George Walford: Editorial Notes (22)

Each issue of IC has carried an announcement that there was at present no charge. There were implications in that, and the day has now come. One reader recently sent us a cheque to help cover expenses, another offered to pay, and this has put ideas in our greedy little-head.

Each reader is invited to send an amount between £2 and £5; for this they will receive ten issues of IC. Publication will continue to be irregular, one issue every two months being the target. (No. 1 appeared in October 1979, No. 21 in November 1985, so over the past six years we have fallen short by three issues). A “P” followed by a number on the address label will indicate the issue with which your subscription will expire. People who are not asked to pay because IC is exchanging journals or some other service with them will have their labels marked with a bracketed “E” (that starts with this issue; if the label with which this reached you is marked “(E)” you are not asked to pay). English cheques or postage stamps will be welcome, also English or foreign banknotes; bank charges make it uneconomic to exchange foreign cheques or money orders for under £5.

Readers who do not send any money will continue to receive the journal as long as this remains practical, preference being given to those, whether supporters or opponents, who have expressed interest. Nothing, of course, will be allowed to hinder our efforts to instruct the (Anarcho-) Socialist Party of Great Britain in socialism.

IC now has readers in Ohio, California, Aberdeen, England and Jerusalem; the gaps between still have to be filled, and the extra funds will help in doing this.

– – –

WHY IS IT, that with all the resources of modern technology to call on, the banks (at least, the ones we deal with) can provide no civilized means for speaking to the teller? The loud voice needed to penetrate the solid screen of plate glass broadcasts private business to all the people waiting. The absence of any better arrangement suggests that the banks despise their customers, and probably outdoes the effect of a lot of expensive advertising.

They can hardly plead shortage of funds. It is not long since high interest rates increased their profits so much that a Tory government made them pay a special “windfall” tax. We forget whether the amount was four hundred million pounds or four thousand million, but it was enough to pay for some mikes and speakers, or even something cleverer.

– – –

The restriction we impose upon ourselves in this issue of IC is that the TLS shall not be mentioned. It’s a pity, because there have been some good things in it during the past weeks. In the issue of 29 November, for example, one contributor – No! Mustn’t. Other journals will be mentioned as usual – this is, after all, IDEOLOGICAL COMMENTARY.

– – –

FROM FOUR Forty-five to five o’clock (and perhaps longer, we didn’t stay to see) on the evening of Thursday 28 November, 1985, the chimney on the huge block of the Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, was sending out large amounts of bronchitis-producing smoke. We accept that tradesmen have a right to drum up trade, but aren’t doctors supposed to be different?

– – –

We expect shortly to be issuing:
A written debate with the (Anarcho-) Socialist Party of Great Britain.
A study of a major feature of social development not previously treated by systematic ideology.

– – –

CORRECTION to IC14: Page 44, last full-length line: Delete “simile”; substitute “metaphor.” And our abashed apologies to the shades of all the teachers who worked so hard to make us recognise the difference.

from Ideological Commentary 21, November 1985.