extracted for the minimum investment, the attitude towards pollution is that it is money spent without return."
If one looks at information produced by the Alkaline Inspectorate (a Government body) one sees that the amount spent by 10 big industries on pollution in the decade 1958-68 is only tiny traction of their total investment, while experts have suggested that 10% is a reasonable figure. Shell Chemicals estimate that they have spent between f6 and £10 million on pollution at_ their £100 million Carrington plant comparing this with maximum ine for pollution offences of £100, we can see why many firms do little to stop pollution. The last Government issued a White Paper on the Environment suggesting that fines should be raised, but they still wil bear absolutely no relation to the damage caused.
So Britain is littered with examples of where non-socialised industry has passed its costs to the community in the form of slag heaps, smog and polluted waters. The Alkaline Inspectorate survey showed that the cost of air pollution by the 10 industries was £350 million per year. The irratiorality of our society can be seen from the fact that the 6½ million tons of sulphur dioxide emitted from the chimneys of British industry (giving acidic rain, harmful to vegetation and housewives' washing) could be eliminated. This will not happen, however, until speculators have pushed the world price of sulphur high enough for it to be extracted from the sulphur dioxide and resold at a profit.
Naturally the working class suffers most from pollution because workers are much more likely to live near fac: tories that pollute. In Billingham dominated by ICI-the chemical workers have to contend with company towns, and an inescapable company air. In Japan, the schoolchildren who live in the Yokkaichi petro-chemical industrial town have to wear masks to school to protect themselves from the fumes produced by the factories that their parents work for!
SO DO BUREAUCRATS Most pollution could be eliminated in a planned economy as waste produced by one industry can often be used by another. In the Soviet Union, however, planning is organised with bureaucratic ineptitude and often major projects are allowed to despoil. ate. One of the worst examples of this was the construction of a wood pulp factory on Lake Baikal (an enor mous freshwater lake in Eastern Sibe. ria) whose waste is killing many rare species of plant, shellfish, fish and animals. From the fuss the Press has been making about pollution one would think that they have been on another-and cleanerworld since the Industrial Revolution. The River Irwell has been the sewer for the Lancashire industrial complex since the earliest industralisation and its fate is typical. The Observer Business Supplement of 1st February / 1970 had an excellent article on the Irwell showing how it was polluted by industry on its banks and the author pointed out that if you fell in you would be taken to hospital for stomach pump-out. It is interesting to note that there is a small pamphlet in the archives Manchester Reference Library on the pollution of the Irwell written at the beginning of this century! It seems that no notice is being taken of even contemporars chester Canal ber of people.
There are six main groups in this country agitating about the environment, nearly all of them with a sprinkling of titles to grace their note paper. One is tempted to think that many of their members join on the assumption that conservation is inte grally linked to conservatism Some groups do some quite useful work, but others have very undesirable undertones. The 'Conservation hysterical desire population The composition of these societies is almost entirely derived from upper and middle income groups and the recent controversy over the site for London's. third International airThey are. As the varius discussions shows unrepresentative continued it became clear that the fact that the airport would create employment was only of minor con cern for them whereas trade unionists thought differently.
Another point about the societies is that they are all orientated to traditional methods of activity-the petition or tea with the Minister. They have never disturbed the wheels of industry.
MAKING THE BEST OF IT Recently there has been a stirring of interest in pollution from the Left (See Red Scientist NO. 3 and BSSRS Newsheet No.7) but it is sad that many socialists fail to see the potential of the pollution issue. Of course Nixon has used the pollution issue as a diversion for the anti-war movement, but this does not mean that pollution has no revolutionary implications. After all the US antiwar movement has been diverted into massive 'peaceful' rallies with radicals being prevented from speaking, but this does not mean that Vietnam should now have no significance for the revolutionary left.
The existing anti-pollution societies have little concern for the urban working-class areas where socialists could work against pollution. • Neighbourhood organisation against pollution enables us to link opposition to pollution, not just to the quality of life, but to identify local firms as class enemies for more than just the people who work in them. A neighbourhood campaign allows different sections of a working community to play their part, for activities can extend from picketing to housewives blocking firm's telephones with complaints. It is important to note that in industrial areas pollution is not just a matter of aesthetics; for many working people contact with cadmium, mercury or asbestos fumes can be lethal or at least cause severe suffering Science students are beginning to join the revolutionary left and the issue of pollution is one that could have a direct importance for them. The trouble with such issues as germ warfare is that they can be viewed as exceptions to the "decent" uses of science. Pollution, however, is a feature of all capitalist industry and a fight against it need not be diverted to moralism, but can lead to an analysis of the exploitative nature of our society David Aron * Red Scientist No.3 Available from Martin Thomas, Dept. of Mathematics, Manchester University, Manchester Newsheet No.7.
BSSRS Newsheet Available from British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, Great Russell St, London W.C.1
Black Dwarf July 7 1970 • page 13
----- pull-quotes -----
ingredients of a major non-issue. An unchallenged
wester, hip Care ply the Mahe Treet sught fire (1) kiling an the