Society, The Family And A Thatcher.
"There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families" (Margaret Thatcher, October 31, 1987) Introduction: When Margaret Thatcher spoke these words as British Prime Minister, she linguistically implied her general theory, her philosophy if you like, of humankind. The very essence of what it was and is, to be human. For Thatcher then, being human signified individualism, (oneself and one's particular family unit) along with competition and a hefty dose of aggressive and territorial behaviour when needs must. It is the purpose of this essay to interrogate Thatcher's particular claim and underlying general assumption of mankind from two dimensions. First of all, I will address the basic question, 'is this claim true?' Clearly, the concrete truth as to the existence or otherwise of the family as an institution is beyond doubt. Families, in one or other form and across all cultures, are an undeniable and well-established phenomenon of human history. What promises to be of more interest in this regard, and leaping ahead of myself somewhat, is the particular theory I offer later, aimed at explaining the significance of the monogamous family as an institution in Thatcher's thinking. For this reason therefore, I will apply our first question, solely to the issue of the existence or otherwise, of something some of us label society. It will be argued that society does indeed exist, and that to be human, is to be social. Next, and based on the logical assumption that no human being can think, feel or act in pure abstraction from the real world about them, I will pursue a second related question of an explanatory nature, namely: what concrete situation led Mrs. Thatcher to think and say the things she did about both society, and the family? Does Society Exist?: Thatcher, as we have seen then, believed, and presumably still does believe, that human existence consists of a loose conglomeration of individual men and women, logically concerned, each and every one of them, above all else with their own self-interest. This individualistic conception of human existence is directly opposed to that which sees human relations as necessarily assuming forms involving the communal and mutually co-operative association of people, as the only means of species survival and advancement. As we shall remark shortly, the social development and use of tools, along with that of speech, not only sets man apart from all other creatures on earth. It also means that human relationships are thoroughly, and necessarily, social. Indeed, in nature generally, we can remark an indispensable 'natural co-operation' at work. For example, in a letter of 1875 on this theme to Pyotr Lavrov, Frederick Engels writes: "[the] vegetable kingdom supplies oxygen and nutriment to the animal kingdom and conversely the animal kingdom supplies plants with carbonic acid and manure". Although Engels, in the very same letter, goes on to caution: "The interaction of bodies in nature - inanimate as well as animate - includes both harmony and collision, struggle and co-operation" (Engels, 1875, online). In other words, co-operation per se, whilst not being an absolute quality in its own right, is very much dominant in the natural world, thus enabling nature to flourish as a whole. We can clearly remark this natural co-operation, in the realm of lower order (i.e. non-human) animals such as monkeys, lions, meerkats and so on. With regards to these and other such animal groups, we remark not merely individual, or competitive behaviour, but instead, an instinctive kind of bonding and social co-operation. A little under one hundred years ago this was recognised among others, by Pannekoek (1912, online) who notes: "When a number of animals live in a group, herd or flock, they carry on the struggle for existence in common against the outside world; within such a group the struggle for existence ceases". Pannekoek also suggests that " [a] second advantage of sociability arises from the fact that where animals live socially, there is a possibility of the division of labor. Such animals send out scouts or place sentinels whose object it is to look after the safety of all, while others spend their time either in eating or in plucking, relying upon their guards to warn them of danger. Such an animal society becomes, in some respects a unit, a single organism". We can, to varying degrees, remark this kind of social-like behaviour and natural division of labour among numerous species of lower order animals, and across the globe. So too in the human sphere of relationships, and from the very beginnings of human existence, all manifestations of individual self-interest are necessarily subordinate to the common good. For human society to flourish and progressively evolve, co-operation, and not competitive individualism must always be to the fore. "Man appears as the creature who learns to understand, manipulate and alter his environment, instead of, like [other] animal[s], adapting [themselves] to its pressures. Man is the tool maker and user, who conceives distant ends and pursues them through intermediate devices [and] he is the first creature to produce his own means of subsistence...Men...do not simply wander about looking for food and consuming it. They cultivate the soil, they herd cattle, they fabricate pottery...they forge iron, and make ships and wheeled carts. And all this from the first is 'social activity'... mean[ing] [above all else] the accumulation of valuable techniques and other forms of knowledge which can be taught in society, [and] by society to its younger members" (Lewis, 1972, pp.103-4). In this sense, human society is, potentially at least, immortal. Collective sociality then, and not individual men and women acting independently of one another, is the defining characteristic of human existence. The general fulfilment of human needs can only be achieved in a co-operative and corporate manner. People cannot simply do what they want to do, based merely upon considerations of limited self-interest, or if they do, they are likely to court trouble. If it were true, as Thatcher would have us believe, that human existence is devoid of the social impulse, and ipso facto significant co-operative social relations aimed at securing the common good, then how has humankind progressed as a species, from that of hunter/food-gatherer to the stage of settled agriculture? Could mere groupings of individual men and women have founded, organissed and in some cases sustained for many centuries, titanic empires, not least that of ancient Rome? With no social basis, could we, as a species have evolved from social relations of slavery to more advanced social relations of feudalism and then progress yet farther, to even more advanced economic, and culturally enriching social relations, warts and all, now all too common in our contemporary capitalistic Western society? And are the numerous developments in the sciences (both natural and social) over many centuries, merely to be regarded as the outcome of the achievements of a 'loose association' of individual, self-interested men and women? Are not such scientific achievements the historical consequence of an ongoing collective, and co-operative social endeavour? The cultural theorist Terry Eagleton puts the point plain enough in his discussion about the relationship between the individual and the wider culture into which he or she is born. For Eagleton, cultural sociality is an absolutely indispensable part of who we are as individuals. "All human beings are prematurely born, helpless and dependent, unable to look after themselves. This applies not just to Oxbridge dons but to the whole human species. Later on, if all goes well, we will achieve a degree of autonomy...Only through the form of dependence on others we call culture can we come to be self-sufficient [as individuals] which is no doubt one reason why the word 'monster' in classical antiquity meant among other things, one who sees himself as self-dependent and to that extent, is in conflict with his or her creaturely nature." (Eagleton, 2009, p.91). Edward Thompson, I think, had a similar theme in mind when he wrote his poem 'The Infant'. The third and final stanza in particular which sums up the helpless state of the baby Jesus is especially telling. Could god's mother be culture itself? "Poor puny prince of peace, poor helpless sod, Incarnate deity in agony With trying to get up his wind - Humiliating botch-up for a god Conceived as saviour of mankind Who cannot even save himself from death! In pity for his accidental form God's mother tiptoes to his breath And pulls the cover up to keep god warm." (Thompson, 1999, p.90) It is true of course, that examples of social regression and social stagnation can be remarked at different periods throughout human history. Certainly too, social conflicts continue to exist, among and between various groups of people to this very day. Moreover, where such antagonisms involve the contestation of economic interests (as has indeed been the case since the emergence of private property and thus antagonistic classes of people in the ancient world) human social relationships necessarily assume a contradictory and conflictual class-based form. Yet despite all such social setbacks, and despite the prolonged and ongoing existence of various forms of antagonistic relationships among and between people, co-operation in human relationships in one or other of its forms, has always been, and still is, very much to the fore. Without a significant element of collective co-operation of some kind or other, a human(e) society, would be impossible to realise, sustain and develop in practice. I touched earlier upon the idea of social evolution, when suggesting that historical development from slavery to feudalism and most recently to capitalism, would have been impossible without the bond of cultural sociality. I want to focus here in a little more detail on this process of social evolution as a further means of challenging the argument that society is merely composed of 'individual men and women'. On the contrary, humankind now historically evolves by way of progressive developments in its social forms of organisation; by the growth and social transmission of knowledge; by the invention and application of evolving instruments and techniques of production and so on. This suggested social evolutionary process moreover, is driven forward through the existence of permanent contradictions. What do I mean by this? Think for one moment, of a mechanical typewriter. "In 1875, Christopher Sholes with assistance from Amos Densmore rearranged the typewriter keyboard so that the commonest letters were not so close together, and the type bars would come from opposite directions. Thus they would not clash together and jam the machine. The new arrangement was the QWERTY [keyboard]" (Idea Finder, 2007, online). So too in social affairs then, must we periodically set about rearranging our pattern of social relations, as a direct consequence of advances in our productive forces. The contradiction between the two, this tendency to 'socially jam up' as it were, initially occurs because social relations tend to be more conservative in character, whereas productive forces tend to be more dynamic. All humans to varying degrees are faced with a permanent contradiction in their relationship with nature. Nature does not simply surrender its various properties for people to appropriate, exchange and use ready-made. They have to struggle from the beginning, in their efforts to produce and to reproduce their means of life. In so doing then, humans, unlike all other living creatures, do not simply adapt themselves to their natural environment. Instead, they exercise an active social influence on both their natural surroundings and on one another and in so doing, progressively develop their productive forces. The idea of forces of production in this sense, refers to all the available instruments of production, the particular means of labour by which material values are produced, and the numerous skills of the people themselves who undertake the said process of production in their efforts to socially produce and reproduce their means of life, and at a definite time in history. The essential feature to note in this regard, is that people's productive forces dynamically evolve. The fact that the pebble-choppers of Homo habilis have progressively evolved over many thousands of years into that of machine-driven, industrial social production in giant factories and networked across the globe is clear evidence of this. People gather practical experience, new skills, formulate new theories and so on, all of which encourages the intelligent improvement of existing techniques and the invention of new productive forces. Eaton (1949, pp.13-14) presents a useful historical summary of key inventions, all of which serve to highlight the general, progressive development of humankind's productive forces over the past few thousand years. For example, from around 5550 BC through to approximately 2000 BC inventions include the hoe, sickle, spindle loom, wheeled vehicles, harness, sail and bellows. Following this, from around 2000 BC to approximately AD 475, further advances include smelting and the effective use of iron, more specialised tools for agriculture like the pulley and sheep shears, cranes, the heavy plough, nail-making anvils and general uses of animal power. Then, from around AD 475 to about AD 1700, we note further key inventions like the windmill, waterpower for fulling and crushing, generalised animal power, modern ploughs, modern rudder, block printing and the lathe. Finally, in the period spanning AD 1700 to the beginning of the 21st-century, we note such inventions and developments as the Newcomen engine, coke smelting, the spinning jenny, Watt's rotative engine, the first locomotive, telegraph, the turret lathe, Bessemer steel and so on. Clearly however, in acquiring and developing their productive instruments and skills, and in their efforts to produce and to reproduce their means of life, people must first of all establish co-operative social relations with one another. These relations of production into which people enter are indispensable and independent of their will. They are indispensable, since without them, production and exchange on a social scale would be impossible. Social relations function moreover, not simply to regulate relationships existing between people themselves, but also to necessarily regulate people's relationships to their historically conditioned means of production. The means of production include the various instruments of production, as well as all the additional means without which, production could not take place. These additional factors include raw materials, buildings, land and so on. The specific objective need for regulating people's relationships to the means of production stems from the fact that some kind of social arrangement is necessary in practice, in order to make it known who is entitled to dispose of the various means of production and the resulting products. People's production relations are also independent of their will, in the sense that the people in question, do not consciously decide beforehand, what dominant pattern of social relationships to establish. This is not only because people throughout history and up to the present day have possessed no scientific knowledge of the objective laws functioning to regulate social development from one historical phase to another. It is chiefly because private ownership of the instruments and means of production, which first arose in times of slavery in the ancient world, rules out the possibility of people being able to consciously and collectively direct the development of society as a whole. For this very reason, a given dominant pattern of property relations, capitalism let us say, along with its myriad characteristic views and institutions, comes for a time at least to be regarded by the majority in society as in the very nature of things. In short, people come to think, feel and act in accordance with such seemingly natural circumstances. This sense of natural permanence is mutually reinforced in exploitative societies, as the ruling class in question must always find ways of concealing its actual minority, social interests from both the majority it daily exploits, as well as from itself. A natural act of both deception and self-deception. For otherwise it would be necessary not only for the respective, exploiting minority class to acknowledge its historic, transient role and thus its inevitable downfall. It would also be impossible for it to pursue its minority interests in practical terms throughout wider society. While relations of production then, naturally tend to exhibit conservative characteristics, for their part the forces of production, as we have seen, tend to be much more dynamic, often evolving and developing at great speed. One of the natural outcomes of this contradiction is that the forces of production eventually outgrow the more conservative property relations that once fostered the former's positive development and application. At this stage, the dominant relations of production begin to retard and hamper, as opposed to facilitate further progressive uses of the respective production techniques. Either this, or else develop and apply them in ever more reactionary ways. At this point, form (the more conservative relations of production) must be brought back in line with function (the more dynamic forces of production) if further progressive, social development is to be realised. Thus for example, the many pressing new tasks that naturally and spontaneously arose within feudal society, (a consequence of the crippling feudal social relations) eventually came to be consciously reflected in the minds of enough people whose interests required a reorganisation of such crippling property relations along capitalistic lines. This general contradiction then, between the forces of production and the relations of production is precisely why primitive communism, slavery, feudalism and capitalism, each arose one after another. And it is precisely why socialism will one day supplant capitalism as a higher form of social organisation. This historical progression as I have already pointed out but it merits repeating, means that humankind evolves in a qualitatively different manner to that of other living creatures. And the manner in question is thoroughly social. "It is not the changes brought about by tiny variations inherited and accumulated and interacting over hundreds of millions of years. It is the transmission of characters - acquired by intelligence and imagination, and leading to invention, new institutions, new intellectual levels, new artistic creation; transmitted as cultural and technological heritage by education, by its embodiment in libraries and art galleries and musical scores; and at every stage an augmentation of consciousness" (Lewis, 1974, p.110). A Way With Words: Social evolution of course, would have been impossible without the emergence and fostering of a common language among and between the peoples concerned. It is indeed an irony, that Thatcher conveyed by way of the spoken word, her assertion as to the suggested non-existence of human society. Such an expression, for me, betrays the hypocrisy of her entire conception of humankind, and ultimately demonstrates how thoroughly she was deceived. For language itself has been, since its emergence who knows how many thousands of years ago, (and forever will be for as long as there are people), the very instrument of human social co-operation and thus, social evolution. A brief consideration of the phenomenon that is language, will hopefully serve to further support the general argument that human existence is indeed, social existence. "Outside the bounds of society, language [would be] just as useless as a [naked] eye in darkness" (Lewis, 1969, p.197) The very existence of language, implies the existence of a society. After all, if there are merely 'individual men and women' in the world with no society as such to speak of, as Thatcher among others would have us believe, then surely, human beings would not have felt it necessary to pass beyond direct sensational noises like cries, yelps, screams, grunts and so on. Every individual creature in this sense would indeed be itself, like a dog, or a fox, or a bird, or whatever. This kind of direct arousal of the senses however, is by no means sufficient as Kautsky (1906) recognised, if common social labour is to arise and prosper under ever-expanding, complex conditions, of an ongoing social division of labour. As Eaton's data testifies, common social labour has not only arisen, it has positively flourished over the past several thousand years. And for such a development to take place, language is needed not only as a principle means for communicating the here and now. But also for interpreting and retelling the past, and also, for planning the future. For sure, I've heard Mrs. Thatcher over the years emit the odd grunt, yelp, scream and so on, not least in the sphere of political life. But I've also heard here speak the English language on occasion. And language means society. Initial Conclusions: Given all the above, it seems reasonable to me at this stage, to conclude that "sociality (contrary to Thatcher's belief) is the defining characteristic of human existence. The fulfilment of man's needs cannot be achieved in a [competition]...of all against all, but only in close and friendly association...Man cannot do what he wants to do alone. He is unfree as a solitary individual. He attains his freedom, only in co-operation with his fellows. Economic production is social. [And] it is because of economic production that man is free [by degrees]" (Lewis, 1972, p. 105). Humans then, are not self-centred 'Naked Apes' as Desmond Morris imagined. Neither are they, as Bertrand Russell believed, prone to inherit aggressive instincts from past generations of 'savages'. Nor are they predisposed to an 'ineradicable aggressive dimension' as Sigmund Freud suggested. And neither are they, contrary to Thatcher's belief, self-interested individuals, devoid of society. So Why Say It?: If the overwhelming bulk of empirical data, along with a hefty dose of logic leads us to conclude that humans are thoroughly social creatures, then an obvious bundle of questions arise: Why was Mrs. Thatcher minded to assert that 'there is no such thing as society?' More specifically, why did she assert that there are only individual men and women? And why was she drawn to make favourable reference to the seemingly benign institution of the nuclear family? Because her life experiences were not compelling her to scientifically question in any way, the seemingly natural and permanent existence of capitalist property relations, Thatcher was logically obliged to philosophically conceptualise human existence in terms suited to the prevailing social order. 1980's Britain was a place in which relationships were (and still are) founded upon competition and the private appropriation of things. A capitalistic world of possessors and pursuers; of hunters and quarry. A society compelling people by degrees not only to become mere buyers and sellers, but also to use one or more of their fellow human beings as their only means of getting the kinds of inanimate things they both want and need. This kind of competitive and individualistic way of life was wholly in-keeping with Thatcher's personal circumstances. Above all, she was (and still is) very wealthy, and such wealth of course, delivers great freedom in any society based on the buying and selling of commodities. Thus, Thatcher's natural political function in 1980's Britain as a leading representative of the capitalist class, was simply to defend the status quo in her privileged role as Prime Minister and leader of the right-wing conservative party. The general philosophical ideas underpinning Thatcher's particular capitalistic view of human existence as largely separate and isolated can be traced back, I believe, to the influential metaphysical theorising of the intellectual representatives of the rising capitalist class in seventeenth century Europe. Metaphysics basically views the world (and consequently human existence itself) as a conglomeration of individual particles. "The world [so thought the metaphysicist] consists of nothing but particles of matter in interaction...[with] each particle [having] an existence separate and distinct from every other" (Cornforth, 1955, p.40) The gifted seventeenth century intellectual and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz for his part, coined the term monads to capture the essence of this growing sense of individualism and competition among and between people. Leibniz "was an intense individualist in an age in which [capitalistic] individualism was growing. Bankers and merchants were vying with aristocrats and princes in the determination to run the world; intellectuals were asserting their independence; and Reason was making a special appeal to men to think for themselves. Leibniz responded to the spirit of the time and came to see the universe as an aggregate of individuals. These he called monads. His theory was a metaphysical projection of social life...with each individual conscious mainly of himself and his [individual] wants" (Lewis, 1970, pp. 104-5). Three centuries later, albeit now under more advanced conditions of individualism, this is precisely Thatcher's view of human existence. Such capitalistic philosophy as articulated by Thatcher, served to fulfil a practical role of course. For example, her ideas stood to logically justify practical political activity, not least overt attacks on the social fabric of British society itself. According to Sell (2006, p.6) for instance, by 1987 Thatcher's government had presided over cuts to the welfare state of more than �12 billion. When there is no such thing as society of course, such cuts appear wholly rational, nay necessary. Sell continues; "as a result [of these cuts], basic state benefits for the unemployed covered only 55% of the basic necessities of life. The number of working poor...increased by 300%...[Thatcher's] 'home-owning democracy'...led to a 300% increase in private-sector rents and a 100% increase in...[social housing]...rents. [Meanwhile, a] state pension which provided the bare minimums of life in old age, council housing for those who could not afford (or did not want) to buy, and the right of 16 and 17 year-olds to claim benefits, all this and more was taken away". But what of the more fortunate individuals in 1980's conservative Britain? Again, data drawn from Sell is revealing. She argues that "the money that Thatcher saved [from her draconian welfare cuts] was poured into the pockets of the very rich. One tax cut alone gave the richest 550,000 an extra �33,000 a year each". Thus, Thatcher's ideas of human existence, themselves natural ideological consequences of the concrete historical situation to-hand, in turn, become causes in their own right, reacting back upon society itself, and largely it is fair to say in this instance, to the detriment of the poorer echelons of British society. It is perhaps worth mentioning here, that Thatcher was only too keen to champion communal, social values, whenever it so suited the political needs of her government in particular and those of her class in general. And while she undoubtedly did not consciously think of her intellectual and subsequent concrete activities from this perspective, this does not devalue the fact that she was indeed, thinking and acting hypocritically. For example, during the build up to the 1982 Falklands War between Britain (with much American political assistance) and Argentina, and also when her government sought to resist further European integration, she made various direct appeals to the notion of collective British identity; to what it meant to be a citizen (subject?) of the UK. Essentially then, she was extolling the virtues, albeit implicitly, of 'British society' at large. We have yet to suggest a reason for why Thatcher was minded, at least to pay lip service to the institution we term the family. Again, the underlying reality of such an ideological motivation is most fascinating. The contemporary and dominant family form, at least for the majority of humans in the West, locked as we are into the shared social space and historical time of advanced industrial capitalism, is that of the monogamous family. This particular institution, at least in theory, consists of a heterosexual couple, united in marriage for all eternity, and on paper, having 'two-point-four' children. I would argue, that the monogamous family unit, in one or other of its particular historical forms, is objectively necessary, under conditions of private property. It is I think, for this reason alone, that Thatcher naturally recognised the ideological value of monogamous family life. In a yet-to-be-bettered account of the origin of the family, Frederick Engels (1884, online), in his discussion of the monogamous form, traces its origins back to ancient times and ultimately, to economic causes. "The origin of monogamy as far as we can trace it back among the most civilized and highly developed people of antiquity...was not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. [On the contrary] it was the first form of the family to be based, not on natural, but on economic conditions - on the victory of private property over primitive, natural communal property. [According to] the Greeks...the sole exclusive aims of monogamous marriage were to make the man supreme in the family, and to propagate, as the future heirs to his wealth, children indisputably his own". The contemporary monogamous family unit then, is arguably not only symbolic of the concrete existence and cultural dominance of private property in a given society (private property being something very close to Thatcher's own heart), it also affords opportunities for some, either to marry into wealth and social influence, or for those who are already wealthy, to marry into a similar such family. We can remark as much if we briefly consider aspects of Thatcher's own family history. In 1951 of course, Mrs. Thatcher herself, became part of the extended family of a wealthy businessman, by marrying Denis Thatcher. They subsequently had two children, Carol and Mark. It is common knowledge to just about anyone with a lively interest in British politics, that in 1987, Mark, married into the family of millionairess Diane Burgdorf, whose father was a super wealthy American car dealer. Similarly, in 2003 Mark again it was, who inherited his late father's baronetcy with all this title implies for 'unlocking influential doors' in business Britain and beyond. In 2004, Mark Thatcher's personal wealth was estimated at �60 million (Guardian Unlimited, 2004, online). Perhaps the phrase 'keep it in the family' has a monogamous origin. Conclusions: The argument has hopefully been established. Society is by no means a myth. On the contrary, human existence, always has been, is now, and always will be for as long as there are people, social existence, and can be nothing but. The unique manner in which human beings engage with nature and with one another as the only means of species survival and development, necessitates that human relations are co-operative and corporate in essence. To behave in any other manner is essentially to negate what it is, to be human(e). However, the fact that Thatcher felt ideologically compelled to pour scorn upon the idea of human society and ipso facto communal, co-operative relationships, was not based at all upon rational and objective reasoning on her part. Instead, such an ideological need naturally arose in her mind, as a direct reflection of her socially privileged class-based status in 20th-century Britain. Consequently, she utterly failed to recognise the historically transient nature of capitalist property relations. Again, on account of her crippled mode of thought, Thatcher naturally recognised the objective value and ongoing role played in British society in particular, and Western society generally, by the monogamous family unit. An institution as we have seen, born of private property and in its contemporary form, an institution that naturally lends itself to the ongoing reproduction of power, privilege and obscene inter-marriages of wealth. Let us hope that in failing health as is currently the case, Thatcher is able to successfully trawl Britain in her search for one or other kind individual in the apparent welter of individual men and women before her, and subsequently discover one, and hopefully more than one, who will think it proper to tend to her medical needs. REFERENCES: Cornforth, M. (1955) Dialectical Materialism Volume I Materialism and the Dialectical Method, London, Lawrence and Wishart. Eagleton, T. (2009) Culture and socialism, in International Socialism Journal, Spring 2009, London, Sherborne Publications, pp. 91-99. Eaton, J. (1949) Political Economy. A Marxist text Book, London, Lawrence and Wishart. Engels, F. (1875) Letter to Pyotr Lavrov, [Accessed online, June 2007] Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_17-ab.htm Engels, F. (1884) The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, [Accessed online, June 2007] Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm Idea Finder (1997-2007) Qwerty Keyboard, [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/qwerty.htm Kautsky, K. (1906) Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, Chicago, Charles H. Kerr and Company. Lewis, J. (1969) Anthropology Made Simple, London, Howard and Wyndham Company. Lewis, J. (1970) History of Philosophy, London, The English Universities Press. Lewis, J. (1972) The Marxism of Marx, London, Lawrence and Wishart. Lewis, J. (1974) The Uniqueness Of Man, London, Lawrence and Wishart. Pannekoek, A. (1912) Marxism And Darwinism, [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm#S7 Sell, H. (2006) Socialism in the 21st Century, Nottingham, Russell Press. The Guardian Unlimited (2004) Scratcher, the millionaire fixer [Accessed online, June 2007] Available at: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1291088,00.html#article_continue Thompson, E. P. (1999) Collected Poems, Wiltshire, Cromwell Press Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 Colin Baker |