By The Way. (1916)

The By The Way Column from the November 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Much has been written and said with regard to the question of British Prisoners of War and their treatment in Germany, but of late various items of news come to hand which tend to show that the “Ger-Hun” can be out-Hunned by the Brit-Hun. Witness the following:

“The Newhaven Guardians have declined to admit for treatment to the workhouse conscientious objectors working on the Newhaven to Seaford road improvement scheme who fall sick.”—”Star,” Sept. 23rd, 1916.

* * *

And, again, there is the report in the Press of a conscientious objector who met his death at Dyce, near Aberdeen, under the administration of the Military Service Act. Whilst the Local and the Appeal Tribunals disallowed his claim for exemption, after nearly concluding his sentence pronounced by court-martial, he was re-examined by the Central Tribunal and offered work of national importance—a reversal of the two previous decisions. He was eventually sent to Scotland and there contracted a chill, the result of leaky tents and damp soil, with no provision for drying wet clothes, from which he died.

Dr. Clifford describes this as:

“The latest of a long series of incidents demonstrating the injustice of the new conscription policy, and the fearful tyranny of our growing militarism.”

Further he adds :

“The fact is, we have been grossly deceived. Faith has not been kept with the people. With or without intending it, the Coalition Government has betrayed us. Parliament distinctly arranged that conscientious objectors should be safeguarded.”—”Daily Chronicle,” Sept. 9th, 1916.

* * *

A later announcement on this case states that a Deputation from the Home Office visited the camp and a “representative of the men stated afterwards that the Committee decided that the tents should be abolished and arrangements made with local farmers to accommodate the men in lofts. A building is to be erected to deal with cases of sickness.”—”Daily Sketch,” Sept. 20th, 1916.

When cases of neglect or ill-treatment of prisoners of war occur in Germany large headlines and long articles are necessary to point out the enormity of the offence, reference being made to the Hague and Geneva Conventions, etc., but when it is the Hun in our midst a short paragraph suffices. Such is our prostitute Press.

* * *

I well recollect how important, in the days of my youth, it was considered to be that my religious instruction should in no wise be neglected. And so it came to pass that at this period of our existence we used to read that “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof;” the meek “shall inherit the earth”; and many other such texts. But in due season one came to the conclusion that in the first quotation the printer had omitted the prefix “Land.” Verily, verily, I say unto you, hearken unto me and read you that which is good. For the last two years and two months we have had dinned into our ears a lot of talk about “our” country, but even during that period we have read of desirable plots of freehold land being bought and sold. An interesting case of how “our” country is disposed of from time to time may be gathered from the following :

“Mr. Harry Lauder has bought an estate of 14,000 acres, it was stated yesterday in Glasgow, on the east side of Loch Fyne, at Glenbranter, a place formerly linked with the name of the late Mr. David MacBrayne, Steamshipowner, Glasgow.”—”Reynolds’s,” Oct. 15th, 1916.

There’s war economy for you ! Save your money and lend it to your country, screech our masters and their hirelings to the workers, whose portion of the country is contained in a flower pot.

* * *

On another page of the same paper I notice that the question of war time economy was to be practised on the old people, whom our spiritual guides would describe as the Lord’s poor. It reads :

“The Walsall Guardians by a majority of one vote decided to substitute suet pudding and treacle for the Christmas plum puddings in the workhouse. Alderman Bull said the workhouse master expected to save £15 to £20. Mr. Carter, another member, said the action was contemptibly mean.”

It would indeed be interesting to learn whether these paragons of economy contemplate sitting down at the Christmas season to similar fare. Precept and practice are so vastly different, you know.

* * *

With a desire to try and get a further lease of life and to regain their hold over the masses the Church has inaugurated a National Mission of Repentance and Hope. Sky pilots from far and near are busily engaged telling us how the war is uniting high and low, rich and poor, in short, how it is attempting to bridge the chasm between classes. And that after the war capital and labour must cease fighting each other and work for each other’s good. The Bishop of London himself says: “If it is shown to us by the Spirit of God that we must alter the whole system I can promise we are ready to do it. If there is anything in our position, houses, incomes, in our motors, in anything we have then that thing has got to be scrapped.” Our well-paid bachelor Bishop might as a preliminary make a start by following his Lord and Master a little more closely. For I read that the “Son of Man hath not where to lay his head.” This 20th century disciple, however, is more fortunately placed than He who said : “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” But stay, the Bishop says “if it is shown to us ‘by the Spirit of God’ that we must alter the whole system . . . we are ready to do it.” Seeing the vast epoch that has elapsed since the statement with regard to taking up the cross was made, methinks it will be “some” time yet ere these gentlemen who have waxed fat on the cross will be able to discover “by the Spirit of God” whether they are to abandon pelf, place and power.
,

* * *

This Right Rev. Father in God, speaking at Victoria Park, made reference to a desire for a better state of morals in London, and said “we mean to have a . . . cleaner London for the boys when they come home from the trenches and the North Sea.” The pearl of greatest price is found in the following:

“It is the working-class daughter that I am trying to save by my campaign in West London. Why should they be at the mercy of the lusts of mankind ? The fault is largely in the home teaching.”

It would be more correct to say that they were at the mercy of the wealthy class in society. Has this shining light and supporter of capitalism never heard, or has he forgotten, the Queenie Gerald case with its sordid story of obtaining girls for wealthy patrons ? We have no recollection of the Bishop at that time speaking outside St. James’, Piccadilly, pointing the moral and adorning the tale of the cadet who wrote asking for a virgin and offering a respectable sum for the privilege. Yet, forsooth, he wants to save the working-class daughters. It will be within the recollection of many that when the defendant in this case was conveyed to the police station a large sum of money was found in her possession, also valuable jewellery, which went to show the nature of her patrons. The Bishop would be better employed in prosecuting his “purity” campaign in fashionable churches rather than in a public park in the East End ; and working-class parents might profitably consider the cause of, and remedy for prostitution.

* * *

I might in passing just note for the benefit of my clerical friends and others, who so often refer to the waywardness of mankind across the seas, that in a recent issue of a weekly capitalist paper there was an announcement to the following effect: “Nearly 500 cases, mostly divorce, will occupy the attention of the Judges, in the Probate and Divorce Division during the Michaelmas Sittings . . . Of this number 376 are undefended matrimonial suits.” Who said Socialism would break up the home life?

* * *

Reverting to the subject-matter of an article in last month’s issue of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD. The nonsensical statement attributed to Jaures, that,

“Without nations there could be no international”

One is not surprised to see that statement repeated by Dan Irving in the Burnley “Pioneer.” One fool makes many, and the time-servers of the master class who pose as Socialists, must indeed be conscious of their own fraudulent position, when reduced to such puerile phrases, in order to justify their support of capitalist anarchy.

* * *
How feeble is the labour leaders’ conception, of Internationalism, is seen in their denunciations of the Social Democrats of Germany. Every capitalist rag in England—and no doubt in all the allied countries—has boasted the fact that even the Socialists recognised the justice of their cause and were forsaking the class war, or suspending it, while national interests were at. stake. The German Socialists excused their lapse from Internationalism—if they ever understood it—with the fear of a Russian invasion. Their prototypes in the allied countries took up their masters’ cry of German militarism and from the first called upon the workers to take-up arms and crush it. Whatever land the fakirs hail from, there is no difference or distinction between them ; they are all tools of the ruling caste and have no cause to sling mud at each other, as the allied Socialists do at their German comrades in fraud. One in particular saying

“the German Socialists must wash the blood off their hands with tears of remorse, and even then they would have to take a back seat in international movements.”

The Scout.

Blogger's Note:

The conscientious objector who died at Dyce Work Camp was Walter Roberts. I remember reading about his sad story in Come Dungeons Dark, John Taylor Caldwell's biography of Guy Aldred. Aldred was an inmate at the Dyce Work Camp and was a friend of Roberts.

Between the Lines: What TV Does to People (1987)

The Between the Lines Column from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

What TV Does to People

The Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, has of late undertaken a course of ritual pontification about the effects of sex and violence on TV screens. Are these images corrupting the impressionable workers? Might Michael Ryan not have gone around shooting the inhabitants of Hungerford if TV had not given him a model to imitate? Did the rape scene in Sins create new rapists? Is all of the anti-social nastiness of daily life under capitalism but a re-enactment of the corrupting imagery of TV make-believe?

Socialists are not out to tell the bosses how to run their system. They will run it, if they can, in whatever way it will be most profitable and stable for them — and they will regulate their media accordingly. Of course, the Tories are in a bit of a fix. On the one hand they never tire of telling us that human nature dictates our anti-social behaviour: we are all born sinners and the best we can do is repent for being the murderous, evil little swines that we are. If that theory was true, then TV images would not make people anti-social, for we already would be. If the government accepts the view that the social environment moulds people’s behaviour (which is clearly what they are saying when they seek to limit the influence of TV) they are taking dangerous steps in the direction of the Marxist recognition that it is our social being which determines our consciousness. So, if Hurd and his colleagues advance to the recognition that we are what society makes us, then they must give up their traditional claims that murderers, rapists and other anti-social beings were born that way: if they were, then it would not matter how "clean" TV was, they would still commit their crimes.

Once the Tories accept the view that TV might affect the way people behave it becomes necessary for them to place the state in the role of censors, ensuring that we, the viewers, are not allowed to see what is bad for us. Needless to say. such censorship would not be unpolitical. We do not expect governments to act unpolitically. The state censors might decide to ban TV films which glorify violence, but so too might they decide to ban documentaries which undermine national morale. As soon as a censorship body exists it will be used to perform more than simply ethical functions. The pro-censorship lobby invariably couples sex and violence as the pernicious double-act of modern TV. But sex and violence are different images. Why ban sexual images from TV? Miserable Christians insist that nude bodies corrupt children. That tells us more about screwed-up Christians' self-repression than anything else. Of course, there is a massive difference between the televised depiction of sensitive love-making and the TV blockbuster which needs to kick off with a brutal rape scene because it will pull in the punters who read The Sun and who constitute an audience big enough to please the advertisers. If "sex on TV" is to be "banned" (to use the absurd terminology of the censorship brigade), are we no longer to see drama which includes the realities of sexual behaviour? The sex imagery which TV is far more culpable of exploiting is that related to gender roles — images which show women as flawed if they are not purchaseable commodities of femininity and which teach female viewers which character models to copy if they want to be like real TV women. It is that sort of "sex on TV” which is far more repressive and destructive than the scenes which Mary Whitehouse never seems to miss, and then always seems to want to ensure that the rest of us are banned from seeing.

As for violence, what kind of a society is capitalism which has armaments capable of blowing up the world several times over, research establishments plotting ways of creating biological weapons that can kill people by newer, more painful methods; which settles its international rivalries in pursuit of profits by the use of well-organised thuggery — which does all of these things openly and with pride —and then blames TV shoot-outs for creating social violence? The simple fact is that if we were not living in a social system based upon competition the incentive to be socially violent would not be there.

The Bloody Tragedy of it All

We do not know whether violent or pornographic pictures on TV make viewers behave differently. Different research provides contradicting conclusions. What TV does do to many, many workers is make us sad. Watching The News At Ten (ITV) night after night after night is a process which ends in feeling bloody miserable about the tragedy of it all. For millions of workers this tragedy is blotted out by booze or tranquillisers; in others it creates apathy; for some the bad news (which is almost everything) is blocked out and they wait for the bit at the end where ITN digs up a "happy story" to send the wage slaves to bed with a bit of hope.

Few documentaries conveyed this sense of overwhelming tragedy as well as the recent Channel Four series, The Politics of Food (Tuesdays, 9pm). The programme about Brazil (7 October) showed scene after scene of dying, starving children, many of them little more than babies. There was the interview with a mother who told the story of saving up enough money to take her malnourished son to the doctor. She brought him back in a coffin, now she has two more children both suffering from the same symptoms of malnutrition. Then there was the Brazilian man who worked producing cocoa for export so that his capitalist bosses could help pay off their $100 billion debt to the bankers. (This is the tragedy of capitalism: cocoa is grown for export and land producing crops which could feed starving peasants is converted to export production because the empty-bellied are also those with empty wallets.) The man, who earns a wage of £8 a week, says. "It used to be bad. but now it's worse. The harder I work the worse it gets." Another worker looks into the camera and states that the only thing left to wait for is death.

Of course, no solution is offered by the programme. A few reformists are wheeled on to advocate land reform, but, as the speaker for the Brazilian government quite openly explained, 1 per cent of the Brazilian population own 50 per cent of all land in Brazil and that is the most profitable land; these capitalists spend £7 million each year on private armies to uphold their ownership. In the last two years 500 Brazilian workers and peasants have been murdered by the landowners because they have been prominent in advocating land reform. Who says that there is no class war going on? These are our fellow workers being murdered in it. But land reform offers no solution; nor do increased loans to peasants from the World Bank or Cuban-style state ownership. The solution is socialism — a worldwide system in which all human beings will have free access to the goods and services of our abundant planet. Seeing children die and human lives wasted in despair and women bury their families — seeing all of that not as fiction, but as the real depiction of the society we inhabit —, that is the real obscenity on our TV screens. No. don't censor it, Mr Hurd; don't protect us from seeing the sickness of the system which you and those like you uphold. Let us see. and let us do more than just see.

Update

As The People newspaper has failed to correct its crass distortion of the ideas printed in this column in the August Socialist Standard (see October's "Between The Lines" for details), a complaint has now been sent to the Press Council. Readers will be informed

(a) whether the Press Council upholds the indisputable validity of our complaint, and

(b) whether The People, if censured for its distortion, will provide equal space in its newspaper to publicise such censure as it did to convey its original distortion.

Steve Coleman

Blogger's Notes:

• The October 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard carried an article on Michael Ryan and the Hungerford massacre written by Janie Percy-Smith.
• There was a book tie in with the Channel 4/Yorkshire Television series The Politics of Food. The hunger machine : the politics of food by Jon Bennett and Susan George was published in 1987 by Polity Press, and is available over at Archive.org
• There was a sneering review of the PBS/Channel 13 version of The Politics of Food by the New York Times' TV critic, John Corry, that appeared in that paper on January 6th, 1988.

Pathfinders: Abolish the trough (2026)

The Pathfinders Column from the September 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Summer droughts, record temperatures and infernal wildfires are fast becoming the new UK normal, as are tabloid splashes during the peak sailing season when overloaded migrant dinghies manage to make it to UK shores. Cue a shrill crescendo of right-wing rhetoric about how immigrants (they mean Muslims) are ruining the country, destroying British culture, raping children and stealing jobs. The ultimate right-wing paranoia is ‘the Great Replacement Theory’, the modern incarnation of 20th century panics about the Jews or Chinese, in which sharia law comes to dominate the West, and democracy and free speech are annihilated.

Socialists have a different frame of reference, which is the urgent need to abolish global capitalism. To us, right-wing fears are misdirected emotional responses to the pressures and stresses of living in capitalism. When the world establishes post-capitalist common ownership, with no markets or rich elites, no states or governments, these worries will evaporate. When everything in the future is free, everywhere in the world, it’s the same as everyone being rich, and then who cares who is a foreigner and who isn’t? Maybe we’ll all choose to migrate, maybe not. It won’t matter.

But when you’re impoverished today with no hope of a decent life, it’s easy to fetishise what little you do have, like your ‘culture’. British culture, as everyone knows, is the mongrel product of scores of migrations and invasions over millennia. We are built from a mongrel mix of genes and we speak a mongrel Indo-European dialect. We enjoy Indian, Japanese, Italian, Malaysian and Caribbean cooking. We like Swiss cheese, Ethiopian coffee, German beer, American fast food with French fries, Swedish saunas and nowadays, Chinese smart gadgets. Most of our classical music heroes are Russian or Polish or German. We hang out in Spanish resorts or the Austrian Alps or Thai beach bars. If anything’s ruining British culture, it’s capitalist McDonaldisation, not our boundless appetite for diversity.

Can Britain do without immigrants? With a declining home-grown population and skill set, there is an ever-increasing list of essential jobs that are in short supply. Do we not need electricians or engineers? How about plumbers, builders, bookkeepers, IT trainers or lab technicians? There’s a shortage of all these. The understaffed NHS has 27 percent of nurses and 35 percent of doctors from overseas. Does the right want a functioning NHS or not? Foreign-born dentists now outnumber native ones. Would the right prefer bad teeth?

Alright, but what about all the Asian grooming gangs and the supposed increase in migrant-related crimes and sex attacks? Certainly there have been some well-publicised cases. Migrant crimes make headlines, equivalent ‘white’ crimes don’t. Migrants are mostly young men, and young men proportionately commit more crimes. The problem is age rather than nationality. If migration causes crime, the two should rise in lockstep. Instead, when migration was rising, overall crime rates were going down. Now both rates are falling. The right can’t support their argument with reliable government data, because there isn’t any. Crimes are not recorded against immigration status, data collection is not consistent across police forces, and age demographics are not factored in. The overall picture is confused, anecdotal and ‘a bit of a bodge’, allowing some to claim that the migrant crime problem is worse than it is. Conversely, ‘if you are a victim of a violent or sexual crime in the UK, the available evidence suggests that the ethnic makeup of the country means that the perpetrator is most likely to be a white man’.

Legal migrants are statistically less likely to commit crimes, because ‘they don’t want to get kicked out of the country’, while second-generation migrants tend to assimilate, and crime rates come into line with that of the general population. According to the Office for National Statistics, (downloadable PDF), ‘MoJ data shows that proportionately fewer foreign nationals end up in prison for sexual offences than British nationals’, despite the fact that ‘Time and time again audits have found that the police in the UK falsely charge foreign nationals at a higher rate’.

What about the Great Replacement Theory? Currently Muslims constitute around 8 percent of UK and European populations. It’s true that rates are rising slightly against a backdrop of declining European birthrates. At current trends and on a reasonable estimate, Muslims would be a UK majority by 2180, in 150 years’ time.

A lot can happen in 15 years, never mind 150. Does anyone remember the hot-button social issues of 1876? Mass Polish immigration, recently a right-wing concern, reversed spectacularly when the Polish economy started outperforming the UK’s. Any number of other reversals could occur. In any case, how do speculations about future demographics help today’s poor, whom the right supposedly cares about?

People who voted for Brexit to stop immigration must be gutted that immigration then went up. They voted for ‘sovereignty’ and to ‘take our country’ back. But if England really is our country, how come we’re only allowed to walk on 8 percent of it? Why isn’t the right angry about that? The rich own all the land because they stole it from our ancestors during the Enclosures and the Highland Clearances, and then passed laws to legalise their own robbery. People complain that foreigners are stealing their jobs. Why aren’t they angry that the rich stole the entire world, forcing the rest of us into centuries of landless wage-slavery? Why does the right despise socialists, the very people who call out this crime against humanity and demand that we take our entire world back?

Could it be that prominent right-wing leaders aren’t interested in challenging the guilty rich, who cause all our working-class misery? Could it be that they hope to join the guilty rich, by whipping up popular unthinking frenzy against hapless scapegoats in order to get their own snouts in the trough? Well, socialists have a simple answer for that. Abolish the trough. Capitalism, not immigration, is humanity’s real enemy.

Paddy Shannon

Proper Gander: Class struggle (2026)

The Proper Gander column from the September 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Silent classrooms with students reading line-by-line in unison, wary that any wrong action will lead to a swift reprimand probably isn’t what we imagine secondary schools to be like. However, this approach has been taken in recent years, as Richard Bilton reports in Britain’s Strictest Schools for BBC1’s Panorama. The Athena Learning Trust runs six secondary schools in Devon and Cornwall with 6,500 pupils in total. On its website are syrupy phrases like ‘High support and high ownership are at the heart of our ethos. At Athena, we are resolute in our pursuit of support, kindness, and integrity’. Such words sound particularly hollow to the students, parents and ex-teachers who are concerned about its tough stance on discipline.

As the documentary tells us, Athena Learning Trust has a ‘two strikes’ policy for when its students break the rules: a warning for the first breach and then being sent to detention for the second, called ‘reflection’. Breaking the rules while in reflection leads to ‘suspension’: being barred from the school short-term. Such approaches are familiar, but in Athena schools, looking out of the window can be an infraction. One of the students tearfully explains the ‘321 focus’ catchphrase, heard dozens of times daily, which is a (clumsy) acronym for ‘face and observe the teacher in clearly upright silent attention’. There are strict expectations not just about students’ attention, but also for punctuality and their uniforms being ‘perfect’. We’re told that children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) are more likely to behave in ways which challenge the rules, although Government Adviser on behaviour in schools in England Tom Bennett says people with conditions such as ADHD need a ‘calm, safe, dignified environment’ and that tight discipline supports this.

Having a lot of regulations to breach has meant that a lot of punishments have been issued. The programme states that Athena’s Ilfracombe school has around 1,000 suspensions a year, almost five times higher than the average across England. One of the parents interviewed for the documentary describes how his daughter got into a cycle of going from reflection to suspension repeatedly, therefore missing out on what was being taught in the classroom. He and others attended a drop-in session to voice concerns, arranged by Panorama’s producers, which Bilton says attracted more people than anticipated. Those interviewed for the programme aren’t short of adjectives to describe Athena’s regime: ‘authoritarian’, ‘cruel’, ‘dystopian’, ‘robotic’, ‘abusive’, ‘almost militarian’ and ‘a bit like a dictatorship’. Athena’s management didn’t agree to be interviewed and instead issued a statement.

Athena is an ancient Greek goddess associated with wisdom and handicrafts, both appropriate to schooling. She’s also associated with warfare, perhaps reflecting her namesake’s regimented methods. Schools with reputations for lax standards of behaviour and low exam results were taken over by Athena because it was acknowledged that changes were needed. The stringent policies covering discipline were introduced because the demographic of ‘white underprivileged people near the coast’ is hardest to teach, Independent Councillor James Ball says he was told by Athena staff.

Bilton asks whether Athena’s approach has been beneficial. Its schools mostly have good outcomes from Ofsted assessments and exam results have improved. But according to former Athena teacher Robin Johnson, the children have a ‘joyless education’, and students say they find the ethos ‘depressing’. As another ex-teacher says, when children have come to hate school, this ‘can’t be good, no matter what their GCSE results are’. Some parents have decided to educate their children at home instead.

This summer, hundreds of people attended public meetings protesting against the schools’ practices, and ‘parent power won’, says Bilton. Athena Learning Trust is being disbanded, as we’re told towards the end of the programme, its footage having been recorded before this was announced. CEO Ben Parnell has resigned and the Department For Education will monitor Athena to implement changes until its schools are transferred to other trusts.

Athena has operated in the academy system, as a not-for-profit charitable trust. While organisations which run academy schools are still funded and regulated by the government, they aren’t overseen by the local council, and so they can be run in different ways to state schools. More than 80% percent of secondary schools in England are academies, with other frameworks in the rest of Britain. One criticism of trusts which manage multiple academies (like Athena) is that decisions are made in some centralised head office distant from the schools, and therefore don’t fully consider local concerns. They are likely to take into account the interests of any financial backers, which could include businesses, other educational establishments, faith groups or voluntary groups. While the academy system isn’t a ‘privatisation’ of education, it has made schooling more corporate in how it is structured.

This system is an attempt to make education run within the constraints of capitalist society. While Athena’s methods may have been extreme, they were a response to the difficulties of the circumstances the schools found themselves in. One consideration not explored by the documentary is the number of students in each class. Large class sizes are a result of schools not being able to afford the staff or the room to have more classes which have fewer people. Smaller class sizes would mean that more time could be spent with each student, personalising their learning and reducing the likelihood of distracting behaviour. But as resources are rationed by money, large classes are the norm and discipline becomes a more pragmatic option. This doesn’t excuse Athena for the harm its approach caused to some of its students, although in a way it teaches them what to expect once they leave school for wider society which also stifles learning with unaccountable rules and the threat of punishment.

Mike Foster

Crime marches on (1950)

From the August 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

To flog, or not to flog? That is the question which the daily press recently thrust upon its readers as the burning issue of the day, and which it discussed at great length with much emotion and, in some instances, precious little consideration for the facts; probably with no other result than to make the public—including the potential delinquent—cosh conscious. That violence is a serious problem for which a solution is long overdue, few would deny; but is flogging the answer? Let us quieten the hysteria for a moment and, like all good scientists, take a look at the facts.

The first and most obvious fact which should come to mind is that until September 1948 flogging was used to deal with various types of violence. This was provided for by a number of Acts such as the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 as amended by the Garroters Act of 1863, so it cannot be said that flogging has not been given a fair trial. In spite of this however, violence is not only still with us, but since 1938 has increased rapidly. The number of robberies with violence increasing from 287 in that year to 1,101 in 1948 (News Chronicle 24/3/50). After flogging was abolished however, the number of cases decreased from 711 during the first nine months of 1948 to 597 in the corresponding period of 1949 (Daily Mirror 17/3/50). Conversely, during the six years that followed the introduction of the Garroters Act, viz. 1863 to 1869 there was, to quote Lord Aberdare who was at the time Under Secretary at the Home Department, “ a slight increase in these crimes.” (See “The Lawbreaker” by E. R. and T. Calvert, Routledge, 1933, p. 241). Another interesting example was the introduction of whipping as a punishment for procuration by the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in 1912 which resulted in a tremendous increase in the offence in 1913. The actual figures are as follows: —

Persons for trial for procuration

1910 25

1911 18

1912 14—Whipping introduced during this year

1913 73 

1914 41 

(see, “Social Aspects of Crime in England Between the Wars ” by Dr. Hermann Mannheim, Al!en & Unwin, 1940, p. 51)

From these facts it is obvious that flogging is not only a failure as a solution to violent crime but its effect as a deterrent is. to say the least, extremely dubious. Neither, of course, will the abolition of flogging solve the problem. No problem can be solved by ignoring it. These methods must fail because they leave the cause of the trouble untouched.

The first task for anybody seeking a solution is to understand the problem. Many instances of violence such as assaults on policemen or nightwatchmen are the result of hindering the burglar in the practice of his profession. We cannot, in fact, separate violence from the crime problem as a whole. We shall not, therefore, make the attempt.

Before seeking a clear insight into the causes of crime it is necessary—as with so many things—to clear away a big cobweb of misconception which clouds so many people's vision. This is the attractively simple but quite erroneous idea that the whole trouble is caused by a “criminal type"; a sort of biological monstrosity, like Siamese twins or two-headed giraffes; a mental monster whose criminal activities are the result of some inborn crime instinct. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and amongst those who have made a study of criminals the idea is generally discredited. Listen, for example, to Dr. Goring who, after making a careful examination of no less than 3,000 convicts, makes the following observations: —

“This anthropological monster has no existence in fact. The physical and mental constitution of both criminal and law-abiding persons of the same age, class, stature, and intelligence, are identical. There is no such thing as an anthropological criminal type." (“The Lawbreaker,” p. 44)

In fact the evidence tends to show that they are ordinary people like ourselves, a large number of whom possess many excellent qualities. For instance on page 54 of the same book, Mr. Justice du Parq is quoted as reporting a type of prisoner who is “young, determined, and adventurous," and Leo Page, who has a wide first hand knowledge of criminals, tells us in his book “Crime and the Community” (Faber & Faber, 1937 p. 99) that:

“One finds with a shock of surprise that they (professional criminals) can be courteous and well mannered, grateful and appreciative of just treatment or of a little kindness, or passionately fond of music or of flowers; they are often brave—a good burglar, for example, must of necessity be a man of nerve, courage and resource; some are well read, with a real love of books; others can be wonderfully loyal, in the odd distorted way in which they understand the meaning of the word; very many retain amongst all their troubles a smiling acceptance of fate and a keen sense of humour.”

It seems that we must look elsewhere for the causes of crime.

The law is a social institution made by man, it is not a biological product; so also is crime—its opposite pole or complement—a social phenomenon, and it is in society and not the individual that we must look for an explanation. Government and the machinery of state, which make and enforce the law, exist to conserve those private property institutions which are so vital to the interests of the ruling class and the continued smooth running of their capitalist economy. This being the case, we should expect to find some connection between crime and social conditions generally and economic conditions in particular. Let us put the matter to the test.

Dr. Mannheim tells us (Social Aspects etc., p. 123) that “the significance of economic factors in the causation of crime is fairly generally accepted," and farther on (pages 127 to 130) he reproduces statistics which show the figures for crime rising and falling through the years almost in step with those for unemployment; the only exception being after the slump of the early thirties when, although crime figures dropped for the older age groups, those for the younger groups continued to rise right up until the outbreak of war. This may be explained by other social factors; possibly the waning influence of religion during the inter-war period and the growing tendency of the rising generation to criticize hitherto accepted moral standards.

Another excellent example of the influence of economics upon lawlessness, which can be gleaned from pages 105-7 of the same book, is that of Germany whose terrific crime wave in the early twenties can be accounted for by the economic distress following her military defeat in 1918. It is also significant that whilst the figures for simple larceny had rocketed from 202,885 in 1920 to 308,005 in 1923, which was the peak year of her inflation, those for coining actually "slumped" from 341 in 1921 to 156 in 1923, so reflecting the instability of the Mark. Immediately after stabilization, however, there was a “boom” in the offence which resulted in no less than 1,094 convictions. In England where the economy had not been so seriously disturbed, crime increased far more steadily.

Lack of space makes over-simplification unavoidable and we fully recognize that all crime cannot be traced to economic factors so directly as this. We fully appreciate the importance of war and insecurity, and the effects of gross inequalities and the degrading position of the wage slave; all of them factors which themselves spring more or less directly from the capitalist nature of society. It could be argued that even the majority of sex crimes spring from the unnatural sexual institutions thrown up by property society; but as Dr. Goring tells us that 95 per cent, of all prisoners are convicted for acquisitive offences, (“The Lawbreaker", p. 39) we will not labour the point.

We live in an acquisitive society where we get our living in permanent competition with our fellows, and often at their expense; where periodic orgies of blood and violence such as we have recently experienced tend to instil a bias? attitude towards human suffering. Many people not only grow up in such a world and have the outlook which it engenders but they see also a few people living in a surfeit of luxury and ease without the necessity of work, whilst they are doomed to a life of toil; living in some overcrowded hovel in a sordid and ugly slum environment, through no fault of their own—other than choosing the wrong parents. Is it, then, not cause for wonder that so few take matters into their own hands and ignore those laws which enable a privileged minority to keep them in poverty and subjection?

Let us face it; there is no easy solution, the roots of crime go deep into the very basis of society itself. A vicious and competitive economy gives rise to vicious and anti-social behaviour. An economy based on a community of interests will give rise to co-operative and social behaviour; its establishment is the most urgent task confronting society today; and society includes you.

Meanwhile; crime marches on!

J. Trotman

Tooth, Nail and Tiger-Skin (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Britain’s traditional cultural intercourse with Europe has in the past hundred years been supplemented—and possibly, to some extent, supplanted—by a transatlantic inter-traffic. Having no barrier of language to surmount, the exchange between Britain and America has included popular as well as academic culture; aided by radio, talking pictures and, most recently, the long residence of thousands of American servicemen in Britain, the features of everyday life in America have impinged more and more upon British custom.

National culture in America has no long history preceding the mechanization of work and leisure, and so the slick, trashy product is more easily accepted there, while its importation into Britain has frequently caused concern to those who stand as guardians of public taste and morality. The adjective “American,” is often one of disapproval; and never has the disapproval been stronger than for a contemporary art-form which, hard as the moralists try, keeps on growing in popularity—American comics.

American comics are not comic. Their subject- matter is cowboys, crime, horror, adventure, sex and space-travel. Something over fifty million copies are sold every month in the United States, and since the war there has been a growing readership in this country. They are marketed by syndicates which operate on both sides of the Atlantic, and are produced by artists working in assembly-line fashion—one drawing the figures, another doing the lettering, and so on. America calls them “squinkies,” and their stock-in-trade is beatings, bludgeonings and fee faw fums.

The beginnings of strip drawings are ancient Egyptian rock tombs have sets of pictures recording the phases of wrestling bouts and acrobatic feats. The modern comic strip began in the American popular press near the end of the nineteenth century and, until recent years, drew its material almost wholely from workaday and domestic life; the awful child, the henpecked husband and the pert stenographer were its dramatis personae. With humour as the chief intention, the technique and conventions of the strip were perfected.

It was during the great depression that humour gave way to adventure, suspense and muscle-parade; possibly everyday life was too grim to be funny any longer. Tarzan and Superman took over, and the comics turned to worlds where nobody asked: “Brother, can you spare a dime?” The squinkies were born. Their theme was action, and they were uninhibited in portraying it; the war stimulated them to greater extravagances.

The aim of the squinkie artist is to create arresting, vigorous movement and easily recognizable character-types; the limitation of the small squares—and part of them is taken up by the speech “balloons’’—prohibits fastidiousness or subtlety. Technical quality varies considerably, from slick, stylish work to that of talentless amateurs. All characters are clearly labelled. Villains have black hair and thin moustaches, scientists are lean and bespectacled, and heroes have a superabundance of muscle (Ka’anga, Lord of the Jungle, has calf muscles slightly larger than his head). Heroines are wasp-waisted, but otherwise pneumatic.

Musical comedy costume is everyday wear in the squinkie world. Janga, Flower of the Wilds, Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, and Tiger Girl all appear in chic animal-skin swimsuits, while Dara of the Vikings prefers a two-piece, with helmet. The jungle men keep to trunks, of course, and the skymen—Superman, Captain Marvel and the rest—go about in long red underwear. There are rigid conventions of speech, too. In the jungle and other far away places, including outer space, they use archaic English, while all spies talk with strong foreign accents. Girls in danger have to scream “Eeek!” and villains coming to their inevitable sticky ends are obliged to shout “Aarghhh!”

These are the superficial conventions of the American comics. They present, for the most part, fantasy worlds. Into these, however, they project beliefs and customs of the actual world; thus their real content is not in their local colour but in their themes, and carries a much more significant set of conventions.

The simplest, broadest and most obvious of these conventions is that good—which is equated with law and patriotism—must always triumph over its opposite. The squinkies are as determined about this as all other juvenile literature, but infinitely more ruthless; when Captain Thunder or Tiger Girl grapples with evil, the end justifies any means. In the crime strips, the violences of the gangsters and killers are exceeded by those of the police, while the various jungle lords and space conquerors manhandle wrongdoers in ways which make all-in wrestling look soft stuff.

The only circumstances in which good does not always win by a knock-out are those in which unearthly powers are involved. The squinkies have great respect for the supernatural, and make it score freely off the lay population. “The Monster from the Pit," for example, a shaggy, shark-toothed immortal from Transylvania who changes into a New York policeman by day and goes out for blood at night, is last seen taking a large bite at his would-be slayer’s throat after a graveyard fracas. The postscript asks: “How many more lives will be snuffed out by the evil Grakhu . . . before he is once more sent to the pit of evil which spawned him? None can tell.” The moral clearly is that witches, warlocks, boggarts and long-leggity beasties are a different thing altogether.

If supernatural beings are the highest class of villains, foreigners are the lowest. To be foreign in the squinkies is to be a suspicious character. Spies and saboteurs are easy game, while the perversity of murderers, mad doctors and jungle marauders is explained from their lack of fluent English. Easterners are horrific unless they are the faithful servants of jungle princesses, in which case they are simpletons, or unless they are young women, in which case they are exotic but sinister. The credulous reader can hardly avoid being persuaded that the English-speaking nations breed the best types.

Love is virtually taboo in the squinkies, but they have a high sex content The exploits of the heroines lead them into comprehensive displays of their startling universal physique. Senorita Rio, a Government counter-spy, spends much of her working time being up-ended. Most of the jungle nobility have mates, whom they continually rescue and occasionally call "my love.” Much of the paraphernalia of perversion—inter-woman fights, whips and so on—finds places in the comics, and brings to mind that their era of popularity has also been that of the Hadley Chase school of novelists.

Since their introduction to this country, squinkies have been continually under fire. Educationalists, clergy and the press have united to denounce them as a danger to morals, an incentive to mental laziness, and a cause of delinquency. As has been remarked, that has not reduced their circulation and may even have increased it. Obviously, there is something about American comics. What cultural and social significance have they? And are the charges against them true?

In the hands of accomplished or thoughtful writers and artists, the least agreeable subject-matter can be presented to some value. That cannot be said for the comics. Their situations, dialogue and characterization are crude; their drawing is never better, and usually worse, than competent; they are badly printed in gaudy colours on the cheapest paper. On their intrinsic merits, they could be written off as contemptible or laughable, or—more correctly—classified with lavatory-wall graffiti. Their paramount element, however, is one to which the lavatory wall never pretends: they present ideals and patterns of behaviour.

The principal ideals promoted by the comics have already been noted. Summarized, they are that good always wins in the end, the end justifies any means, being good means being strong, foreigners are nearly always bad. the supernatural is to be respected, and women are to be judged in terms of physical desirability. None of these is a new or unconventional proposition, though the loudest cry against the comics is that they are subversive to morality. These are, in fact, the commonly accepted standards of our society at the present time; it is significant that the last war, which established in public consciousness that ends justify' means, also brought forth the squinkies. The ethics of the strip are the ethics of dropping atom-bombs on Japanese cities. It is not a case of saying that the brutalities of the comics are insignificant compared with the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though that is true; the important point is that the morality which accepted the atom-bombs as regrettable but necessary means for a “good” cause to subdue an “evil” one is precisely the same as that of the comic, down to the inclusion of such details as the anthropologists’ explanation that the Japanese are not quite the same as other people—scarcely human, in fact.

The behaviour-pattern of the comics, therefore, is an effect primarily and not a cause of modifications in morality, and—more important still—the modifications themselves are produced by the ever-changing stream of social necessity. Morality is the scheme of behaviour needed to safeguard the institutions of a social group; our society, in which the nation-state is constantly preoccupied with war and its preoccupations, has had to modify its scheme to meet the needs of increased belligerency.

The question of sexual morality is not distinct from that of morality generally. The family, the institution which it protects in our society, has in recent years weakened as a coherent and durable group; the result has been a sharp slackening in the formerly rigid code of sexual morals. The carnality of the comics mirrors rather than promotes this trend; in fact, there are few popular papers and magazines which do not deem it necessary for their circulations' sake to titillate their readers' sexual imaginations. The juxtaposition of venery and violence in the comics has additional significance. Popular fiction and the films show an increasing addiction to this sort of subject-matter; its emergence as a dominant theme in the past has preceded the ends of social epochs—the decline of Rome, the seventeenth century in England, and the years before the revolution in Russia.

The anger against American comics, then, is anger against the changing conventions of our time—in some cases, perhaps, the rage of Caliban at seeing his face in the glass. It remains to consider the other charge against them, that they are encouragements to mental laziness. If this were true, it would apply also to the popular press and most of the agencies for supplying information and entertainment. The publishers of comics, like the press and the entertainment industries, give the public what the public can cope with. The truth is that the education given to a great number of working people provides them with neither the verbal skill nor the critical outlook necessary to serious reading. They are equipped to read comics, tabloid newspapers, simple-phrased stories, and very little else. A great deal is heard about the near-illiteracy of Army recruits (one hears nothing, however, of illiteracy among young women—presumably because they are not conscripted for anything); their lack of simple verbal mechanics being known, it seems hardly consistent to accuse them of mental laziness because they like comics.

The squinkies, then, are part of the cultural pattern of our time, and reflect its consciousness just as the popular domestic novel reflected that of Victorian England. Their simple function is to provide escape, but their illusory or distant worlds form backgrounds against which the modern morality play is acted; that the morality is brutal and prurient is a comment upon our society, not upon the passing phenomena which mirror it. The exclusion of American comics from this country would mean no loss. Neither, however, would it contribute to the re-establishment of moral standards which are no longer compatible with the driving forces of society, or to an improvement in the literacy of Army recruits. The sincere, worried people who want the comics banned have failed to understand the relationship between a popular art-form and its irreversible social environment; if they could do so, there would be less concern with the rash on the face and more with the organic causes of the malaise of our society.

Robert Barltrop

Drink and the child. (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Board of Education have now made the teaching of teetotalism a normal part of the elementary school curriculum by the issuing of a comprehensive syllabus of lessons on the subject. Now if this were a disinterested endeavour to promote the well-being of the child it would be welcome, but, as in all capitalist “education,” the cloven hoof is visible. The chief object of this latest move is, as will be seen, not humanity, but more profit. Of course, from the professions of bourgeois spokesmen this fact could not be gathered. According to them the capitalist is in business solely for the benefit of the working class. He makes a profit only in order that the workers may get wages. He lives in debauchery and spends huge sums in luxury only to provide work for the lower orders. Indeed, his attitude is summed up in Marx’s ironical phrase, “the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working class.”

So, in the matter of education this humbug is perpetuated; and the insincerity of the master class is as plain in its temperance proposals as elsewhere. Drink is only a curse to-day because of the capitalist conditions which make for its excessive use and poisonous adulteration. But to remove the economic conditions which engender alcoholic abuse would be to strike a blow at capitalist interests. Instead, therefore, of abolishing the wretched conditions of proletarian life that lay at the root of much of the craving for drink, the capitalists hypocritically try to minimise effects by puritanical legislation, or they try to train the tender sapling during the brief school hours in the fond hope that industrial conditions in later life will not bend it in an opposite direction.

Many eminent men have placed on record the fact that bad air, bad food, monotony and overwork, are prominent among the influences that lead to excessive drinking. Prof. Konig expresses a common view of German physiologists when he says that:

“Taken in moderate quantities in such forms as cognac, brandy, beer, and other beverages, alcohol is likewise an important stimulant to digestion. Brandy, whiskey, sherry, and the like, are therefore favourite remedies in disturbances of the bowels and stomach, and this helps to explain why the poorer classes, who often live upon a wretched diet of the less digestible foods, such as coarse bread and potatoes, have a craving for strong and stimulating alcoholic drinks.”

In few questions, moreover, has the perversion of truth been more effectively organised than in that of the use of alcohol. The noisy and well organised teetotalers have for long, with damnable iteration, dinned exaggerated or lying statements into the public ear on this, matter, particularly in discussing its economic aspects. And now the education authority itself enters more thoroughly into its work of hypnotising the masses by means of early and persistent suggestion of the employer’s side of the case. From the standpoint of economics the teetotal twaddle admits of easy refutation; but even, from the physiological point of view, though, opinions differ among Socialists as to the benefits or otherwise to be derived from a moderate use of stimulants, it is well to remember that the evidence is by no means solely on the side of abstinence.

The Lancet manifesto in favour of the moderate use of alcoholic liquors, which was extensively signed by eminent medical men, will still be fresh in the mind of the reader. At the meeting. of the International Physiological Congress, held at Cambridge in September 1898, an attempt was made to obtain the opinion of leading physiologists regarding this particular subject, and the following statement drawn up by Sir Michael Foster, the president of the Congress, was presented for signature:

“The physiological effects of alcohol, taken in a diluted form, in small doses, as indicated by the popular phrase “moderate use of alcohol,” in spite of the continued study of past years, have not as yet been clearly and completely made out. Very much remains to be done, but, thus far, the results of careful experiments show that alcohol, so taken, is oxidised within the body, and so supplies energy like common articles of food, and that it is physiologically incorrect to designate it as a poison—that is, a substance which can only do harm and never good to the body. Briefly, none of the exact results hitherto gained can be appealed to as contradicting, from a purely physiological point of view, the conclusions which some persons have drawn from their daily common experience, that alcohol so used may be beneficial to their health.”

The occasion was particularly favourable, for some of the most celebrated physiologists of the world and many well-known investigators were present. A very few objected to the phraseology, and one, although believing it to be correct, refused to sign because he feared it might be misused by “the trade.” A large proportion of those to whom it was submitted expressed their approval by their signatures. And, says Mr. W. O. Atwater (Harper's, No. DCVI.) the number and character of the signers are such as warrant the acceptance of the statement as the opinion of the leading physiologists of the day.

But even if the excessive use of alcohol were to cease, and it were clearly proved that the sum of human happiness was increased by its moderate use, the capitalists’ objection would not cease. The real basis of their objection is that it is not a necessary but a luxury, and that if the worker could be got to do without it he could live more cheaply and work for less wages. Macaulay once said that the Puritans “hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.” And the modern Puritan looks upon working-class pleasures in exactly the same spirit, particularly when they appear to stand in the way of bigger profits. This, indeed, underlies the whole of the Education syllabus as explained by the Daily News. Pleasure is a thing to which the workers have apparently no right. In choosing their food and drink they must allow no considerations of enjoyment to influence them. Thus the syllabus and notes are quoted by Cadbury’s organ as follow.

“Neither tea nor coffee is good for children ; they should have milk or cocoa instead. Cocoa is better for children than tea or coffee because it is less stimulating and contains a little more real food substance.

“It is true that there is a certain amount of nourishment in beer. There is, for example, a little sugar, and there is a small quantity of the food substance found in meat. To obtain enough food from beer really to benefit the body, however, it would be necessary to take an extremely large quantity. For this reason the good that might be done by the nourishing part of the beer would be more than counterbalanced by the harm done by the alcohol contained in so large a quantity.”

It will be seen that no weight is given to psychological considerations: the amount of nourishment is treated as the only factor, while beer is condemned, apparently, because it would be injurious to subsist solely upon it ! But it is also true that man cannot live by bread alone ; and when the percentages of protein and carbohydrates in an aliment have been found by analysis, the last word has by no means been said on its value. On some people, particularly those in depressing health or circumstances, the pleasure afforded by a small amount of alcoholic stimulant may have a beneficial effect—even from the dietetic point of view—far more important than the amount of actual nourishment imparted. No food-value has yet been ascribed to a hearty laugh, but there is much truth in the popular saying, “Laugh and grow fat.” Indeed, no discussion of the value of alcohol as an aliment can be adequate that does not take the psychological factor into account; and it is, moreover, doubtful, to say the least, if a merely attenuated existence is the life most worth living in any case.

Now, however, we come to what is after all the gist of the whole matter. It is that the capitalist has, rightly or wrongly, become convinced that the abstainer does more work, and the following striking statements are made by the Board of Education.

“Experiments were made by Dr. Parkes with two gangs of soldiers doing equally hard muscular work (mowing), one gang alternately taking beer during the work and the other not. In every case it was shown that although men taking beer might for a short time might gain on the others, yet they soon dropped behind, and at the end of the day the total work they had accomplished was less than that done by those who had no alcohol.

“Mr. Brassey (“Work and Wages”) says: ‘Some of the most powerful of the navvies have been teetotalers. On the Great Northern Railway there was a celebrated gang of navvies who did more work in a day than any other gang on the line, and always left off work an hour or an hour and a half earlier than any other men. Every navvy in this powerful gang was a teetotaler.'”

That is the point. The capitalist believes that the teetotaler can do more work for the same wages. He can live more cheaply, and so soon as abstinence is general, competition on the labour market will make him do more work for a lower wage, thus fitting, according to economic law, the price of his labour-power to his reduced average cost of subsistence. As though to emphasise the fact that it is the profitableness of the wage worker that is the chief care of the education authority, there follows the usual teetotal panegyric on thrift. It is worth quoting.

“The expenditure of £160,000,000, or more, on intoxicating liquors every year is a drain on the resources of the nation and the direct cause of not a little national poverty. It must be remembered how vastly large is this sum, which, it is estimated, is equal to all the rents of all the houses, farms, shops, hotels, etc., in the United Kingdom, so that the amount spent on drink alone would be enough to enable everybody to live rent free.”

The quotation has its amusing side, but how sad are the full facts from the workers’ point of view ? And what a condemnation of the present system it is that the thrift, sobriety and higher efficiency of the workers, while they swell the profits of the masters, simply intensify competition on the labour market, increase the toil of those in work, and augment the number of unemployed ! The net result of the labourer’s “virtue” while the labourer is a hireling under capitalism is a worsening of his economic condition. This side of the medal is not shown to the children. On the contrary, the impression is given to the worker’s child that he and not the employer will receive all the benefit of general thrift and abstemiousness, and that hunger will cease from troubling and the landlord lie at rest. Yet the facts, which the syllabus does not give, are that thrift, if general, means a reduction of the demand for goods, and is consequently a restriction of the market and of the employment for labour ; that increased efficiency on the part of the workers does not increase the demand for products but decreases the number of men the masters need employ to supply the market; and finally, that the less it costs the average worker to live, the lower will competition force down wages. But all this does not matter, for though the worker gets less wages and less employment, the capitalist will get more profit—and that is the real aim of State education to-day. Truly we have much to thank the ruling class for in these matters. The workers schooling is a training for wage-slavery ; no more, no less. The propertyless are taught to revere and defend the interests, the flag, and the Empire of their masters. The supreme aim of it all is the making of docile instruments of profit; and the temperance lessons, stripped of their humbug, are of a piece with the rest. For after all it is capitalism that creates the drink problem, and, in spite of their hypocritical preaching, the masters decline to attack it at its source. They are ever deaf to the appeal of humanity when profit beckons them on. But all their wiles cannot for ever obscure the fact that it is not drink but capitalism that causes the poverty of the workers, and that class rule makes thrift, temperance, and efficiency so many weapons against the latter in the hands of their exploiters. Indeed, no greater condemnation of a system is than that it makes right living a means of increasing the hardships of those who produce. It is the very kernel of the capitalist system that is at fault, and no mere reform can alter it. By Socialism only can these things be changed, for the conquest of capitalist society by the toilers must take place before they can secure the fruits of their industry and the elements of a full and healthy life. Then it will be discovered that intemperance has ceased to be a problem, while the object of public education will at last be the making, not of cheap wage-slaves but, of better men and women.

F. C. Watts

The Passing Show: Holiday Reckoning (1964)

The Passing Show Column from the July 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Holiday Reckoning 1.

The residents of Clacton had hardly gathered their wits after the Easter punch-ups, when Whitsun brought fresh outbreaks of teenage violence, but this time at Margate, Brighton and that paradise of retired army officers—Bournemouth. Margate was the worst afflicted, as hoards of “Mods” and “Rockers” descended on Dreamland and other parts and laid into each other without pity, egged on by their girl friends.

One aspect of these outbreaks which has alarmed the authorities is the contempt in which the warring youngsters held the police. “Here come the coppers; let's do ’em! ” was heard at one point and seems to sum up the prevailing attitude. It’s little wonder, then, that the coppers got just as tough and waded in with truncheons swinging. Neither is it surprising that heavy penalties were imposed by the courts on practically all those who were caught.

Just about as sickening was the spate of comments, excuses, call them what you will, in the press and elsewhere. Some people had blamed the poor weather and the lack of teenage amusement facilities at Clacton for the trouble there, but the same excuse could not be used for those which occurred at Whitsun. Nobody seemed to have any real grasp of why the violence had broken out and everybody was shocked and angered by it, forgetting that this was not the first trouble of its kind—neither is it likely to be the last.

When it came to suggesting ways of preventing it, we were treated to a rich variety of uselessness. The Evening Standard featured brief impromptu interviews with people in the street One young woman thought that confiscating their scooters and motorbikes would “immobilise the little horrors and soon put a stop to them,” as if there were no such things as buses and trains. (Anyway, what is to stop them from fighting at home if they want to?) Stiffer penalties, prison, birch and the inevitable “put ’em in the army for a spell’’—all were trotted out, and all equally futile. The army, after all, exists to do just this sort of thing, only on a bigger and more highly organised scale. There is another difference, of course. The army has the sanction of the government in particular, and society in general. When it knocks other people about, it is done in “the interests of peace” or “to establish the rule of law” or “to protect the territorial integrity ” of some puppet state or other. Yobbos do not enjoy such privilege.

We hold no brief for the Whitsun wild ones, but at the risk of being told to turn the record over and play the other side, we say again that they are the ugly product of an equally ugly society. In the main, they are members of the working class—that much is obvious, despite some of the inane suggestions about their supposed riches. Their homes are usually in the drabber and meaner parts of the big towns, and their everyday lives are generally in character with their surroundings. Like most of us, they have to face a monotonous, unfulfilling and insecure existence of going to work for a wage packet.

This faces them with all the associate problems, boredom not least of all. Not just the boredom of “nowhere to go in the evening” but the greater boredom which is part and parcel of the uninspiring life of a wage slave and which does, in fact, colour his every waking minute. If we are honest with ourselves, we will all admit this.

The remarks of some of the “ Mods’ birds” to Daily Mirror reporter Paula James the day after the fights, are illuminating.

Listen—it gives you a kick, a thrill. It makes you feel all funny inside. You get butterflies in your stomach and you want the boys to go on and on . . . You’ve got to get your kicks somehow. You’ve got to make up for all that boring time you're going to spend at work next week.

This, then, sums up their attitude. This, they think, will solve their problems— and the “kicks” have got to be extra hard to give them any pleasure at all. No use telling them that their problems will still be with them long after they are too old for kicks any more. Reefers, Purple Hearts, violence and noise are the empty pleasures they seek. No use telling them either of the broken health which lies only a short way ahead for many of them. The Mods’ birds have a reply to that, too:

We like life the way it is now. We want it to go on and on like this. . . . We want to live today. For here, for now, not next week.

They have yet to realise that they are really at the receiving end of the biggest kick of all, one that lands fairly and squarely on them, so long as they are members of the working class. All the bust-ups in the world won’t alter that. That is the real lesson they have to learn and until then Capitalism has the laugh which really matters.

Holiday Reckoning 2.

Whitsun was warm and sunny, the roads hot and smelly—and dangerous. It was estimated that about six million cars were on the move over the four days, mostly rushing to and from the holiday spots. A record number of cars and road deaths. At least eighty-four people lost their lives. In France the number was one less. Sweden, with seventeen, had its highest total for years.

There were the usual warnings and appeals from motoring organisations and Ministry of Transport Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chesham. Strange though it may sound, these might have had some effect. Apparently overall driving was better, but the relentlessly increasing volume of traffic has a counteracting effect. As The Guardian pointed out: “ The ultimate effect is that we are marching slowly backwards.”

This trite little statement seemed to illustrate neatly the mockery behind the whole problem of road traffic. In this and other countries, a great deal of motorway building has been going on, but the fastest road building does not seem to keep pace with the mounting number of vehicles. It is typical that only capitalism could produce such machines as the motor car, inefficient and unwieldy when viewed from the viewpoint of human interests and then plonk it onto a road system completely unable to cope with it. In addition, only Capitalism would have us all on a ball and chain, and then release us all at once for “a much needed break,” half of which is spent rushing “to get away from it all ” only to find that we have not really escaped, because everyone else has had the same idea.

Majorcan Holiday

Situated in the Mediterranean about five miles off the Spanish mainland, Majorca has become tremendously popular in recent years as a holiday centre. With its warm climate and beautiful rugged mountain scenery, it attracts tourists from many parts of the world. It is noted, amongst other things, for its cultivated pearls, its cathedral at Palma, and the Valldemosa monastery where Chopin stayed for just a few unhappy months.

Many workers manage a fortnight there by travelling tourist class on a “package holiday,” some spending most of the daylight hours lying on the beach frying themselves in the sizzling sunshine, concerned less with the benefits of sunlight than with getting a tan to take back home and show their friends. They may get heatstroke for their trouble, but the prestige of a golden brown skin is obviously considered worthy of the risk.

Despite the warmth and the comparatively relaxing atmosphere, it is interesting to note the number of people who, even there, never let down their guard for a moment. Here is the woman with pointed sunglasses and a loud affected voice, trailing an enormous dog behind her. Over there is the man who boasts constantly about his “good job” and high income and, most laughable of all, some of them even get patriotic about the English weather.

Their hotel is quite well appointed and perhaps this is what has gone to their heads a little. They seem to miss the point that it is by no means as exclusive as they like to think. For exclusiveness you go to another part of the island, such as Formentor, where the cheapest hotel room will cost you about six guineas a day, where the beaches are superb and serene in their peacefulness. It is the playground of royal families and other rich types.

Some of the better-off have settled in Majorca and live the usual life of ease associated with their wealth. But for most Majorcans it is the usual story of working for a wage packet as a means of living. This is the lesson which stands out just as much among the beauty of the Balearics as it does amongst the dirt and bustle of London.

Eddie Critchfield

Blogger's Note:

A short Panorama video about Mods and Rockers from 1964 gives you a flavour of the period. Failing that, you can always check out Sting as a Bell Boy.

Proper Gander: Lessons from Adolescence (2025)

The Proper Gander column from the May 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

A little over a year since Mr Bates vs The Post Office reminded us that TV drama can still have an impact, Netflix’s Adolescence has also shaped debate in Parliament, online, in the media and round the proverbial water cooler at work. Adolescence has been particularly resonant because the issue of violence from young males which it raises feels both more emotive and widespread. The story centres on a 13-year-old boy who is accused of stabbing a girl from his school. Each episode covers an hour at intervals after the murder, with the first showing Jamie’s arrest at his home. Episode two follows the police’s initial visit to the children’s school, the third is a conversation between Jamie and a psychologist some months afterwards and the last episode looks at how the rest of his family are managing over a year later. The performances from Owen Cooper as Jamie and Stephen Graham as his father Eddie are particularly gripping, with Graham also co-creating and co-writing the series. Impressively, each episode was filmed in one continuous take, which must have involved intricately structuring and choreographing the scenes to get the camera and the actors in the right places at the right times.

The drama gives less emphasis to the details of the murder than to the circumstances around it, gradually bringing out the combination of reasons behind Jamie’s actions. His family isn’t portrayed as dysfunctional apart from his father’s anger, described as a generational trauma passed on to Jamie. His own anger is shown sparingly and as being fuelled by online culture. The ‘manosphere’ to which Jamie is drawn, of emojis, incels, influencers and abusive messages has led him to a view of women which leads to his crime. The script tends to understate the causes: Jamie is outwardly ‘normal’ rather than obviously aggressive. Online discourse isn’t explored in detail, other than several brief scenes where aspects of the ‘manosphere’ are mentioned, hinting at its links with far-right ideology. The meanings behind kidney bean emojis and ‘taking the red pill’ explained by the teenage characters would have been new to many viewers. An effect of this is to tell parents that they may not have understood the nature of online cultures their children are being tempted into, and how this can almost casually slide them into violence. In some ways, this is a modern version of past moral panics about the influence of horror comics, video nasties and computer games on young people, although this feels more serious, given today’s climate with the rise in knife crime and misogyny.

Much of the discussion sparked by Adolescence has concentrated on ‘toxic masculinity’, rather than another factor in what influenced Jamie. His school is depicted as a grim and tense place for children to learn in, taking into account that the scenes there are set only a few days after the murder. The teachers are depicted as policing behaviour more than teaching, while the regimented routines and drab walls aren’t much different from those of the police station or detention centre seen in other episodes. Our society’s institutions and environments encourage and reinforce alienation, with Jamie representing its extremes.

Adolescence isn’t a case study, although because it’s fiction perhaps it can be spoken about more openly than real cases. Its release was certainly timed well to contribute to a broader debate. In the same month, former England football manager Sir Gareth Southgate, giving the BBC’s annual Richard Dimbleby Lecture, said that today’s young men need more wholesome role models rather than ‘callous, manipulative and toxic influencers’ online. Also in March, the Centre of Social Justice published its Lost Boys report which describes an increasing divergence between the future prospects of boys and girls, with girls now more likely to later have higher qualifications and higher-paid employment.

Various right-wing vloggers (and Elon Musk) opined that Adolescence is liberal-lefty propaganda which demonises white males and distracts from the proportion of stabbings committed by black youths. Their dislike of the drama is presumably due in part to its criticisms of the ‘manosphere’ they represent. Right-wing commentators were also more likely than those on the left to say that it is being used by the government to justify legislation about regulating online activity. The Online Safety Act 2023 passed into law under the previous Conservative government, and its implementation is still in progress under Labour’s regime. The Prime Minister met with the series’ creators and backed MP Anneliese Midgley’s call for it to be screened in schools with the aim of helping to deter teenage boys from misogyny and aggression. Secondary schools are already obliged to include ‘Relationships and Sex Education’ on their curriculum and updated guidance to cover sexual violence is being planned. Even if the state’s approach of embracing the programme and saying they are taking action over the issues it raises is sincere rather than cynical, it’s still a better PR move than ignoring or disputing the drama.

Adolescence has, at least for a few weeks, connected together various attempts to address concerns about some young males. But to what extent can tightening up legislation about online activity or showing the series in schools or promoting different role models counter misogynistic violence? The context of the problem remains. Titling the drama ‘Adolescence’ points towards the root of the issue being with younger people, especially boys. However, the real cause is found with the social conditions which shape adolescence. Therefore deeper social change is needed, although this risks being ignored among the piecemeal reforms and proposals.

Mike Foster

Blogger's Note:

Mr Bates vs The Post Office was reviewed in the February 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard.