Russia—1952 (1952)

Pamphlet Review from the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

In response to an invitation from the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions in Moscow a “British Workers” delegation visited the Soviet Union in May of this year. They have now published a report. The delegation consisted of five engineers, three railwaymen, one electrician, one cine-technician, one taxi-cab driver, and Pat Sloan, secretary of the British-Soviet Friendship Society, who was the only member of the party who speaks Russian. According to the report all twelve were active trade unionists; two were also active in the Labour Party and two, excluding Pat Sloan, were members of the Communist Party.

In the introduction to the report (“Russia, 1952,” 6d.) the writer emphasises conditions in the old Russian Empire prior to the revolution in 1917, and stresses that the country has only “had fifteen years of peaceful new construction since 1917.” He says that up to 1917 Russia was one of the world’s most backward countries, and quotes E. J. Dillon as saying that famine was “as periodical as the snows.” After admitting the backwardness of the Russian economy under the Czars—a fact that the Socialist Party has hammered home for years—he then makes the statement that “only from 1928 did Soviet Russia begin to progress rapidly with a Socialist planned economy.” How Russia jumped from being one of the world’s most backward countries in 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power, to a socialist economy in 1952 the report does not say. However, let us return to our “workers” delegation. They arrived at Moscow by air, and entering the city by road from Moscow airport, saw on their left the new Moscow University—with its 6,000 bed-sitting rooms for the students; on their right were the one-storeyed dilapidated wooden houses of the workers! Soon after arriving the delegation visited the Permanent Building Exhibition, and saw the plans for the Ten Year Reconstruction Plan for Moscow. To British visitors, continues the report, a backward feature of the Soviet Union to-day is public sanitation; there is a great deal to do in this respect. During the war both public and private sanitation was much worse than it is to-day. In “Workers in Stalin’s Russia” M. L. Berneri quotes a letter from a friend in the R.A.F. which he wrote on his return from the Soviet Union. In his letter he says that the sanitary arrangements on the trains (which incidentally have three and sometimes four classes) are grim; and he quotes Ethel Mannin as saying: “The Russians might aim to fulfil various five-year plans, but when they get near a lavatory they don’t aim at all.” So much for Russian sanitation.

Housing, sanitation and road-building are all priority problems, and will, according to the report, provide the Soviet people with plenty to do for very many years. All asphalt roads date from the First Five Year Plan; most cities have their main roads and thoroughfares asphalted, but once you get off the main roads, either in the towns and cities or between them, you find rough tracks.

Although housing is one of the main problems of the Muscovite worker, numerous blocks are being built, mainly in the suburbs. New thoroughfares are being built and many of the old buildings are being pulled down. Although now the capital of the U.S.S.R. (St. Petersburg was the capital of the old Russian Empire), Moscow is no better than other cities such as Rostov-on-Don or Leningrad. Moscow was at one time referred to as “an overgrown village.” But it is now changing. Numerous impressive buildings are appearing such as the new University; and there are some new semi-skyscraper type flats such as the 27-storey railwaymen’s block.

Like all visitors to Moscow the delegation was much impressed by the underground super-palaces of the Metro. Each station has superb decorations in marble, bas-reliefs, coloured tiles, porcelain plaques, mosaics, stained glass, etc. But there are only 35 stations in all.

Two other aspects of life in Moscow are worth mentioning.

The shops usually open at 11 a.m., and long queues form outside before opening time. This statement seems to belie the assertion that Moscow shops are well stocked; or if they are, then it seems—as others have reported—that there are too few of them to cope with the demands of population. The shop assistants work on an eight-hour shift system, and the shops stay open until late in the evening. Comparative food prices are higher in the Soviet Union than in Britain, in the case of all of our subsidised rationed goods. Unsubsidised foodstuffs are comparable in price. Champagne is about 17s. a bottle, red wine 6s. 6d., and vodka 11s. According to the delegation’s report the Soviet Government, by advertising, is trying to discourage the consumption of vodka in favour of beer and wine. This is not surprising as some vodka is nearly 95 per cent. pure alcohol, and having sampled it this writer can assure his readers that after one party—and Russian parties always last well into the night, and much vodka is drunk—the average worker would not be very fit for work the next day.

The cost of television sets is much less than in Britain, but radios at £25 are a little dearer. Cars were selling at £225 to £450. Although these prices seem to compare favourably with British prices it must be remembered that the average wage in the U.S.S.R. is about 1,000 roubles a month (paid monthly) and some workers such as cleaners get less than 500 roubles, which is about £3 per week. As the average wage is not more than £6 per week it can be seen that most wage workers in the Soviet Union are more poverty stricken than their British counterparts—health service, in both countries, notwithstanding. Some members of the delegation considered that a Soviet worker receiving 500 roubles per month would eat worse than his opposite number (£3 per week) here in Britain. He would also find the cost of clothing very high, and would not be so well clothed. As to highly skilled workers, such as miners, engine drivers, foundry men, etc., the report claims that their wages enable them to eat much better than the corresponding workers in Britain. Before returning to the second aspect of life in Moscow—the churches—let us look at the important aspects of the Soviet wages system.

All wages are carefully graded for every job. There is equal pay for equal work. The skilled workers' wages rise very steeply, and wages are graded as a deliberate policy, as an incentive to increase skill.

The report does not mention the stakhanovite movement, which is almost universal in the Soviet Union. The aim of this movement, which is referred to as “socialist emulation” by the Communists, is, by great effort, improved techniques and better organisation, to increase production—and profits, for the various State trusts and “combinars.”

The second interesting point made by the delegation is their description of the three churches they visited in Moscow; a Russian Orthodox, a Baptist and a Roman Catholic. At the first, a cathedral, they found a congregation of several thousand. In the second there were several thousand “souls,” including the delegation (not forgetting the two Communists), who participated in Communion! (Who was it that said “Religion is the opium of the people”?). In the last church, the Roman Catholic, there was not a full congregation. According to the officiating priest the present total Catholic congregation is some 800 souls. Most of the people in the churches were elderly, but the delegation noticed a number of children. Religious instruction is not, however, given in the schools.

Although the delegates stress the fact that the Soviet people desire peace—as do all sane and rational people—they draw attention to the one-hour military parade in Moscow which preceded the May Day demonstration, which they think might be taken in certain quarters to be a disproof of the Soviet Government’s desire for peace. Marshal Govorov took the salute at the May Day parade, and after mentioning the “new and great victories in industry and agriculture, in the development of science and culture,” he reminded his audience of the revival of German and Japanese militarism. He said that the war in Korea was the result of the policies of the “Anglo-American imperialists” and “therefore the Soviet armed forces must stand on guard ” in order to defend the “peaceful” Soviet Union against attack. As with the Western block, the Soviet Government claims to be re-arming for defence. They all always arm for defence—of course! .

Following the military parade, the civilian parade entered the Red Square—with slogans for peace! Commenting on Marshal Govorov’s speech and the demonstration, the report says:—

“Having seen this magnificent display by the Moscow workers and heard Marshal Govorov’s speech, as well as having travelled widely and made our own investigations wherever we went, we are absolutely convinced that the words of Marshal Govorov put the matter of Soviet defence in its correct perspective, and that while it would be utter madness for the U.S.S.R., in the State of the world to-day, not to be vigilant about its defences, at the same time it would prefer to devote even greater resources to peaceful development.”

This statement is quite logical—from the capitalist point of view. All countries, Britain, America and the Soviet Union included, “would prefer to devote even greater resources to peaceful development,” but unfortunately war, and preparations for war, are inseparable from the production-for-profit world of to-day.

After leaving Moscow, the delegation visited Gorky, Rostov-on-Don, Novocherkassk and a summer resort on the Azov Sea. They travelled 3,500 miles, mostly by air. In most places there was still evidence of destruction caused by the war. But large areas of some towns such as Rostov had been rebuilt. At one State Farm the delegation saw a number of excellent race-horses. One of the delegates “commented that it is worth knowing that the Soviet worker can still lose his 2s. 6d. each way in a State totalisator if he wishes, even if the bookies are a form of private enterprise now extinct.” No comment!

From Rostov the delegation went to the capital of the Georgian Soviet Republic Tbilisi, where they visited a restaurant, the Park of Culture, the Textile Combinat, and the Palace of Pioneers.

In sections 4 and 5 the report mentions Child Welfare and clinics for expectant mothers. (“Every working mother is given five weeks off work on full pay, and seven weeks after, the birth of a child,” p. 8.)

According to part 5 of the report, “Conditions in Soviet Industry,” the atmosphere in Soviet factories is absolutely different from that in Britain: it is much more free-and-easy. This is. however, a rather sweeping statement to make considering that the party were being taken on a conducted tour. This statement does not seem feasible, because, as we have mentioned above, stakhanovism and piece-work are universal throughout the Soviet Union.

In sections 7, 8 and 9 the report discusses the Health Service, sport and cultural activities, most of which has been commented on thousands of times before by previous “workers” delegations, and in the columns of the Soviet Weekly.

Although there is quite a lot of useful information in this small pamphlet (23 pages), it is, in the main, sympathetic towards the Soviet regime. Of course, it is not so much what it says, but what it leaves out. Unfortunately, they did not visit the more distant regions of Siberia such as Irkutsk or Yakutsk, or Lubianka jail in Moscow, or a “ Corrective Labour Camp.” Neither do they inform us of the functions of the “frontier units of the Ministry of State Security,” nor the most important fact of all—the existence of all the paraphernalia of capitalism.

Peter E. Newell.

Monte Bello: An Anti-Social Event (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under the capitalistic mode of “production for sale," the historical increase of the potentiality of the machinery of production finds a parallel increase in powers of destruction, which is alone explained not by “the evil in men’s hearts” or the theory of “ original sin,” nor yet by the various ideologies of rival sections of the capitalist class whether emanating from behind “Iron Curtains" or “Democratic” frontiers— but by the private ownership of the wealth which has been socially produced and manifests itself, in the words of Marx, “ as a vast accumulation of commodities."

This production potential of modern capitalism, capable as it is of producing vast quantities of commodities, creates a problem of “Export or Bust” for those who own the products; the capitalist class, whose sole object is the sale of these goods, by hook or crook, in the markets of the world. This is known as “healthy competition," but inevitably leads to events at places such as Nagasaki, Bikini and Monte Bello becoming anything but “ health resorts.”

The latest achievement in destructive power has been the production and explosion of an atomic bomb by Britain’s rulers in a remote comer of “their empire ” which from all accounts has been a comparable “effort” with that of the American experts at Bikini. British “prestige" has apparently received a fillip from this devastating blast, described by the Liverpool Express of 3rd October, in glaring headlines, as “a triumph in the powers of destruction.”

It is a far cry from the days of the British gunboat, sufficient to uphold the “prestige” of British capitalism then at a cost quite negligible in comparison with this expensive demonstration at Monte Bello, deemed necessary by our rulers to impress rival capitalist powers.

Quite apart from what any disciple of Darwin would have to say re the effects on the flora and fauna of Monte Bello, and despite the fact that on this occasion care was taken that no member of the human race was within range of the deadly blast, the purpose behind these “triumphs of destructive power” is obvious and can be summed up in the capitalist slogan, What we have, we hold." What they have is the surplus value squeezed from the hides of their wage-slaves and what they hold of this wealth depends on their “Might,” which is the only “Right” of capitalism, mirroring as it does, the “ law of the jungle.”

This constant waste of human energy in destruction, whether in the form of bombs, warplanes or battleships, is sufficient indictment of a social system which has outlived its historical purpose. Now is the time to end it and we appeal to the wage-slaves of the world to “rise in their countless numbers,” and organize on the political front with one object—the abolition of capitalism, and the establishment of Socialism; when, following from this revolutionary act, access to the wealth of the world will be a natural birthright for each and every member of society; where the competition of the capitalist jungle of national entities gives way to a world of co-operation and production solely for use, enabling man to regain some of his lost human dignity, at present buried under the degradation of his commodity existence.

Remember—the Socialist Party is the growing instrument for your emancipation.

G. R. Russell

Slings and Arrows: Quick-change Artist (1952)

The Slings and Arrows column from the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Quick-change Artist

The history of the Labour Party is full of examples of rebels who have, after attaining power and eminence, become just as “Right-wing” as the leaders they displaced. Yet, each time a new ginger group or rabble rouser appears in the political firmament large numbers of people think that it is different. It is always the last lot that were no good, and it is always this lot that will be better. The recent Labour Party conference has resulted in a great victory for the group known as the “Bevanites.” They are going to put more Socialism into the Labour Party. We confidently predict that they will fail, not because we are prophets, but because we know that Bevan and his henchmen are no more socialists and no more backed by socialists, than Attlee, Morrison or R. A. Butler for that matter. We predict that should these rebels gain the leadership of the Labour Party they will prove themselves to be just as “right-wing” as the fallen leaders and just as ready to lend themselves to the conduct of Capitalism, war, or whatever situation arises out of this system. And never will the fundamental interests of the working-class be served. Thus it was with the late Sir Stafford Cripps; thus it will be with Bevan. The transformation from left-wing rebel to right-wing leader is invariably gradual. The process takes a few years so that by the time leadership is attained the indiscretions of the rebellious past are buried and almost forgotten. With the present rebels in the ascendant, however, the cat has been let well and truly out of the bag, even before leadership has been reached.

Mr. R. H. Crossman, reputed “expert” on foreign affairs and destined to be Foreign Secretary if ever Bevan gets the call to the premiership, well and truly, yet inadvertently, gave the whole show away. Called to speak to a resolution on foreign policy, a day or so after being elected to the Party Executive, he admitted that the speech he was originally going to make, which would have been “lively and fiery,” was to be scrapped in favour of one “less controversial.” The transformation in his case seems to have taken place overnight. The responsibilities of office affected him more quickly than most other “poachers turned gamekeepers.” To the credit of the delegates of the Labour Party Conference this example of political opportunism was solidly booed, and we can only hope that the incident will leave the delegates with some doubts as to the value of leadership, whether “right- wing,” “left-wing,” or “centre.”

What do they do?

Francis Bacon, alleged by some to be the real author of Shakespeare’s plays, wrote in his essay on Justice: "a much talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal.” If he were alive to-day he would have no cause to revise his opinions. Magistrates and Judges are fond of hearing themselves talk, and often betray the most abysmal ignorance of things outside their legal experience. Thus we have a magistrate roundly condemning a working-class woman who had the temerity to spend some of her children’s allowance on going to the pictures once a week. Another legal luminary on being told that a Czech refugee charged with theft could not be deported because his life would be in danger, retorted “So our lives must be endangered.” An apt comment, for to the capitalist and his henchmen property is life.

The magistrate of an East-end Court recently had before him a sixteen year old boy who was earning £8 10s. per week. So astounded was the magistrate that he pondered aloud over this phenomenon and produced the remark, “What on earth can he do to deserve such pay?” The answer, of course, is obvious. Work! It appears from this consternation which fills the breast of the magistrate, that boys of sixteen should not have £8 10s. per week given to them as wages. But this opens up a wide field of investigation. If the Magistrate is perturbed at this state of affairs, he should broaden his horizon and enquire what, for instance, anybody does which is worth, say, £30,000 per annum. He could enquire into the fact that people are getting far more than £8 10s. for doing nothing except clipping dividend coupons off Share Certificates, or paying somebody else to clip the coupons for them. This aspect would not of course perturb the learned Magistrate. What he really objects to is not the sum involved. He would certainly not have said it concerning an Eton schoolboy brought before him for some college “ rag.” He is perturbed by the fact that a working-class boy should get more money than he thinks is proper. It is commonplace to hear of people receiving enormous incomes, complaining that miners or dockers are earning “too much.” They feel that they are the only ones entitled to be affluent, safe, and secure. Socialists who object to the system which produces such inequalities are dubbed "selfish” and "jealous.” So of the magistrate and those who think with him we ask this question: “ If it is wrong for a boy to receive £8 10s. per week for his work, is it not wrong for people to get infinitely more for not working? ” We feel sure that the question will remain unanswered by those who have set themselves up as arbiters of what workers should have.

Misdirected efforts

The explosion of the new British Atomic Bomb off the coast of Australia has been hailed with rapture by every section of the press—the Daily Worker, of course, excepted. The Daily Mirror informs us that this bomb puts the word “Great” in front of Britain, and expects us all to rejoice that Britain has attained at least parity with Russia and America in the development of atomic weapons. It enables "us” to defend ourselves and others. It would be amusing, if the occasion were not so melancholy, to observe that each and every country always has weapons for defence, never for attack. Indeed, the cry of "Defence” which rings out all over the world, makes us wonder why wars ever occur.

The Daily Worker, reporting a statement of an organisation known as "Science for Peace” (a crypto- communist outfit) tells us that the spending of £200,000,000 on this atomic experiment is "anti-social and wholly destructive,” and a "misdirection of scientific effort.” It finds it particularly so at a time when "Britain's economic difficulties are unprecedented and unsolved.” Is then, the expenditure of such a sum on such a project in order if Britain’s economic difficulties were not unprecedented? Do we assume that if Britain did not have a “dollar gap,” and shortage of raw materials (with which the Daily Worker is concerned) the Daily Worker would not frown on Atomic development? Of course we do not. The only time the Daily Worker or the Science for Peace Organisation would approve would be when Britain and Russia were allies. Not one word has ever been published in the Daily Worker condemning the “misdirection of scientific effort ” in the Soviet Union. For remember the Soviet Union also has its Atom bomb. Not only do they not condemn Russia for this but they offered no word of protest at the use of the bomb on Hiroshima when thousands of men, women and children were destroyed in one night, and those who were left alive remain living monuments of the ruthless, predatory nature of that Capitalism which both the Daily Mirror and the Daily Worker support.

The development of Atomic weapons is just one more reason why Capitalism should be swept away and Socialism instituted. But protests at their development in England and America and acquiescence in their production in the Soviet Union is “misdirection of scientific effor ” indeed.

To quote Longfellow:—

“Were half the power that fills the world with tenor.

Were half the wealth bestowed on camps and courts,

Given to redeem the human mind from error.

There were no need for arsenals and forts.”

S.A.

"Any Questions?" (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Friday evening, 3rd October, “Any Questions?” returned to the air. Members of a West Country audience once again put their questions to a team of four “experts” who gave spontaneous and unscripted answers. On this programme the questions are mostly topical, sometimes flippant, and deemed to be of interest to the general public.

This was the day of the big British Largest-Ever Atomic Bang, and the first questioner enquired if we should be proud of our achievement. Graham Hutton, economist, in reply, thought we should feel proud from a scientific point of view, but not if it were to be put to “evil” use. He said it was a good thing that America and Russia were now not alone in this respect. The fact that Britain could make atomic bombs struck a better balance. Robert Henriques welcomed the achievement as it meant we were once again a World Power, undoubtedly we had been slipping; he thought we should feel responsible, not proud. Mrs. Stocks thought that a thing worth doing was worth doing well and took pride in the fact that Britain is a “humane and civilised nation.”

The second questioner asked the team if they believed in the presence of angels, and if so, in what form do they exist. The audience chortled immoderately, apparently a goodly slice present of Tom Driberg’s “85 per cent. Unbelievers or Indifferents.”

Robert Henriques rebuked the audience for their unseemly hilarity, said he was a Jew, and certainly took his angels very seriously. Both Mrs. Stock and Ralph Wightman said they always “wanted to laugh” when they pictured an angel with long hair, nightgown, wings and ukelele, but (for some obscure reason) they felt quite solemn when they imagined one “standing in the sun.” The story was then told of how a gaggle of angels were mustering before the Lord and the devil sneaked in with the crowd. (Reason not stated, but probably out of pure devilment.) The Lord, perspicacious as ever, spotted the black sheep in the fold and winkled him out. The point of this story being that there are undoubtedly good angels and bad.

The audience was temporarily subdued and the Question Master passed to the next question, “Which was worse, inflation or deflation?” The ball was placed at the feet of the economist, Graham Hutton, who apparently wanted to see the other members of the team stick out their necks first. Ralph Wightman tackled bravely, then realising that the subject was not his line of territory, informed an hilarious audience that he had recently seen an advertisement for “Inflationary Bra's.” After this somewhat irrelevant digression, Graham Hutton cut loose on the question; he defined inflation and deflation and said it was “ for the economist to study, tell the truth and for the politicians to act on it. Hence it was not up to economists but the politicians.” He thought the answer was stability, but on the whole “ slight inflation was easier to cope with.” Mrs. Stock made earnest suggestions as to how it might be controlled, and Henriques thought that “production was the answer.” Graham Hutton made some extraordinary statements about Russia being able to balance her economy overnight by shooting people, reducing rations and putting 10 million people in concentration camps.

The next question was on the subject of co-education, and the team were unanimously in favour—with the exception of boarding schools.

Question No. 5: “ Will the rivalry between Capitalist states inevitably lead to war? ”

On the morning of this particular broadcast the Press carried reports of Stalin’s latest speech in which he asserted that the capitalist countries, by which he meant the Western bloc, would war with one another. When answering the question, the team carried on the usual implication that Russia is not a capitalist country and said it was unthinkable that we should war with France, America or any of our present allies.

Here let it be pointed out that a cursory glance back over the past half-century shows some incredible feats of shuffling, quick changes and diplomatic gymnastics round the international cauldron. Alas! The shifting quicksands of capitalist propaganda; to-day the Germans and Japanese who until recently hogged all the black limelight, now have to be white-washed, and a policy designed to keep them from sliding into the Russian camp. The eye-wash that wars are waged in a crusading spirit of good against evil becomes daily more ridiculous and the commercial nature of both the great struggles is being universally recognised. From 1904 onwards, when the commercial rivalry of Germany began to make itself felt, a marked change came over the policy of the British Government. Hitherto France had been Britain’s traditional enemy, but in face of this new danger an alliance was formed and Germany became the “enemy.”

Robert Henriques, answering the question, thought it unlikely that the Allies would war between themselves. Both he and Mrs. Stock were against rearming the Germans, as they were a "fundamentally war like nation.” It was agreed that Stalin’s speech was encouraging in a way. It showed that he was continuing with the “cold war” and would do all he could to "sow dissension" among the Western Powers. Mrs. Stock said she wouldn’t call Britain a capitalist country, but half-capitalist and half-socialist. She thought Germany was dangerous and would try to regain her Eastern provinces and should be "continuously disarmed.” Ralph Wightman, agreeing with Mrs. Stock, also said he thought that “no man should have the power to make money out of arms.” A worthy but futile thought which earned its round of applause.

In answer to the last question regarding a hypothetical change of vocation, Henriques said he would be a Barrow Boy as "you could choose what you wanted to sell.” Hutton would be a Newspaper Boy, as no salesmanship is needed, "they almost sell themselves.” Mrs. Stock and Ralph Wightman would be Window Cleaners, the former because she is "good at it,” and the latter because he thought he might "see some very interesting things.” This caused a ripple of laughter, and on this note the meeting closed.

On questions of the day this programme has always been an inextricably mixed grill of confusion. The teams invariably suffer from the political myopia characteristic of those who swallow present-day Press and Radio unquestioningly, book, line and sinker. So far as the audience is concerned, even if, in the future they ask useful questions, i.e., questions that have some bearing on their position in society, it is extremely improbable that they will get the right answers on this programme.

F. M. Robins

A matter of life and death (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

An article in the Manchester Guardian of 22nd September, 1952, reviewing the 1st volume of the Official Medical History of the Second World War, commences as follows:

“It is a curious irony of man’s social development that human life receives a kind of tenderness in war that it often fails to get in peace. As soon as a man becomes a soldier, or a civilian on whose work the fighting services depend, the State sets out to guard his life with all the resources it can command: instead of being merely of concern to himself and his family, the war-time citizen is recognised as an essential piece of the machinery of war, to be maintained in working order as efficiently and as long as possible, without regard for the cost of maintenance"

The writer then poses several questions: “But when medical science is used in war, does it thereby become a weapon of war? Should the results of wholly beneficial research be kept secret to prevent an enemy from profiting by them to protect the health of his own community? Should there be accepted priorities for saving life—should an elderly civilian, for instance, be allowed to die so that some drug can be available in greater quantity for treating factory workers? ”

Using penicillin as an example, it is stated that the decision was taken to restrict publication particularly on the chemical and production side so that the enemy should not be enabled to make penicillin and so hasten the recovery of his casualties. When supplies were limited medical officers were advised not to use penicillin for treatment of prisoners of war. “unless the medical officer was convinced that the prisoner would die or unless the M.O. had strong moral scruples.” As production of penicillin was regarded as an Allied War Secret this meant that allied prisoners of war who were wounded could not hope to receive treatment by penicillin.

To read that the right of a human being to receive the best treatment available to restore health should be subjected to such considerations as nationality and usefulness in the war machine does not surprise the socialist. On examining the world in which we live the socialist can find many examples in war and peace where humanitarian considerations are of secondary importance. The capitalist system is not a humanitarian society—it is a profit-making one and members of the working class will continue to have their lives saved or sacrificed just as the system demands.

The “complex consequences and sad dilemmas” which apparently confronted the medical profession during the war are just a small part of the many problems which exist to-day, and few readers will need to be reminded of these.

The solution to all these is in the hands of the workers—get rid of the capitalist system and its problems go with it.

Grace Wood