This Right is Wrong! (1976)

From the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Work is a nature—imposed necessity. If society wishes to sustain itself then it has got to wrestle with nature and produce and distribute food, clothing and shelter in order for its survival. That is general, but now the particular.

Because the machinery of wealth production is in the hands of an owning class, most of us who don’t own this capital are compelled to seek employment from the owners. They are the employers, we are the employees. The employers’ privileges and riches are based on the exploitation of the employees, namely the amount of surplus-value which they (the capitalists) can extract from workers during production. It is in fact on this condition that jobs are provided. So for the workers to insist on their exploitation being made a “right” is blandly perpetuating the system of master and slave.

“Fight for the right to work” is the current bandwagon for the Communist Party and the International Socialists. They have been busy holding demonstrations urging workers to claim their entitlement to a lifelong toil. Their leaders have been anxious to explain how this can be done. Warning the Labour government “no cuts in public expenditure”. That British capitalists should be made to invest their capital in dear ol' Britain, and not export it abroad in search of bigger profits. And that import controls should be imposed in order to save the capitalists who own the home industries from going bankrupt. Most important of all, more state ownership. All done, according to the CP and IS, with the workers’ jobs at heart.

If that isn’t confusing enough, what about this? In America the “right to work” campaign is a completely different kettle of fish. Its main bind is against the power of the trade unions. The National Right to Work Committee which is led by a former electrical engineer, Reed Lawson from Kansas, has upped its membership in the last two years from 30,000 to 330,000. It’s against the trade unions’ closed shop policies; harassment of non-trade-unionists; strikes and picketing which affect the jobs of many people unconnected with the particular dispute. It’s against the compulsory unionization of the teachers and public employees. Last year the NRWC launched a campaign against the Common Sites Picketing Bill. After an inflow of 700,000 letters demanding its removal President Ford finally vetoed the bill. The British and American crusades for the “right to work” are almost opposites and as far as the workers are concerned neither provides much sense.

Society has a need to work. But today society is divided into Capital and Labour, each with its own different interests: Capital with its need to make as much profit as possible at the expense of wages, Labour its need to get as much in wages and as good conditions as possible. There is no place for “rights”. There is a need for Labour to seek independence from Capital and that comes about not by seeking phoney “rights” but only through the emancipation of the working class from the domination of the master class. The emancipation of the working class means the emancipation of all mankind.

Society’s need to produce everything for a full life requires converting the means of production from private or state-ownership into common ownership. By doing this we will have production for use with free access.

“Fight for the right to work” is pathetic and has no place beside the Socialist principle “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”

Joe McGuinness

Give him a laurel wreath (1976)

From the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

If you think "Labour" represents the workers — read this !

                                        WE BACK JIM, SAY THE BOSSES

STAND BY to make Britain really GREAT again!

That was the stirring message yesterday from the Government.

It came over loud and clear after Premier James Callaghan had chaired his first meeting of Neddy— the National Economic Development Council.

It gave him the chance to give an official nudge to Britain’s push for industrial prosperity.

He made it clear that the Government plans to give top priority to manufacturing industries over the next four years.

This will mean:

MORE cash for the “top thirty industries via the National Enterprise Board at the expense of public spending cuts.

MORE investment and jobs in the long run.

A LIFE-LINE for firms waiting to re-stock and continue important projects.

BIGGER PROFITS for industry and better financial incentives for bosses.

. . . Sunny Jim’s sunny outlook was welcomed by the bosses’ “union”, the Confederation of British industry.

— Daily Mirror, 8th July 1976 (Italics ours)

The world can feed us all (1976)

From the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalist economists like to pretend that the world’s population cannot be fed with the resources available to it. The over-population myth is glibly trotted out to explain world-wide malnutrition whenever a Socialist points out that starvation is in fact due solely to the insane system of society which at present operates everywhere in the world—capitalism.

More of so-called over-population later, but let it be stated clearly and unequivocally now: The earth’s potential where food production is concerned is now more than adequate to satisfy the needs of all its inhabitants.

Moises Behar, chief of nutrition to the World Health Organisation in Geneva has recently made the following pertinent observation:

During the 1960s great efforts were made to improve economic development in the poor nations of the world. By speeding up economic growth, so it was argued, the poor social conditions that inevitably meant poor or inadequate nutrition for many people would be remedied. The gross national product was therefore considered the main criterion of progress.

The desired economic growth was achieved in many countries; in some instances, the targets set were exceeded. Unfortunately, most of the additional income went to those who were already affluent, without doing anything to help the poor. The same process was seen at the international level: rich nations became richer and poor nations relatively poorer.

In his article in the WHO Chronicle (1976, 30, 140), Behar takes the “Green Revolution” for his second example:

Extraordinary technological achievements enabled scientists to produce bigger and better crops of the most important cereals. Yet, once again, little thought was given to the fact that these new techniques could be applied efficiently only by farmers with adequate skills, knowledge and resources.

Thus the ‘Green Revolution’ failed to prove any significant improvement in economic capacity, availability of food or living conditions for most poor and malnourished people, even though grain production increased.

National economic growth and developments in technology are thus inadequate by themselves; they must operate within a suitable social structure, (our emphasis).

Nor is Behar impressed by international welfare organisations “which seek to alleviate malnutrition through supplementary feeding programmes. These only act as palliatives and, still worse, create a false impression that something has in fact been accomplished.” Not being a Socialist, Behar does not go on to advocate the “suitable social structure” which we do —world Socialism, production for use and not for profit only.

But to return to the mythical over-population bogey. It has become a cliche in Britain to speak of “this overcrowded island”. In fact, although the British Isles are far from being among the world’s more lightly-populated regions: “The whole population of the United Kingdom could be re-housed in the single county of Devon with a density of ten houses per acre (quite a generous piece of land for each family) and there would still be land to spare.” (J. P. Cole, Geography of World Affairs.)

It is also worth noting that if the world’s entire population were now placed in the United States the population density in that country would still be no more than that of Holland today. Remember this when the sensationalists talk of “standing room only” in fifty years time!

R. B. Gill

Russian Armed Forces (1976)

From the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the article “USSR—Land of Privilege” in the July Socialist Standard, page 132, the statement appears: “The Russians have over 8 million men in the armed forces.” The writer of the article has informed us that this was an error made in copying down figures, and should have been “over 3 million”.

The estimate of Russian armed forces given in the Europa Year Book for 1976 (Vol. 1) is 3,375,000, plus 430,000 “paramilitary forces” (230,000 “security” and 200,000 “border troops”).

Letter: Paying for the NHS (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Paying for the NHS

I had understood that the SPGB argued that taxes are ultimately paid by the capitalist class out of surplus-value and that net wages received by workers represent the value of their labour-power (assuming that commodities exchange at their value). However in the August Socialist Standard we are told (Leigh Burr-Parti) that with the coming of the National Health Service workers should expect that in the long run their wages would adjust by being lower than if there were no NHS. This implies that the NHS (and the rest of the welfare state) is “financed” by the workers out of wages, i.e. that it is paid for out of variable capital not out of surplus-value.

Of course all value is produced by the working class and in this sense the working class “pays” for the welfare state. But this is not just a theoretical issue. If the welfare state is financed out of surplus value then presumably it is in workers’ interests to increase welfare provisions, as this would represent a clear increase in their material wellbeing, i.e. in addition to receiving the value of their labour-power they would also manage to get back some of the surplus-value appropriated by the capitalist class. However, if as Leigh Burr-Parti suggests it is financed out of variable capital the working class as a whole is no better off whether health, education etc. is provided by the state or through the market.

This of course is not to deny that whichever way one looks at it the real issue facing workers is the establishment of Socialism where there will be no exploitation of one class by another, and not that of trying to patch up capitalism via the welfare state.

(Ms.) V. M. Brown

London NW6

Reply:

As you say, taxation is a burden on the capitalist class not the working class; and wages are what is received, not a hypothetical gross payment. Though the amounts put down as insurance contributions are not received by workers these amounts are, over-all, returned to them as benefits. Their nature therefore is a portion of wages held back as a special fund. If this regulated reduction were not made, workers’ subsistence would have to include their purchase of medical services and the other needs covered by benefits.

But see how this would work out. Three workers A, B and C receive a total of £6 a week in benefits over a period. A and B are both married; A has children, B has none; and C is unmarried. Obviously A’s are the biggest needs. Conjecturally his share of the £6 may be £4, B’s share £1.50, and C’s 50p. If these needs had to be met by additions to wages instead of a planned deduction, the strength of the wage demand would be A’s requirements: that is, another £4 a week for all three. Instead, all three are dealt with at £2 each week. It may appear that A gains, at least, but of course each is in the others’ position at other times. However, at any given time only a minority of workers are in the full “breadwinner” position on which wages are based, and the contributions scheme is therefore greatly advantageous to the capitalist class.

We may add that this is not an interpretation of our own but was part of the argument of the Beveridge national insurance scheme when it was put forward in 1942. The same can be said of welfare benefits as a whole—income supplements, family allowances, rent rebates etc.: that they select recipients and avoid giving more wages to workers generally. A statement about the effectiveness of the scheme was made by the former Labour minister R. H. S. Crossman in the Daily Mirror on 15th November 1955:

The fact is that since 1945 the British trade unionists could have enjoyed a far higher wage packet . . . Instead of doing so, however, they exercised extreme wage restraint. This they justified by pointing out to the worker the benefits he enjoyed under the Welfare State—food prices kept artificially low by food subsidies; rents kept artificially low by housing subsidies; rent restriction, and. in addition, the Health Service.

You suggest that workers could increase their share of the social product by demanding and getting more benefits. If these come from the insurance fund, the result would only be an increase in “contributions”. If they were medical and educational services provided out of general taxation, it would mean an increase in government expenditure which has other consequences; and the demand would then commit workers who made it to supporting the party which promised the biggest slice of cake—a familiar position.

Editors.

Letter: Complex phraseology (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Complex phraseology

In general I find the Socialist Standard extremely good to read but I do think there is an air of infallibility about it which tends to be a little off-putting. For example, in your July issue there was a letter suggesting that the party tends to use too much “complex phraseology and long-winded terminology.” This criticism echoed my own views and I was disappointed to see that your reply did not seem to think very much of the point. And in the same issue I see there is a short piece which in my view strongly supports the need for a little rethinking here. When I read the title “Condition of blind leaders deteriorating” I thought it so excellent that this was the first piece I read through in the issue, especially as I had often seen very good articles by Horatio in the past. I found the contents to be most disappointing. I wondered what particular piece of villainy John Boyd had perpetrated this time. The answer was that he had shown himself confused between surplus-value and profit and had displayed ignorance on the vital matters  . . .

What appalling crimes, to be sure! But I fancy these leaders commit even worse ones and it makes your paper look a little silly to be seen making such a great hooha over a matter which cannot possibly interest the majority of the non-members for whom, presumably, the paper is chiefly intended. I dare say there is a need for education in Marxian economics and perhaps you could have an occasional article on the subject, but in general I suggest it is not an urgent necessity for the working class to understand the minutiae of Marxism and in fact a piece like this only has the effect of making the average worker just run for cover. If you have to wait till the majority of the workers understand the kind of fine points of Marxist economics displayed here, I fear socialism will be postponed till the Greek calends.

(Mrs.) E. Singer

Manchester

Reply:

We note that you do not dispute the correctness of the points made in the article, but classify them under a general description “the minutiae of Marxism.” We can only understand by this that you think confusion over the terms surplus value and profit to be unworthy of comment. We do not agree with such a view. It is a part of our job to spread a clear understanding of Marx’s work and although misinterpretation and outright contortion of his theories ae not uncommon, when someone airs his ignorance in front of us, we are justified in saying so. That was all we did incidentally, your description “a great hooha,” is an exaggeration.

However we do not intend to discourage you. You will appreciate that there is scope within the SPGB for propaganda covering a considerable variety of subjects. If, as you suggest, you do not wish to see Socialism “postponed” and you are sympathetic to our views, the first step you should take is to apply for membership.

Editors.

Blogger's Note:

There was a problem with typos in this letter, and I can't see any corrections for the letter in later issues. It happens.

Letter: A housing question (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

A housing question

The article “The Immigration Question” (July, p. 123) says: “The housing problem has been acute throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, yet at all times sufficient houses have existed.” (My emphasis.) Is there reliable statistical evidence of this?

The article continues: “A report in The Times on 22nd April 1976 said: ‘There is a surplus of about 850,000 houses in the United Kingdom, according to the Nationwide Building Society, which yesterday published its latest survey on housing trends.’ ” Is this a REAL surplus of 850,000 houses or—as the source would suggest—merely a surplus in relation to the MARKET demand?

I ask these questions from no standpoint of nitpicking querulousness. It happened that I was putting the case recently to a friend and found that while trying to illustrate the nature of the housing problem under capitalism and using the above quotes I could not “prove” them.

Alec Hart 

Johannesburg

Reply:

The figures on housing come basically from census returns, supplemented between censuses by surveys and calculations such as the building societies’; these use the Registrar General’s returns plus figures from local authorities.

The surplus or shortage in housing is the difference between the number of households and the number of houses. A household is officially defined as people who eat at the same table, but includes persons living alone; it also includes families lodging in other families’ houses, in accommodation for the homeless, etc. On this basis, the two periods of shortage in this century have been at the ends of the two world wars. Between 1939 and 1945 only 162,000 houses were built, i.e. less than half the number built in 1939 up to the war. 458,000 houses were destroyed or made unfit for habitation, and about 300,000 were temporarily lost through war damage, requisitioning, etc. At the same time the number of households increased, by what is called the “natural increase”, by 804,000.

The figures drew more or less level again by 1960. The figures for 1961 (in this case from the Co-operative Building Society’s data) were 15,029,000 households and 15,526,000 houses and flats. Of course new building does not mean absolute additions to the numbers. A lot of local authority building is to replace obsolete housing stock (19th-century shoddy replaced by contemporary ditto), and in the last two or three years there have been reports that this often produces a loss in the numbers of dwellings.

Thus, to answer your question, the present surplus of 850,000 is the “social” figure, not a market- demand one, and it is clear that apart from the post-war periods there has always been a physical sufficiency of housing. In The Housing Question written in 1872 Engels said: “But one thing is certain: there are already in existence sufficient buildings for dwellings in the big towns to remedy immediately any real ‘housing shortage’, given rational utilization of them.”

The inaccessibility of surplus housing expresses itself in a shortage of houses to rent, and this is the result of legislation which began with the Rent and Mortgage Restriction Act of 1915 and culminated in the Rent Acts of the last twenty years—all designed professedly to protect workers from high rents, actually to hold down wage demands. The results of this legislation have been (1) that since the 1914-18 war private building for rent has practically ceased and (2) that following the last Acts the companies and individuals owning houses have found them no longer profitable and, as they fall empty, sell them for owner-occupation. In house sales there is a handsome buyers’ market; it is the people without the means to buy who can find nothing. This is the result of the operation of capitalism. If we changed to Socialism tomorrow, there would be housing for all. 

Editors.

SPGB Meetings (1976)

Party News from the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Slings and Arrows: Famine, Death and Poverty (1953)

The Slings and Arrows column from the October 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Famine, Death and Poverty

Has a millionaire ever died of starvation ? Among all the thousands of corpses cleared from the streets and villages of India during the great famines was there one of an emaciated capitalist ?

It is commonly held that when famine occurs in any part of the world all the inhabitants of that region suffer from its effects. Its causes are attributed to everything from floods to drought, from bad agricultural systems to the vengeance of God upon man’s wickedness. That this vengeance is wreaked always and only upon the poor would appear to be unjust, unless, of course, poverty is a crime and its victims are also its perpetrators. But the rich do not suffer the pangs of hunger during famine. While tens of thousands of Indian workers and peasants were dying in the streets of hunger; while Government transport was sent round to pick up the corpses to prevent the outbreak of disease, food speculators in Bombay and Calcutta, like obscene blow-flies, waxed fat on the profits they made out of the deaths of their fellow-countrymen.

The poor do not get fat When there are surpluses of food it is because of poverty and not because there is too much. The Observer, in its issue (6/9/53), writing a leading article, entitled “ Food,” says

". . .  if the efforts to raise living standards in the underdeveloped countries make headway, food surpluses will disappear: they exist because of poverty, not because everyone has enough to eat."

The latest report of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations estimates the proportion of the world population subject to malnutrition to be 59 per cent. an increase of 50 per cent. on the pre-war figure. This, in spite of the fact that there have been exceptional harvests, even in India, the classic home of famine.

Further evidence of this comes from the Daily Express (26/8/53), whose reporter, Mr. James Leasor, writes: “For the first time in as long as anyone can remember, India has no food problem. If we were to conclude from this that all would be fed and all hunger satisfied, we would be hopelessly wrong. Mr. Leasor means that there is no failure of crops, although from the concluding remarks of his article he seems to be aware of the basic problem, that of poverty.

We could tell him

Mr. Leasor makes some very interesting revelations. He reports having met the Indian Food Minister, “a worried man . . . two years ago at the time of the Bihar famine ”on his tour of the country telling people that he has so much wheat" we don't know what to do with it.” Unfortunate Food Minister to have his worries over too little replaced by worries over too much. There is a simple solution to his problem, he could give the surplus away to those who need it, but, of course, so easy a way out would not occur to a Food Minister. And there are countless numbers who need it. Mr. Leasor concludes his article with the following

“It is a strange, sad irony that while for the first time India has a food surplus, probably just as many people will be as hungry as ever. Food is there in plenty, but the money to buy it is not Unemployment and the cost of living are still rising. And what satisfaction do full warehouses give if your stomach is empty ?"

Giving away the surplus would alleviate the temporary needs of the people, but it would not solve the problem. Charity is no substitute for Socialism. But this solution which would wipe out these anomalies and sufferings is not likely to commend itself to politicians and other apologists for a system which condemns millions to death for the sake of a ledger entry, a piece of appropriately printed paper or suitable embossed disc of metal

“A dog’s life”

In the same issue of the Daily Express, in an adjoining column to Mr. Leasor's article, and under the above heading, appears the following item. Comment would be superfluous

“In a Soho restaurant yesterday a woman put a plate of chicken down on the floor for her Pekinese.

“A peke’s nose is naturally well tumed-up. This peke managed to turn his up a bit further. The manager looked on, shrugged his shoulders, and commented: 'No salt, no pepper, no mustard, no wonder'. "

Weep for the Suffering Rick

Landlords are always complaining that they are losing money, yet none of them offer to change places with their tenants. Store magnates are always muttering about “overheads,” yet none of them will give up their "troubles” to lead the life of a mere worker. Nevertheless, the rich do have their troubles of which the poor have no conception and for which they have little sympathy. For example, which worker after buying a yacht, painted sapphire blue, has to spend two years seeking for a pair of sapphire earrings to match, as an American millionairess had to do ? Which docker, for instance, has had the bother of suing the Casino at Monte Carlo because he has been barred from there ? Not a single one, we dare to suggest

As if this were not enough trouble we now learn from a Dr. Reuben Kahn (News Chronicle, 12/9/53) that the rich are more prone to disease than the poor. In a series of experiments carried out by the doctor he has discovered that in poor countries people have more "natural antibodies—resistance—in the blood.” He refuses to speculate on the implications, but "some bacteriologists thought his research may give a medical reason for the decline of a civilisation.” The report continues: "As a nation grows richer, the bacteriologists argued, its population may grow less disease-resistant and the nation decline.”

Although Dr. Kahn may refuse to speculate, we will. If his theory is correct then by reducing standards of living, employers are bestowing great benefits on the workers by increasing their "resistance.” What self-sacrifice do the rich perform! They deny themselves the benefit of good health so that the poor may continue to enjoy that rich glow of well-being that “resistance to disease” brings. On the other hand, if they decide to be selfish, police will be required to control the queues of rich people waiting to sell what they have and give to the poor. One could hardly blame them.

The fact that disease flourishes in the poorer countries, as all statistics on the subject show, must be disregarded. It is true that sickness carries off more poor people than rich; it is true that the expectation of life among the poor is less than amongst the rich. But this does not matter. So long as they have more “natural antibodies" than the rich, then every poor man can die happy, if prematurely.

Bernard Shaw, in his preface to “Doctor’s Dilemma,” tells of a man who conducted an experiment to decide how long a horse would live if it had a leg amputated periodically. The horse died before the experiment was completed. The poor will go on dying, perhaps, before Dr. Kahn's experiments are completed and another scientific discovery will founder on the obstinacy of its subject 

 S. A.

The Eastern Scene (1953)

From the October 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

India: Sacred Jobs

Recent demonstrations in Lucknow by over 1,000 Uttar Pradesh primary school teachers, over wage demands and the non-payment of salaries (some being months in arrears), brought forth a peroration from the Chief Minister, Mr. Gobind Ballabh Pant on the sacredness of teaching. According to Janata (organ of the Praja Socialist Party, Bombay, 1/3/53) he is reported to have advised the teachers “to follow the ideals set up by the Gurus of ancient India and to take their jobs as sacred work for the progress of the country.” Mr. Pant stressed that it was the importance of their task that made the teachers the most important section of the nation. It is, therefore, he said, not dignified for those who had a sacred task to perform, to think of petty things. We can be sure that Miss Horsbrugh will take note of this, for the next Burnham report on Teachers' pay.

Despite Mr. Pant's exhortations to the teachers, there has been no cessation of their activities. On the other hand, we haven’t noticed that Mr. Pant has taken any of his own advice.

As most teaching is done by inculcation, perhaps the Minister thinks that the old maxim is true, “That empty vessels make most noise."

India: A Reckless Report

A report on India’s prison administration was recently submitted to the United Nations by Dr. Walter Reckless, an American criminologist on loan to U.N. (Janata, 1st March). Dr. Reckless thinks that the Indian prison system is in a parlous condition and needs reorganising drastically—too many Black holes and not all in Calcutta. The treatment of prisoners seems to be wholly punitive, with all of which our eminent criminologist disagrees. Not that he wants to abolish prisons, he just wants to make them better to live in! He wants to substitute corrective and rehabilitative training for the present punitive system, the idea (as if we didn’t know) being, that with training prisoners will face life anew, full of confidence, and that their bitterness against society will disappear. In other words, they won’t steal, any more property.

The amazing thing is that the report recognises that environment plays a part in the make up of a criminal, but contains no talk of changing the environment, only the prisoner. Many of the convicts in India’s gaols are there because they could not subsist outside without stealing.

There was no mention of that other class of criminals; the 10 per cent. who live on the plunder which they steal legally from the workers. But then who expected there would bet

Labourism in India

Mr. B. S. Mahador Singh, Chairman of the State Praja Socialist Party, a body roughly analogous to the British Labour Party, has been voicing criticisms of the Indian Congress Party Government which he and his followers helped to establish.

Speaking at the Fourth Annual Conference of the State Mazdoor Sangh early this year he said:—

"Any legislation that imposes restrictions on the right of the workers to strike, regardless of providing other avenues of settlement, will be strongly resisted by the Hyderabad State Mazdoor Sangh, for in the opinion of the Sangh the right to strike should be assured to all workers.” (Janata, 1/3/53.)

At the moment of writing the P.S.P. has only 22 seats in the National Assembly, which still does not bring them anywhere near the Communist Party’s total of 41 members and position as chief opposition party. Still the P.S.P. leaders have hopes of getting into power and, like Social Democrats throughout the world, are prepared to tell workers almost any tale (witness the above) in their endeavour to achieve this.

One thing they don’t tell workers, is that capitalism can only run in the interests of the capitalists and that all Governments put down strikes. Witness the Labour Party in this country, which engaged in strike-breaking when in office, although telling another story when out. We can be sure that if the P.S.P. ever achieves power they will do likewise and that Mr. Singh will forget the hot words he poured forth at Hyderabad.

National Bank of Egypt

We are often exhorted by various newspapers and political leaders in general not to scuttle from Egypt. The information below may give one of the reasons why our rulers are so keen to stay there.

The recently published report of the National Bank of Egypt, shows that a gross profit of £E2,317,817 was made for the year ending December, 1952. A dividend of 20 per cent. the same as the year before, was paid to the shareholders. The capital of this Bank is mainly British. (Manchester Guardian 10.4.53, Company report)

Israel. Soviet Jews

Mr. Ben-Gurion, Israel’s Premier, is reported as saying at a meeting of immigrants on April 5th, “That he hoped that the Soviet Government would now allow Jews in Russia to emigrate to Palestine and resume diplomatic relations with Israel.”

If this news manages to percolate through the Iron Curtain, the two and a half million Jews should not take it too seriously, for even if Malenkov and Co. were willing, it must be remembered that legislation was passed last year in Israel which limits immigration to certain categories. 80 per cent. of the immigrants must be under 35 years. The other 20 per cent., the over-35’s, must have trades or professions, or sufficient resources to arrange for their own accommodation. All immigrants must pass a medical examination, supervised by Israeli physicians (Manchester Guardian, 3.12.51).

This of course will exclude a large part of the Jews in Russia, and those who are eligible, are liable to think twice about giving up home and job to go to Israel where unemployment is rife. The above legislation makes a mockery of the hoary cliches which are still trotted forth by Ben Gurion and his supporters, such as the “ Ingathering of the Exiles.”

Many of those who are in the “National Home” are thinking twice about it. Up to December, 1952, 39,000 are reported to have left the country, and 25,000 people inside Israel have preferred to keep the nationality of the country they came from (Jewish Observer and Middle East Review, 12.12.52), which speaks for itself.

The S.P.G.B. has pointed out since its inception that Nationalist movements or for that matter any reformist organisation cannot solve the workers' problems; only the ending of capitalism and establishment of Socialism can do that Ben Gurion (who called himself a Socialist and refers to his Mapai Party likewise) is not interested in Socialism. He wants emigrants from Russia, or anywhere else for that matter, to help build up capitalism in Israel. Technicians, teachers, doctors, scientists and maybe a few Rouble millionaires will be more than welcome. But if aged over 35, sick, unskilled, or without financial .backing, the signboard says “No vacancies.” Which is capitalism all the world over.

Israel Jewish Unemployment

Unemployment as we all know, is one of the many horrible aspects of capitalism and has increased in many countries since Malenkov made his peace statement. Israel is no exception and has one of the highest (if not the highest) percentages of unemployed in the world. Out of a population of 1,629,000 there are twenty-five thousand registered as unemployed (Jewish Observer and Middle East Review, 12th December, 1952). This does not include part-time workers and those who would not register anyway; such as most of the Arab population which forms the largest part of the 179,000 non-Jews.

Working on the assumption that the average family in Israel has at least four members, it can be seen that a very large section of the population is affected.

The supreme irony of the situation, lies in the fact that many of these people dissipated their energies over the years in the Zionist movement and other “Jewish ” Nationalist organisations in the endeavour to form a “National Home,” only to find that they can suffer just as much in Israel as elsewhere. For Israeli capitalists are no different from the rest of their class and are quite impartial about exploiting either Jewish or Gentile workers.

Jon Keys

Human Nature and Socialism: 6—The Socialist Future (1953)

From the October 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the previous issue.

6—The Socialist Future

The object of the socialist movement is not “political” in the sense of advocating one type of government rather than another. It is nothing short of an entirely new social set-up and, to a large extent, it means an entirely new type of human nature. This is not to say, as non-socialists are so fond of putting it, that it needs an entirely new race of human beings to make it work. It simply means that people living in the new society will be shaped by a socialist environment instead of, as today, by a capitalist one.

In what ways will people living under conditions of production solely for use be different from people today? This is a question that has appealed to the imagination and reasoning powers of men ever since the idea of Socialism first arose. The answers have been many and varied; some (in particular, the various utopian visions) have become outdated by the very developments of Capitalism itself, and others will doubtless take shape as the ideas of Socialism become fruitful and multiply.

What should be our concern is not so much to work out a detailed picture of the future—a castle in the air—but to construct from the materials at hand a solid socialist edifice. For example, we do not know enough about future material developments within Capitalism to foretell how people will travel under Socialism. On the other hand, we do know that, given conditions of common ownership, the phenomena which are exclusive to private ownership (buying, selling, stealing, etc.) will no longer exist. The people who now engage in these activities will use their energies in more socially useful and constructive ways.

Indications from the Present

Our method of discovering what the future can and will bring must be to ask ourselves what we know of

the present, its relationship to the past, and what we may call the directional lines to the future. What do most people want from their lives today? What are they seeking and yet faying to find? What do they desire to be rid of, and yet lack the knowledge of how to do it?

The answers to these questions will largely determine the sort of world which can be created when men at last start to make truly human history. Let us first consider what is basic to all societies—work, or productive activity. Marx has suggested that work will become, not merely the means to live, but itself a prime necessity of life.

Capitalism has so reduced the status of the worker, taken all the joy from his work and separated him from its fruits, that he has come to regard it as an evil necessity. Socialism will restore dignity to all human labour, remove its price tag, and make it fit the needs of human beings instead of those of machines or markets. People will work because they know it is necessary to the sustenance of themselves and society, and because they desire to work—or, in the case of those activities which in themselves are not pleasurable, because they desire the end product

We can gain some indication of the attitude to work that will prevail under Socialism from the way in which people regard certain of their activities today. A man may work far harder on his allotment to produce vegetables directly for his limited community (family) than he does on the job at which he works only for money and which he probably cordially detests. When you suggest to him that he likes work, he hotly denies it. But when you ask him whether he likes working on his allotment, he replies: “That's different. That's my hobby.”

It is significant, as Professor Nunn has pointed out in “Education: Its Data and First Principles,” that where spontaneity prevails, work and play become one and indistinguishable. When the socialist says that work in the new society will become as hobbies are today, he is not suggesting that people will adopt exactly the same attitude to all work as they do now to their hobbies. He knows that the influence of Capitalism extends beyond the hours of employment, and corrodes even the simplest pleasures and the most personal relationships.

Social Relationships

Yet a different facet of human nature is revealed in the behaviour of people under adverse conditions. Solidarity with those whom you recognise as being “in the same boat” as yourself, tireless and selfless work on behalf of a stricken community such as during the East coast floods earlier this year—all indicate the human potential, and even craving, for co-operative endeavour. This will attain fulfillment in a society in which there are no drawbacks to helping others, and no penalties for dropping the attitudes of self-defensive mistrust which a highly competitive system forces us -to adopt.

Social relationships will change from those of mutually antagonistic owner and non-owner, buyer and seller, employer and employee, to those where such antagonisms will no longer exist Instead of coming into conflict with those Capitalism makes your enemies, and even having to be "on guard” against your friends, all human relationships will be conducted in an atmosphere of social harmony, where the separate individuals who make up the social whole will be working with each other and not divided against themselves.

Under all forms of society one of the basic human desires is to seek and obtain acceptance from one’s fellows. Today this has become narrowly interpreted as seeking and obtaining acceptance from one’s boss, who is, in turn, supposed to be acceptable to someone or some institution higher up—the Monarchy, Church or God, perhaps. To question any of the “accepted” attitudes to these things is—well, it is not always easy and not always a sound policy if you seek success in the capitalist sense of the term.

With Socialism, however, social acceptance will not rest upon standards dictated from above. The absence of economic rivalries will mean the absence of social rivalries. “Keeping up with the Joneses” will give way to working and generally behaving in ways which help other people instead of seeking to get the better of them. From being atomised into millions of separate families, the world will become one vast human family. The marriage institution, based on the needs of property, will be replaced by associations based on the needs of human beings, and they will promote a wider love of humanity instead of seeking a refuge from its present vast impersonality.

Different Outlook

The absence of private property will have far-reaching effects upon all human activities and relationships. It is easy to see that many of the employments so necessary to Capitalism will have no place in a socialist society—armed forces, police, lawyers, gaolers, insurance and advertising agents, bank workers and many others. Another aspect not so often considered is the different outlook that people will have. Today, when someone whom we do not know makes a friendly advance or an unsolicited offer of help, we tend to look askance at him and ask ourselves: “Ah, what’s he up to?” Not that the caution is altogether unjustified, because in present society we are encouraged to regard those outside our own small circle as "fair game” and legitimate objects for passing on the kicks we receive from the hostile world. But with Socialism all this will be gone—the world will be a friendly place, because it will not cost anything to be indiscriminate in bestowing affection.

When goods and services are no longer commodities to be bought and sold and haggled over, it will bring different attitudes to these things or, rather, it will then enable the existing attitudes to be freed from considerations of profit-seeking. After all, even today the relationship between buyer and seller is not completely reduced to the cash nexus and dominated by satisfaction of self—there is usually a residue of concern that the other fellow is satisfied with the transaction. Socialism will enable this concern to be present in all human intercourse, and will free it from the calculations which now cramp the expression of generous feelings.

All manifestations of the insecurity that cannot be escaped in property society will become things of the past. It will no more occur to people to store up freely available goods in excess of their current needs than today to fill every available receptacle with water “because it is free.” No longer will people be worried, often to the point of mental illness, about what tomorrow will bring forth—whether they will lose their job, fail to find somewhere to live, go hungry, badly clothed or unwanted. They will be secure in the knowledge that the welfare of all, as society’s aim, will not be something talked about by politicians, but naturally acted upon by the whole people, who will have no inducement to do otherwise.

#    #    #    #

 

Since this is the concluding article in the series, it may be useful briefly to survey the ground we have covered. We started by discussing some of the misuses of the term “human nature,” explaining that it is his environment which makes man a creature of one society rather than of another. The myth that “you can’t change human nature” was exploded, and the role of the Socialist as an agent in the making of history was outlined. Then, in the fourth article, we saw some of the patterns of behaviour which Capitalism generates, and how it does so. The writings of social scientists (mostly non-socialists) were quoted to show how human nature varies under different social conditions, and how men acquire it through those conditions. Finally, we have been concerned with explaining the object of the S.P.G.B. by giving some indication of the socialist future.

Our aim, throughout all these articles, and indeed in all our propaganda, is to convince all people that Socialism is both desirable and practicable. If you still believe it is not desirable, we are ready to take some of the blame—perhaps we have not explained it sufficiently clearly, and you can help to put that right by questioning our case. If, however, you believe that Socialism is desirable but not practicable, then we can only suggest that you do yourself a favour and join with us to make it practicable.

Stan Parker

Human Nature and Socialism: 5—We Learn from Social Scientists (1953)

From the September 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the previous issue.

5—We Learn from Social Scientists

People who criticise or object to Socialism because they think that human nature makes it impossible, assume that the characteristics they ascribe to human nature are fixed and unalterable. However, the science of anthropology (the study of human beings as creatures of society) shows that most of the characteristics are cultural acquisitions and have not been present in all societies. The importance of this to the case for Socialism lies in the fact that what is acquired culturally must change as the culture changes, and that the behaviour we are accustomed to think of as “natural” under Capitalism can and will be something entirely different under Socialism.

It is a commonplace that man is a social animal, i.e., that it is in human nature to be social. But it is not true in the sense in which it is commonly understood, namely, that our social nature is due to a social “instinct.” We were not born with our social nature; we acquired it. Likewise, we were not born with a certain sort of social nature, but developed it because of the sort of social environment into which we were born.

Each step man makes in his history alters his environment, each alteration in his environment changes that in which his fellow men and the oncoming generation live. The background of the child differs from that of the parent; in a changed social atmosphere men themselves react differently: they acquire new knowledge, new experience, new understanding. They value things anew. Human nature is itself transformed.

Nor should the inter-relationship of man and society be overlooked. Apart from his group, a man is a mere potentiality. He is developed in a milieu that fosters, modifies, or destroys his capacities. To explain the individual and discuss his psychology as something distinct from the society is a false dissection, by which structures are isolated from one another artificially and their organic connection destroyed. Society in its full sense is never an entity separable from the individuals who compose it. No individual can arrive even at the threshold of his potentialities without a culture in which he participates. Conversely, no civilisation has in it any element which in the last analysis is not the contribution of individuals.

Socialised habits

The life-history of the individual is first and foremost an accommodation to the patterns and standards traditionally handed down in his community. From the moment of his birth the customs into which he is born shape his experience and behaviour. By the time he can talk he is the little creature of his culture, and by the time he is grown and able to take part in its activities, its habits tend to be his habits, its beliefs his beliefs, its impossibilities his impossibilities.

People interpret the inevitability, under Capitalism, of economic competition as proof that this is the prime motivation that human nature can rely upon. The behaviour of small children, as it is moulded in our civilisation and recorded as child psychology, is the way in which the young human animal is “bound to behave.” It is the same with ethics or family organisation. It is the inevitability of each familiar motivation that is defended, with the attempt always to identify particular local ways of behaving with Behaviour, or certain socialised habits with Human Nature.

Let us take as an example the case of warfare. War is a phenomenon that may or may not be a feature of a certain culture. There are regions where organised resort to mutual slaughter never occurs between social groups. It may be impossible for a people to conceive of the possibility of a state of war. Rasmussen tells of the blankness with which the Eskimo met his exposition of the custom. Ruth Benedict tried to talk of dignity, uprightness, strength of character and courage warfare to the Mission Indians of California, but it was of these “barbarians" impossible. Their misunderstanding of warfare was abysmal. They did not have the basis in their own culture upon which the idea could exist, and their attempts to reason it out reduced World Wars to the level of alley brawls. We may conclude that if war is justified it is because people always try to justify their behaviour, and not because war will bear an objective examination of its merits.

Property

When we turn to the question of private property we can learn much from the reports of field workers who have lived in societies where communistic sentiments prevailed. When on the Banks Islands, W. H. R. Rivers worked out the history of a plot of land which was cleared about four generations ago. The greater part of the plot had been divided up between the children of the clearer, and had since been regarded as the individual property of their descendants, but part had been left for the common use of all the descendants of the original clearers. Rivers was told that disputes were frequent concerning the portions of the land which were owned individually, while there were never any quarrels concerning the part which had been left for the common use of all. Let this be a lesson to those who think that there will always be disputes over land and other wealth, and that if it were all commonly owned we should all grab as much as we could!

A comparison between the Melanesian and people in our own civilisation is enlightening. The Melanesian knows that were he to wander into the next tribe he must look out for himself. The next tribe are strangers and enemies. But he does not live among strangers as we do. He lives among friends. They have never sought to rob him, or cheat him, or slander him. If he is down, if he has bad luck, if he has nothing to eat, they will vie with one another in supplying him with food. They will make a point of going hungry themselves rather than he should. And they will not even make a virtue of it, and think how very noble they are and how grateful he should be.

There is little ground for the conflict of individual interests where there is little private property. Where all interests are in common, mutual assistance and goodwill are spontaneous sentiments. To assist others, to share with them and to protect them is as natural in “uncultured” societies as it is natural in individualistic communities to rob, to cheat, outwit and defraud.

Even today there are some remote parts of the world that illustrate in embryonic form the basic social relationships of Socialism. Hunza, a country of 26,000 people high up in the Himalayas, has no money, no police, no jails, no courts and no army. Without money there is no crime. It is not, let us hasten to add, an example of Socialism—there is a king, and it is a pre-property rather than a post-property society. But at least it shows that people can live without money and private ownership, and live quite happily and fully too. “ We are fond of sport, life and laughter. We work hard —then when the harvest is in, it is there for everyone,” Daily Graphic, 31/12/52. Engels’ description of the Iroquois is in the same vein, and he writes of the admiration inspired in all white people who have come into contact with unspoiled Indians, by the personal dignity, uprightness, strength of character and courage of these "barbarians."

Morality

If we study the history of human sexual relations we find that these have varied considerably with different types of culture. Sexual jealousy, a high esteem for chastity, sexual modesty, and the tendency to fall passionately in love with a single object (so-called “romantic love”) are such common and distinctive characteristics of civilised man, that not only laymen but frequently psychologists and naturalists take them to be inherent in man and inseparably united to his character. Nevertheless, these emotions are foreign to many primitive peoples. They have arisen in the course of the evolution of civilisation, and have been built up slowly and gradually as secondary characteristics under the influence of definite social conditions.

The technical use of morality—as a thing pertaining to the sex relation only or especially—is the application of our standards of sex behaviour, and our form of the sex taboo, to judge the folkways of all people. But all that can properly be said is that a great range and variety of usages, ideas, standards, and ideals can be found which differ greatly from ours. “Immoral” never means anything but contrary to the customs of the time, and place. There is no permanent or universal standard by which right and truth in regard to these matters can be established and different folkways compared and criticised.

It is now a moral principle that it is wrong to commit murder. But in early Judea to sacrifice the first born was not murder; in the 17th century “not to suffer a witch to live” was not murder; in the 20th century war is not murder. Abstract precepts are of very little significance in the ethical history of mankind; it is their concrete interpretation which has varied.

The ethical problem of selfishness v. social-mindedness (one that is so often brought into discussions about Socialism) is not in fact theoretical but practical. Its solution lies not in the construction of new ethical philosophies but in the creation of a new society. Every act which leads towards that new society is a contribution to solving the problem. When mankind has attained a state in which goods and services abound and exploitation has ceased, selfishness, having no longer anything important to do, will wither away.

Stan Parker

 

Some useful books to read:—

“Human Nature in the Making,” M. Schoen.

“Patterns of Culture,” R. Benedict.

“The Making of Man,” ed. V. F. Calverton.

“ Sin and Sex,” R. Briffault.

“ Folkways ” W. G. Sumner.

“ The Making of Humanity,” R. Briffault.

“ Man against Myth,” Barrows Dunham.

(Concluding Article: “The Socialist Future.”)

"If we all 'ad 'alos rahnd our 'eads" (1953)

From the October 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

From time to time the traditional meeting spots in London are enlivened by the appearance of a character answering to the name of Bulbrook. He is the Conservative Party candidate for a Kensington constituency, calling himself a Conservative Trade Unionist. In the summer he is a frequent visitor to the historic Whitestone Pond, on the heights of Hampstead Heath.

Thus it came to pass, on a wet and windy Sunday evening in June, that Mr. B., with a crony, was to be observed making rather strenuous efforts to get somebody to listen to him there. After some time local members of the Socialist Party arrived and proceeded, perhaps unwisely, to attempt to succeed where Mr. B. had failed.

The S.P.G.B. member who opened this meeting, studiously avoiding any mention of his opponent's platform, or even existence, launched straight off, rather austerely, into a description of the difference between the interests and the wishes of the working class,

The effect on “Old Bob” can best be described as catastrophic. With reckless abandon he poured forth everything he could think of (which, admittedly, isn't much) at the S.P.G.B. The only just way to reproduce this tirade would be by tape recorder. As it boils down, shorn of the abuse, trivial personalities, and shallow street-corner gossip, to about two real points, there is no need to. Master Robert’s objections to Socialism amount to these

(1) Nobody would work.

(2) Everybody would take what they want. 

The members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain are a lot of “silly boys,” he thinks. For which one member, at least, thanks him; it being so long since he was mistaken for a boy. “They are alright, of course, and they mean well” and “Socialism would be alright if we all 'ad 'alos rahnd our 'eads, but we ain’t!”

These “silly little boys” don’t know that nobody does “anythink for nothink.” “Where,” asked our critic, “would we get coal?” “Who would go down the mines ?” “Who would work at the docks?” if they got no money for doing it ?” “Who would work at all if they could just go and take what they want ?”

Now we must admit that Mr. B. has a point when he says people would not work for money if they could get their needs without it. But of that, more anon!

When Mr. Bullbrook, the Conservatives' nominee for Parliament, says that the only reason that anybody does anything is to get money he is starting something.

Incidentally, we could help him in his choice of examples. We should have thought the last places to get money were the mines and the docks. So do the miners and the dockers. In both cases, in recent years, the powers-that-be have complained that men were not going there because they could get more money elsewhere.

Just by way of a change, we will accept Old Bob’s case and see where it leads us. Not because Bob says it. Quite the contrary, what Mr. B. said on that Sunday is essentially what every opponent of Socialism, from Churchill to Pollitt and Sir Herbert Read would say. Even to the emphatic insistence when challenged afterwards personally “that he does understand Socialism.” “Yes! I do.” He is typical, not exceptional.

A number of cases occur to us immediately we start thinking about Mr. B.'s contention. These are but a few. Among the institutions Mr. Bullbrook's Party maintains are those of the Monarchy and the Clergy. Do we rightly understand Mir. Robert to mean that the only reason that Queen Elizabeth II went through all that ackamarackus with the Archbishops and the Peers at Westminster Abbey was to get money ?. We thought she had enough already, before starting.

Wealthy members of Mr. Bullbrook's Party published a statement by the Queen that she wished to “dedicate herself to the service of her people.” Does Mr. B. really mean that she omitted to add “for money”?

The prize-winning ditty in the News of the World competition declared that the Queen has a “heart of gold,” but we suggest that Mr. B. goes a little too far if he accepts this literally.

But what about the Clergy ? Can it really be true that Dr. Fisher and all those other thousands of men only minister to their flocks for money? Well! according to Mr. B., “Yes!” because “nobody does anythink for nothink.”

Some time ago this contributor was the somewhat surprised recipient of a communication from the Conservative Mayor of Hampstead, inviting him to become a voluntary member of the Civil Defence Service. In this letter, the Mayor said that volunteers would receive no money, but would derive great satisfaction from the thought that they were helping their neighbours, and maintaining the spirit of comradeship which grew up during the war. Whatever is the good of a Conservative asking people to join something they will not be paid for—when another one, Mr. Bullbrook, knows quite well they will not do so. It’s a waste of the Council's money, and the postman’s time. Why the Conservative candidate for N. Kensington has not told the Tory Mayor of Hampstead, we cannot say.

But then, we must also ask whether Mr. Bullbrook’s rule applies to Mr. Bullbrook himself. It may well be that he is a Conservative candidate, as he says himself, “to get money.” For this unique honesty we thank him. We’ve never heard any other Tory say it. What the electors will think is their business, since the basis of democracy can only be the willingness of candidates to carry out the mandate of constituents.

Socialists completely deny Mr. B.’s assertion, which stems from ignorance of the function of money. Money is not the power-plant of Society—it is the pipe-line. It is not an end—but a means of acquiring other things.

The amount of money which things cost is not in the things themselves—but the amount of Labour they contain. Labour is the driving force of Society.

It is evident that even in that form of society where money is the keystone. Capitalism, society would not hang together without the basic social characteristics of the human animal, which has to co-operate to live. Thus, for example, poor people continue to rear children even under the threat of war or poverty. Why, if Bullbrook is right, Churchill was wrong! He only offered ’em blood and sweat, toil and tears,” but no money, for winning the war. Incidentally, is Churchill also Prime Minister only to get money ?

How can we explain the people who have so much money that it nearly drives them barmy ? Do they want more money ?

Poor old Bob! Under Socialism men will go to the docks and the mines not to do the least they can for the money, but the most they can for their fellow-men, which, socially speaking, means themselves. The better they work the more social approval they will get. In Socialist society men (and women) will be appreciated for what they ARE, not what their fathers were. These people will not " ’ave ’alos rahnd their ’eads,” but knowledge inside them. This knowledge will show them that the best way for the individual to prosper is to co-operate generously with others. They will produce goods by their labour, and consume them in the leisure they find most agreeable.

Therefore, our opponent is right in one thing at least. When he says that people will not work for money—when they can get the things which money buys to-day, without it.

They will make Mr. Bullbrook Curator of the Mint. He can go round collecting up all the odd coins which careless people may have left lying about.

Horatio.

Scientists, Satellites and Socialism (1953)

From the October 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

There have been several letters to the press recently complaining about the lack of enthusiasm shown by scientists in finding an effective means of fog-prevention. It has been suggested that those scientists who are at present investigating ways and means of exploring the moon should turn their attention to preventing fog.

This is a little unfair to the scientists. The majority of those engaged upon astronautical research are better suited to the exploration of outer-space than to the more mundane problem of clearing the smoke-laden atmosphere of London.

Quite apart from this the problem is not so complicated as it may seem. Cities such as New York have dealt with it quite simply by forbidding the burning of smoke-producing fuels. The boffin is not required to produce an involved formula for this. In any case, the decision as to whether preference should be given to fog-prevention or inter-planetary travel depends not upon consideration for the welfare of the community, but rather upon which is likely to be die more valuable from the military or commercial point of view.

If a scientist is fortunate he pursues a line of research which is of interest to him, but usually he is directed to follow a line dictated by the interests of capitalism.

We have readied a stage in the evolution of human society where we are on the threshold of journeys into outer-space. It is not a new idea. As long ago as the seventeenth century Cyrano de Bergerac was dreaming of journeys to the moon with rockets. Now that space travel seems to be almost within our grasp and the idea gaining greater public appreciation, other considerations are troubling the more thoughtful scientists.

There are, unfortunately, too many workers who are overawed by the views of the professors. They are thought to be men whose mental powers are far greater than those of the rest of us. A conception which many scientists take pains to foster.

As a justification for the amount of time and money devoted to astronautics the scientists, many of whom are quite sincere, suggest that artificial satellites revolving around the earth at regular intervals could be used as observation platforms from which it would be possible to see whether any nation were preparing for an atomic attack and, if so, to prevent it.

To a Socialist, no utterance could be more naive than this, nor less scientific. It takes us back to the old argument that every nation should sink its differences and, in order to ensure that no one violated the treaty, an international police force be organised.

If the working class is waiting for someone to hand them security on a plate they should discount the backroom boys.

An astronaut, Oscar Schachter, writing in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society for January, 1952, introduced some opinions which were both pathetic and laughable. He was concerned about the violation of sovereign rights by artificial asteroids. In other words, he projected the problems of capitalism with its nautical three-mile limit into outer-space, where he could foresee legal difficulties arising from the passage every few hours of a satellite over someone else’s territory.

If workers incline to the same views as this scientist let them remember the League of Nations and its modern counterpart, the United Nations. Every day the United Nations become more disunited and doomed, like their predecessors, to end in complete impotence.

One of the greatest mathematicians of the age, Albert Einstein, revealed his complete lack of political understanding a few years ago in a book entitled “The World As I See it ”(Watts). In this he put forward the view that wars originate from ideological conflicts and that all nations should come to an understanding and agree not to fight. International control is the solution, according to Einstein.

Such schemes as this are foredoomed to failure and show as little fundamental knowledge as the child who thinks that the earth is fiat.

Those who support these Utopian schemes are ignorant of the fact that war is a logical outcome of the capitalist system. So long as wealth is produced to be sold in the world market, wars will ensue, regardless of pacts and declarations of friendship.

If travel to the moon and elsewhere becomes an established fact before the end of capitalism, the workers of the world will only be killed in greater quantities in the scramble for new sources of raw materials.

If we conquer space after the establishment of Socialism we will not be troubled by frontiers and boundaries and extra-territorial rights. Furthermore, life on earth will be so much more enjoyable that the people in America who have already reserved their seats in the first space-ship to the moon will probably cancel their reservations.

It is the workers of the world, the scientists included, who must solve the problems of production and distribution, but they must have the necessary knowledge.

To help them achieve their ends there exists the Socialist Party of Great Britain and its companion parties abroad.

Study our case and join with us in order that we may create a world in which all effort is for the common good.

Chester.

 

Blogger's Note: 

I don't believe Oscar Schachter was an astronaut. Try "American international law and diplomacy professor, and United Nations aide." [Wiki]

Fog prevention was a real issue in London - and other industrial centres in Britain - in the early 1950s. It was estimated that the Great Smog of London in December 1952 had resulted in 4,000 deaths.