It is too crude to see racism as being totally advantageous to the capitalists (nor do they see it as such). It is true that racism helps them in that ultimately it leads to the demoralisation of the working class as a whole. However, on the other hand it is wasteful for capitalism both in economic terms of under-used labour resources and in political terms of potential and actual black revolt. The solution to this problem adopted by one wing of the ruling class is the usual liberal tactic of trying to diffuse the whole situation by throwing in a few reformist sops. This is one explanation for the vast racerelations industry that now exists in Britain: but it is precisely because reforms cannot abolish racism, which is itself a product of capitalism, that there are also divisions and antagonisms within the race relations industry. 'INDEPENDENT' MACHINERY Apart from the various strands within the State machinery, which constitute a good part of the race-relations industry, there are also various so-called "independent' bodies who see themselves as examining the race problem'. The main ones are the Runnymede Trust and the Institute of Race Relations. However, blacks can do without such 'independence. Thus: 1. As regards financial backing, the I.R.R. is heavily financed by foundations such as the Ford Foundation and the Gulbenkian (which is controlled by the Portugese government). The Runnymede Trust is mainly financed by the Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust, which on the one hand supports liberation movements in Africa, including Frelimo, and on the other has as Chairman W.B. Morrell, a director of Pearson Longmans Ltd., whose interests include Longmans Rhodesia Ltd., Longmans South Africa Ltd. in Capetown, and a 50 percent holding in South Africa's Financial Mail Lid.! L.R.R. and the Runnymede Trust, here again As regards the individuals who run the financial interests predominate. For instance, 13 of the 20 members of the Council of the I.R.R. are representatives or owners of international monopoly capital and its various interests; one.F. Seebohm, is a director of Barclays Bank and has prevented Race Today from publishing an article on Barclays.2 A similar situation prevails in the Board of Trustees of the Runnymide Trust Indeed, what is more, there are close links with the State machinery in that Mark Bonham Carter, chairman of the Community Relations Council, is on the Council of the I.R.R. 3. What this financial backing etc. means becomes clearer when one examines the articulated politics of the Runnymede Trust and the I.R.R. The Runnymede Trust clearly sees its role as 'cooling down' racial conflict of any sort within industry so as to prevent wastage of industrial resources. Thus it has set up the Runnymede Trust Industrial Unit. Thus it boasts (in its 1970 Report) that, "The Institute of Directors and British Institute of Management have published reviews of the Unit's publications in their journals. Relations with the Institute of Personnel Management and the Industrial Society are close and cordial".Thus its Director-Dipak Nandy-was sponsored by U:S.A. to examine their race-relations industry, and was voted by the magazine Personnel Management as "the man of the moment". INSTITUTE OF RACE RELATIONS The main indication of the policies of the I.R.R., particularly on immigration control, is found in the study it has produced by Deakin (who is also on the Advisory Committee of the Runnymede Trust). The Marxist argument is that immigration control is against the interestsof the working class as a whole, both black and white, because it erects racist divisions in the fight against capitalism. However, the liberal argument against control is always to justify the 'need' for immigration by using some empirical criterion-which is inevitably a capitalist criterion. Thus Deakin comes out against control on the grounds that immigration has "proved beneficial to the economy", i.e., the capitalist economy. Likewise he takes to the logical conclusion the liberal argument that "we" need blacks because they do all the dirty jobs, by arguing that black unemployment is of benefit to the white working class by taking the burden of unemployment from them-the most demoralising of all arguments. There is no mention of the way in which capitalism causes unemployment and forces blacks into the worst paid jobs.
RACE TODAY However, what makes the situation at the I.R.R. more complex is the existence of its magazine, Race Today, which is run by the Institute's staff and which the controlling Council tried to close down on the grounds that it was non-objective, that it was actually on the side of blacks, and that it was being run by revolutionaries. This came to a head with an issue of Race Today which came out against the Rhodesian settlement.
In fact, however, whatever the subjective intentions of the staff of Race Today, the politics of the magazine come out as an incredibly mystifying liberal hotchpotch. The reason why the magazine is so mystifying is because of the totally eclectic nature of its content. Thus: 1. Some of the articles are indeed of an excellent nature in that they constantly expose many acts of racism which the revolutionary press, with its own usual chauvinism, generally ignores. Similarly it has made many valid criticisms of the Race Relations Board etc. 2. However, on top of this is a completely liberal analysis of issues. For instance, the editorial on Rhodesia regrets that British (i.e. imperialist) troops were not sent into Rhodesia (February 1972). Again the Rhodesian settlement is explained in terms of a 'sell-out" by the present Tory government (January 1972), not in terms of a consistent history of imperialist exploitation by all British governments of which the settlement is merely a continuation. 3. Finally there is an editorial policy of printing "all spectrums of opinion". This is why it carries adverts for the Conservative Bow Group, and articles from members of the Monday Club like Max Hanna (January 1972).
FUTURE OF I.R.R. AND RACE TODAY In fact the business interests on the Council were defeated by the membership of the I.R.R They have now threatened to resign; and will probably take their financial backers to the even more openly class-collaborationist Runnymede Trust. However, it is difficult to see where the I.R.R. and its staff can now go-provided they can get mony to go anywhere. Thus there is talk of it "serving the community" and moving from Piccadilly Circus to Brixton. However, given the eclectic politics of its staff many of whom are self-professed liberals, it will probably end up alongside the Student Christian Movement and other assorted political parasites on the poor in the soggy morass of 'community polities.
-S. C.
NOTES: 1. These facts taken from Robin Jenkins's pamphlet, Production of Knowledge at the I.R.R. and aiso from rime our The Observer, 26 March.
----- pull-quotes -----
The magazine 'Race Today' will continue to appear despite the split in the Institute of Race Relations