New pamphlet on Racism (1966)

Party News from the May 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new Socialist Party pamphlet, entitled The Problem of Racism, is published this month. The previous pamphlet on this subject, The Racial Problem, published in 1947 has been out of print for some time. The Problem of Racism is not just a revision; it is a completely new pamphlet. In 1947 it was the Jewish Question that was prominent. Today it is the Colour Question. This change is taken into account in the new pamphlet which examines the colour question in Britain, America, South Africa and Rhodesia. There are chapters too on the scientific theory of race, the historical origins of racist theories and on African nationalism.

There is one unfortunate error. The reference on page 41 to Guyana should, of course, be to Guinea.

Pamphlet obtainable from Socialist Party, (Dept. SR), 52 Clapham High St, London. SW4. Price 1/6.

Obituary: Robert MacNamara (1966)

Obituary from the May 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

We greatly regret to announce the death of Robert MacNamara of the Glasgow Branch. He died at home in Glasgow on Saturday 2nd April 1966. Our comrade MacNamara was a member of the Branch for about forty years. Throughout his membership he was always a very active person and seldom, if ever, was absent from the Branch or propaganda meetings, etc. Over the past three years his illness confined him at home and therefore, ended his active participation in Party affairs. But despite his illness he never lost his enthusiasm or his keen interest. He was always delighted to have visits from members and hear any news and discuss activities.

He joined Glasgow Branch shortly after its formation and was, therefore, almost a foundation member. From this point onward he got down to intensive and systematic study of the Socialist case. He acquired an extensive knowledge of Marxism, economically, historically and philosophically. In the early days political conflict was widespread, keen and all too frequently, very hostile. We often had the united opposition of Labourites, I.LP.’ers and CP.’ers. Jail Square, West Regent Street were, in these days, the local political “duelling” grounds. He was a constant attender and could be found there almost any evening, winter or summer. In such discussion he would be either putting over the Socialist case or exposing the fallacies and absurdities of the opposition. Having an excellent understanding of the Socialist case and also, of the opposition’s cases, he was a highly competent propagandist. But in all cases he exercised tact and consideration and was never provocative or abusive.

The Party could do with many more MacNamaras. We have too few and his loss is therefore, much greater. We extend our deepest sympathy to his wife and family, their kind and careful attention during his illness was comforting.

John Higgins

The Law and Homosexuality (1966)

From the May 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the election out of the way, Wolfenden ― or rather his famous report ― may get back into the news again. This document, presented to Parliament in September 1957 after more than three years of painstaking work, called forth at that time a mixed public response of support and violent opposition. The government of the time fairly quickly implemented the committee’s main recommendations on prostitution (incidentally with a resultant increase in call-girls and a more highly organised poncing system), but did not make any move concerning the law on male homosexuality.

Public opinion was against any change, said Home Secretary R. A. Butler in the Commons debate of November 26th, 1958, as if capitalist politicians are not capable of trying to ignore public opinion when they think it will serve their purposes to do so. It is just conceivable that homosexuality could have become an election issue in 1959 but the greater likelihood is that for one reason or another the majority of the government did not favour change, and so the matter was dropped. However, one effect of Wolfenden since then has been to bring this controversial question more into the forum of public discussion ― press, radio and TV ― which has continued on and off ever since.

In May last year, Lord Arran managed to get a second reading in the Lords for his Bill to make private homosexual acts between consenting male adults no longer a criminal offence. But a similar measure introduced into the Commons a fortnight later by Labour MP Leo Abse was defeated, the opposition to it having been led by that self styled guardian of our moral welfare and champion of intolerance Sir Cyril Osborne, Tory MP for Louth. However, not long before the election, a Bill on the same lines was sponsored by the Tory Humphrey Berkeley and managed to survive a second reading.

It seems in fact that parliamentary opinion is turning in favour of changing a law which has not had the intended effect and has, by the very nature of its provisions, proved just about unworkable. And after all, there is nothing which brings capitalist legality into contempt more than an unworkable law. As the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, said on the matter:

“As a lawyer, I am prejudiced because I do not like law which cannot be enforced and we cannot ever enforce laws about what people do by consent in private. Those who are caught are the unlucky few.” (Guardian 13.5.65.)

The present set up had its origins in 1885, when during the committee stage of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, The Liberal MP Labouchère moved his notorious clause creating the new offence between males, whether or not adult, consenting or in private, and by a stroke of the Parliamentary pen, made the lot of the male homosexual less tolerable than it had been for many years. Labouchère’s clause was passed without debate, and became section 11 of the new Act, providing punishments which were savage even by Capitalism’s standards. The maximum penalties still range from a £5 fine for “Bye Law indecencies” to life imprisonment for buggery.

No wonder that furtiveness and secrecy entered the homosexuals life in greater measure ― and there was a still uglier aspect rearing its head. In the storm of controversy that followed the publication of the new regulations, one judge called them “the blackmailer’s charter”, a name which has stuck and which seems to have been justified by subsequent events. Moreover, the dubious conduct of the police in securing some of their convictions has been a source of fierce contention among lawyers ever since. Only in May last year, Montgomery Hyde was citing recent examples of this in a series of articles in The People.

Not always the same attitude towards homosexuality has prevailed. Aymer Roberts says: “As we turn the pages of history we discern alternately the acceptance and admiration of homosexuality and then later its attempted suppression” (Forbidden Freedom). In feudal Britain, there were times when, along with fornication and adultery, sexual inversion was punishable by the most painful death. Indeed, as late as the seventeenth century, Lord Castlehaven was beheaded for it on Tower Hill. Such was the fear expressed through Christian dogma and supported by the church, of any practice which was thought to be a threat to the marriage institution.

The number of male homosexuals in Britain is not precisely known; estimates have varied between 500,000 and one million. But whatever the number, there is no doubt that for many the strain of trying to live within a set of general social rules ― not just the law ― which aim at their rejection, is very great. As Dr. Eustace Chesser has pointed out:

“The sense of guilt and nervous strain felt by many homosexuals today is due largely to social disapproval . . . Public opinion can be as punitive as the law.” (Live and Let Live.)

So the homosexual, it seems, has a difference which rapidly becomes a social handicap, but he is forced to wage a long and not altogether successful battle for society’s acceptance. Hence the mental conflicts, the nervous breakdowns, and sometimes the suicides.

Probably that is why the condition has been thought of as an illness ― two separate states have been confused and placed under one heading, but Wolfenden has rejected such a view, as have many leading medicos. According to Dr. Neustattor for instance, “It is not an illness or a disease . . . but simply a variation.” (Albany Trust Winter Talks, 1962-63). So if it can’t be called an illness, it is hardly a question of “curing” it neither has punishment stamped it out. Hence the proposal once more to bring English law into line with that of other countries, and as far as adults are concerned anyway, leave them well alone.

Nor should we forget that times have changed considerably since Labouchère’s days. It is not without significance that the reformers are anxious to convince people of the usefulness ― potential or otherwise ― of the homosexual to capitalist industry.

“It should not be beyond our capabilities to devise some method of control which will enable each homosexual to lead … a more useful life, and this in the final analysis must be a benefit to the whole community. (Albany Trust Winter Talks. 1962-63.)”

“A substantial minority of men in every class of society, being made free from fear of the criminal law, would be better able to play a constructive part in the life of the community. (Pamphlet by The Homosexual Law Reform Society.)

And of course, this is one of the salient propaganda features of the movement for reform of the law. The reformers want to fit the homosexual into existing society without additional stigma; they do not aim at a basic change in society itself.

The same criticism can be made of all such movements, wherever they are. In his book ‘The Homosexual Revolution’, R. E. L. Masters says that the homosexuals in U.S.A. have managed to start official organisations to voice their grievances and demands for law reform, the main associations being Daughters of Bilitas for women, and The Mattachine Society for men. He alleges that the problems of blackmail, police persecution and harassment, etc., are much greater there than in Britain, which may be the reason for the rise of these more vociferous protective clubs. He gives a list of “the movement’s” demands, which apart from the fact that some people might think them too sweeping, are all aimed at making the homosexual acceptable as a citizen of capitalist society. The very first of these is a plea that “the homosexual, male or female, should be permitted like any other citizen, to serve his or her country as a member of any branch of its armed forces.” (The present U.S. law forbids this.) A doubtful privilege indeed ― losing your life on a battlefield as a result of the very struggles you have waged to make it worth ― living.

When the law is eventually changed, then, a minority will be released from the shadow of vindictive penalties (although only in one provision of Wolfenden is this so; his proposal for the under twenty-ones is that the penalties be retained and in some cases even increased), but this will not be the end of the homosexual’s problems. Apart from the backlog of fear, ignorance and prejudice which will impinge on his life still, the legal change will at most be an offer to absorb him, so to speak, more easily into the present set up. Which will mean, if he is a worker (and most homosexuals certainly are), that the grey day-to-day existence and struggles to make a living will still be there.

Eddie Critchfield

The Gnomes of London (1966)

From the May 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the end of March discussions, began between the British and Rumanian governments over various debts owed to British capitalists by Rumania. These discussions, of course, didn't involve the interests of workers either in Britain or in Rumania but they are interesting in so far as they show how capitalism works as an international system.

In the past the City was more the centre of international finance than it is today. Foreign governments and companies used the capital market of London to raise funds. The Rumanian government was no exception. The capitalists expected a price for the use of their capital and got it in the form of interest on the bonds. Up to the Second World War the Rumanian government “met its obligations”, i.e., the capitalists got their share of the exploitation of workers in Rumania, as contracted. In the war, however, Rumania was an ally of the Axis Powers and this source of interest dried up in 1941. Ever since, the owners of Rumanian bonds have been clamouring for compensation. Although Rumania was on the losing side in the war most of these debts have yet to be paid. After the war Rumania fell into the hands of Russian State capitalism and was along with the other States of Eastern Europe, ruthlessly plundered to build up Russian industry and military might. In addition, many foreign-owned industries were nationalised without compensation.

After the death of Stalin the native Rumanian exploiting class began to complain about having to send so large a share of the loot they got from exploiting workers in Rumania to their masters in Russia. They sought to sell their products for as high a price as possible on the world market. The capitalists who had loaned money to previous Rumanian governments saw their chance. Ably aided by the Council of Foreign Bond Holders, they exerted pressure to see that before being allowed favourable trading terms Rumania paid up. In 1960 an Anglo-Rumanian Financial Agreement was signed, under which Rumania agreed to pay £l¼m. to settle certain debts. A further clause said that the settlement of the remaining debts should be discussed in 1966. Hence the recent talks.

Rumanian bonds are still traded on the London Stock Exchange and quoted in the Stock Exchange Daily Official List. For instance, 4 per cent Consols exchange at about £13 for £100 nominal stock. So do 4 per cent External Loan 1922 and 7 per cent Monopolies Institute 1929. Considering that some foreign bonds, like the Chinese 4½ per cent 1898, exchange at only 40s, this shows that some capitalists think there's a comparatively good chance that their government can get something out of the Rumanian government as a price for access to the world market.

A glance at the list of foreign bonds quoted in the Official List gives a panorama of the past glories of British Imperialism. Russian, Chinese, Hungarian, Greek and South American bonds exchange for little or nothing. Interesting items are the Baltic bonds issued by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania during their short period of political independence between the world wars. In 1940 they were grabbed by Russia and another source of interest dried up. Yet now these bonds exchange at what seems the surprisingly high price of £50-60. The reason for this is that although Russia got the land and industry of these countries unfortunately for them the gold reserves were kept in London. Talks between Britain and Russia over the division of the property of these former States still go on. The last round finished in April. These Baltic bonds are a better buy than those of Tsarist Russia (also still traded) which are never likely to be paid. 

Russia and Rumania are not the only States negotiating with Britain over debts. Last August a delegation from Hungary was in London to discuss Hungarian bonds (now exchanging at about £14). Poland settled most of its debts in 1955, paying £40 for £100 face value. In 1960 Yugoslavia agreed to pay interest on some pre-war bonds. Thus on June 15 the interest on its 5 per cent Sterling Fund Bonds 1936 is due. Greece has also been forced to pay up.

The States of Eastern Europe in recent years have been gaining a degree of independence of Russia. Their privileged rulers now no longer have to share so much of the loot with those of Russia—-instead they are having to share it with capitalists in Britain, France and elsewhere! This is the price of “independence”. It is no accident that Yugoslavia has been forced to pay the most, precisely because it has achieved the most independence of Russia. In capitalism might is right and capitalists and their governments always drive a hard bargain. Incidentally, the Labour government in the person of junior Minister Walter Padley has been just as zealous in pursuing the interests of foreign bondholders as previous governments—thus showing their attempts to stir up xenophobia by talk of “the gnomes of Zurich” to be the hypocrisy it is.

Finally, it looks as if British capitalists are again moving in on the workers in Rumania. In March last year Lazards, the merchant bankers, signed an agreement with the State Bank of Rumania for a loan of £2m. from three British banks to build two cargo ships. This loan is to be repaid over a ten year period after delivery of the ships. At 5½ per cent rate of interest.

Adam Buick

Obituary: Neil Gillies (1966)

Obituary from the May 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

We sadly learned of the sudden death of our Comrade Neil Gillies and extend to his relatives a sincere sympathy. Although he had been ill over recent years, it was hoped that with due care he had overcome his illness. Joining Marylebone Branch in March 1946 he transferred to Bloomsbury Branch in 19S1 and had been a regular attender at all branch meetings and always supported party meetings and activity. Although not a speaker or writer, his support to other comrades generally was always welcome.

On the evening on which he was taken ill, he had been at the Hampstead Committee Rooms helping with the Election work and was his usual smiling and kindly self. He died the next morning. Neil will be sadly missed by us all who knew him.

50 Years Ago: The Easter Rising (1966)

The 50 Years Ago column from the May 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

A grave armed revolt in Dublin against English rule is raging at the time of writing. It is a revolt doomed from the outset, both because of the futility of its Nationalist aims, and the utter hopelessness of such a revolt against the mighty organised force of the political State. It is, apart from the fact that Socialism is worth fighting for. yet another illustration (if such were needed) that the organised Socialist conquest of political power plays into the hands of the oppressor and strengthens the chains that fetter us.

Such a revolt, however, is the natural result of centuries of alien oppression; which has forced the ideas of Irishmen into Nationalist channels and blinded them to its futility. And it is at the same time a fitting commentary on the perfervid declarations of the British champions of “honour" and “righteousness" that “they" are lighting, above all, for “the rights of small Nationalities".

From the Socialist Standard, May 1916.