News in Review: China's Bomb (1964)

The News in Review column from the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Abroad

China's Bomb

Sir Alec Douglas-Home always stood up for an independent British nuclear armoury on the grounds that it gave the British capitalist class a place at the top negotiating table.

There may be something in this. The disputes of capitalism are finally settled by force, or by the threat of force—even when the amiable, wise-cracking Lord Home was Foreign Secretary. It is reasonable to suppose that the power with the biggest bomb will be the power with the biggest say in international affairs.

That is why the three first nuclear powers once hoped to keep the Bomb's secret to themselves, so that world capitalism was an orderly affair of just two big power blocs with Britain as a buffer between them.

This was a forlorn hope. Many other nations have been trying to develop their own bomb. The French were the first to succeed and now, in spite of a certain amount of hindrance from Russia, it seems that China has also arrived as a nuclear power.

The top table is getting rather crowded. 

The prospects are that it will get more crowded still. The Indian government, which always reserved the right to reconsider its original decision not to manufacture nuclear weapons, greeted the news that China had the Bomb with the announcement that India could also develop one if it wanted to.

All of this should please those who hold the theory of the deterrent, because the more nations that get the Bomb the more they can all frighten each other into peaceful intentions. Or is the opposite true?

In fact, wars are not caused by armaments, or by the lack of them. Capitalism is like a jungle, with any number of competing nations clawing and savaging each other in the ruthless struggle for advantage.

No humane considerations, no moral concepts, come into this. A government will coldly take the decision to manufacture a weapon which it knows is capable of literally atomising tens of millions of people in the blink of an eye. And having so decided, the members of the government will go home placidly, play with the dog, bath the baby and themselves sleep innocent sleep.

There is no sanity in this. To the requirements of property society, the human race is deliberately making the means of perhaps wiping itself out.

Capitalism marches on. It expands into places where it has not been before. It develops its productive abilities in fantastic leaps and bounds. At the same time it deprives, exploits, degrades and terrorises its people to an undreamt of intensity.

Politics

Immigration

Today the Communist Party is posing as the friend and champion of the interests of the immigrant worker. But, as with most other matters, it has not always taken up this position. Seventeen years ago, for instance, the Communist Party was engaged in an anti-Polish campaign. In 1947 the two Communist members of the House of Commons were continually asking questions about the Poles in Britain. Some of the comments then made by Willie Gallacher indicate the level to which the Communist Party was prepared to stoop. On February 4, 1947, the following exchange took place during question time:

Mr. Lennox Boyd: Is it not a fact that the vast majority of Poles are desperately seeking employment in this country?

Mr. Gallacher: Let them get employment in their own country. (Hansard, Vol. 432, Col. 1555.)

On July 29 again:

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the right hon. gentleman give us an assurance that none of them will be forcibly sent back, and can he tell us how many have refused to accept work?

Mr. Bellenger: I cannot give an assurance of that kind, but these Poles cannot remain on British benevolence indefinitely.

Mr. Gallacher: We do not want them. (Hansard, Vol. 441, Col. 251.)

In the same year the Communist Party published a book by their leader, Harry Pollit, under the title Looking Ahead. In here we read:

I ask you, does it make sense that we allow 500,000 of our best young people to put their names down for emigration abroad, when at the same time we employ Poles who ought to be back in their own country, and bring to work to Britain displaced persons who ought also to be sent back to their own countries? We want our own workers to have confidence in their own land, to take a pride in building it up. (p. 72.)

Who was it said, “the working men have no country? ”

Business

Dahlia affair

Could there be anything less offensive than a dedicated dahlia grower?

Just listen to his endless talk of ray and disk florets. Look at those sensitive, earthy hands caressing the prize blooms. A very perfect gentle chap, it seems.

Yet behind that placid exterior lurks a desire to undermine the basis of society. What happened when dahlia growers in the Midlands organised a cheap air trip to the United States?

Why, they invited other dahlia fans to go as well and if that is not subversive, antisocial and plain criminal, what is?

Fortunately, virtue triumphed. The Midland Dahlia Society booked their flight with B.O.A.C. but they broke the rules of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) when they advertised it as open to non-members. Virtue was a spy employed by rival airline Alitalia, who reported the matter to the IATA and so got the trip called off.

But virtue was not unreservedly rewarded. The Alitalia man—their Manchester manager—came back from holiday to a doormat load of poison pen letters, which shows how much people hate a wrecker of dahlia growers' outings.

Nobody seems to have got upset with the real culprit. The IATA does not only lay down rules about economy fares. It also governs all other aspects of flying freight and passengers all over the world, and the charges which are made for this.

In other words, it is an international organisation which tries to regulate the markets in air traffic. Quite often this means that the IATA restricts traffic, as it has in the Dahlia Society affair.

Such carve-ups are quite common under capitalism; they exist in all manner of enterprises and their object is to safeguard the profitability of those enterprises. This—the profit motive which underlies all capitalism's operations—is where the disappointed dahlia growers should vent their frustration.

And so should all those poison pen writers, who perhaps see something particularly mean and degrading in useful men wasting their time spying upon other useful men wasting their time thinking up ways of avoiding commercial restrictions.

At Home

The Sun

The International Publishing Corporation—the Daily Mirror group to most people—are noted for their mastery of the technique of ballyhoo. At one time, no newspaper had its finger so sensitively upon the pulse of public ignorance as did the Mirror—and none exploited that ignorance so cynically nor so remuneratively.

But recently there have been new scents in the wind. Is the Mirror losing its grip, as the IPC gets larger? The group's latest paper—the Sun—is trying, among other things, to prove that the finger is still unerringly there, still knows how fast or how slow beats the reader’s pulse.

“The only newspaper,” claimed the Sun, “born of the age we live in.” Self consciously, the paper detailed the type of person it is confident of attracting. The New Young Men with the Hardy Ames suit, with the open plan bungalow on the new estate, the foot on the second or even the third rung of the ladder. The people with a conscience—and, naturally, with the big buying power.

All of this splurge was really aimed at potential advertisers, to persuade them that space booked in the Sun would pay off. It is the advertising revenue, and not the circulation figures, which now decide whether a paper lives or dies.

The Daily Herald, when International put it to sleep, had a daily sale of well over a million copies, but couldn’t attract enough advertising to pay its way. In contrast, the colour supplement of the Sunday Times, which is virtually given away, is a money-spinner—and is therefore being widely imitated—because it attracts some rich advertising.

What this adds up to is that in the newspaper world it is only the really Big’uns who now stand a chance. This may mean that the Sun, backed by IPC’s massive resources and under the practised and ruthless control of Hugh Cudlipp, may eventually survive.

Which would merely add another mouthpiece of capitalist propaganda to the rest. And if the Sun lives up to its promise to be a “radical” paper, a paper with a “conscience,” a particularly unctuous and nauseating mouthpiece it will be. “The only newspaper born of the age we live in.” Ugh.

50 Years Ago: The Purpose and Method of Colonisation. (1964)

The 

50 Years Ago column from the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

If one thing emerges more strikingly than another from the history of the efforts by which the capitalistically backward countries have been and are being brought into the range of modern civilisation, it is the fact that the fundamental condition of such enterprises is the expropriation of the mass of the people from the land and their conversion into wage workers. The much-vaunted “education of the savage races” is really only a high-sounding phrase used by some to hide this awkward fact of expropriation. We only need again refer to the obstinate resistance which the “aggressive advance” (the term is in itself significant) of “civilisation” meets everywhere on the part of the aboriginal populations, and to the difficulty of obtaining a sufficient supply of workers, to illustrate this fact. Deprivation of free access to the means of subsistence is, in fact, the only way to convert free men into wage slaves.

The lesson is obvious and should not be lost upon the modern working class, who labour under the delusion that they still have “a stake in the country.” It is that “civilisation” pre-supposes the completed expropriation of the mass of the people from the land and the means of wealth production.

But it is by no means necessary to go to the Colonies to discover the basis of “our civilisation.” Does not the fact stare one constantly in the face that the people have been deprived of their heritage? What other explanation is there for the “terrible social difficulties” and stupid anomalies surrounding us? What other cause is there of this awful and degrading poverty in the midst of plenty? What else could turn every technical progress into a calamity? What other factor could turn every labour saving device into a means of increasing the unemployment and poverty of the many? Is it, or is it not, the fact that the few (the capitalist class) have confiscated the land and the instruments of wealth production, and that they allow these things to be used only when it suits their interests—their pockets?

Thus we see that the policy of colonisation that is being carried out before our eyes and has been described in these columns— the robbery of the land from the native and the destruction of his own means of living —is nothing more or less than the policy which has successfully reduced us—“the heirs of civilisation to a class of wage- slaves labouring our whole lives in poverty in order that others may enjoy lives of riotous luxury.

The white labourer, like the black, is forced to toil for capitalist profit by force or fraud, and it is more than ever clearly true that the working class of all countries are the wage-slaves of a class that makes its country synonymous solely with its profit. This all-important fact the workers must end by seeing clearly, and then they will stand surely together as one man on the freedom of humanity, by the overthrow of this worldwide capitalist class. This must be so, for economic development fights for us and, to use again the well-worn but fundamentally true words of Marx, the workers have nothing to lose but their chains, while they have a world to win.

From the Socialist Standard, November, 1914.

After the Election (1964)

From the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

A favourite story of the First World War concerns two high born young officers in the thick of a desperate battle. All around them the shells scream and roar, the soldiers claw their way through the lethal mud. One of the officers turns to the other: "I say, Fanshawe, won't you be awfully glad when this horrid war is over and we can get back to some proper soldiering?"

Now that the election battle has subsided, now that the politicians's roars have been stilled, now that the smokescreens of promises have cleared, a certain fact can be discerned. All the while, capitalism has been waiting for the nonsense to stop. Now it can get back to some proper soldiering.

What does that mean? Even while the battle was raging, calm voices could be heard indicating that capitalism would be largely unaffected by the result. Here, for example, is the City Editor of the Evening Standard, writing on September 24th about the similarities of both Labour and Conservative policy on the capital gains tax:

It now seems certain that a new Capital gains tax will be introduced next year—whoever wins the Election. . . .

The Stock Exchange, the Institute of Directors, and the top brass of the Labour Party have all said that they want changes. . . . 

From what 1 hear . . . a re-elected Tory Government would tackle the subject pretty soon.

Other voices could also be heard, some of them not so calm. Mr. Khrushchev forgot that elections are times when everybody should be studying how good capitalist society is for us, and announced that Russia had a "monstrous new terrible weapon” which could destroy humanity. Of course, the Russian Ex Premier said afterwards that he had not meant that, that he had never said it and even if he had he had been misreported. Everyone had misunderstood him. Russia has only a "terrible weapon”—non nuclear.

The shock waves from this announcement duly arrived at Washington, where the military have for some time been worried about the offensive potential of bomb carrying space-satellites. President Johnson felt it part of his duty as President—and perhaps part of his election campaign—to claim that the United States has new defensive installations, in place, operational and on the alert, which could destroy hostile satellites. These installations—if they exist—are there because the other side has developed the means of penetrating the old defences. Presumably, the latest defence installations will cause the other side to work out new, more penetrative, more powerful weapons. This is a two-way process—the Americans are also working on missiles to get through the latest Russian defences. This all goes under the name of the policy of the deterrent and it is supposed to make us happy and secure.

It is reasonable to suppose that the up-bidding by Johnson and Khrushchev in the game of international nuclear poker did not influence many voters in the British election. How many voters were appalled at the fact that capitalist society spends so much of its time and talents on trying to blow itself up? How many asked themselves why the richest nations in the world are so anxious to have the world’s most fearsome weapons?

The answer to that question is easy enough to come by. Consider this example, so normal to capitalism that it passed almost unnoticed.

Not very long ago, nobody bothered very much about the North Sea. You could sail across it, fly over it, you could fish in it. And then a funny thing happened. The Dutch discovered a rich field of natural gas, which is now thought to be the second largest of its kind in the world, and capable of supplying Europe's needs for many years. It did not take a lot of elaborate detective work to connect this discovery with the small British oilfields in the Midlands and to surmise' that oil and gas bearing rocks might stretch right under the North Sea.

Then everyone became interested in ending the arrangement which allowed the North Sea to be a free area. Ah international conference parcelled out the seabed between the interested powers. By this solemnly legal method the British government stoic 100,000 square miles of seabed and they shared this out, in the shape of licences to drill for oil and gas, to firms like Shell, Esso, British Petroleum and the Gas Council. All the capitalist parties were agreed that this was a fit and proper way of settling the affair:

Mr. Erroll said the Bill under which the licences were issued had been thoroughly discussed in the House of Commons this year and nobody had suggested matters should be handled differently. (The Guardian, 18/9/64.)

It is obvious that there will be some changes, now, in the North Sea. A rich supply of oil or gas, or both, will be especially interesting to British industry, which at present is so precariously dependent upon oil from abroad. But there could be other effects, equally interesting. The British interest in the oilfields of the Middle East has been responsible for many clashes of arms there. The Suez invasion, the refusal to get out of Cyprus, were only two recent examples of this. In the same way, the French hung on in Algeria, and prolonged the bloodshed there, because of the discovery of oil and gas in the Sahara.

It is obvious that British capitalism would be equally determined to protect its investments in the North Sea. At the moment the area is all allocated. But what if some other capitalist group, which was not in on the original carve-up, decides that it also needs to get hold of some of the North Sea resources?

This is not a fanciful question. At the end of the last century the expanding capitalism of Germany was faced with a similar situation. They had arrived too late to get their share of the colonial and commercial loot from the ruthless scramble of a little earlier. They tried to catch up by diplomatic and trading bargains. They tried threats and military adventures. But the end was inevitable and we saw what it was in 1914 and 1939.

If the same sort of dispute arises over the North Sea, the capitalist powers will probably try to bargain it out of existence. They may even succeed, for a time. But in the end, if the conferences fail, the good old final solution of a head on, armed clash will follow. No holds will be barred and the side with the biggest bangers will win.

And that, to return to our original point, is why the Russian ruling class have their monstrous weapons, why the Americans have theirs and why both sides—indeed all sides—are in the arms race. Capitalism is a world divided by conflicting economic interests, which are asserted by the armed forces of the rival nations. These forces must always be ready, must always have the most up-to-date weapons—even if this means that they have the means of destroying the human race.

This is all quite normal to capitalism. It goes on during elections, and when the dust of battle has cleared it is still there. Proper soldiering, in fact.

On the home front it is the same story. Both Labour and Conservative parties were clear that a major preoccupation of the next government would be their “incomes policy"—more accurately known as their method of controlling wages. "Labour," said The Guardian, "would demand from the unions cooperation in an incomes policy.” The Tory manifesto put it: "an effective and fair incomes policy is crucial to the achievement of sustained growth without inflation."

What this means is that the struggle between the employers and the workers, over wages and working conditions, will continue. The working class will continue to depend upon their wages for their life. They will continue trying to improve those wages and conditions and the government will continue trying to hold the improvements in some sort of check.

The working class freely voted for capitalism in the election and in doing that they freely voted for the system which compels them to struggle and which so often reduces any temporary advantage they may gain.

These sombre facts do not prevent the politicians promising that some day, in some mysterious way, things are going to get better. The politicians’ airy promise is an established part of proper soldiering. Some have been foolish enough to have passed into political history, to stand as monumental warnings against verbal extravagance. (One old time Labour minister was so famous for the generosity of his promises that be was called “the greatest blatherer alive.”)

Consider these two statements:

. . . the long, dark night is over and . . . a better day is dawning for Great Britain and the world. The wonderful recovery of trade and finance in the last seven years is the most marvellous miracle in the history of the world.

And the other:

It is a time for action, for decision, for exciting changes It is a time for opportunity, opportunity for all our people, all our children, to break through man-made barriers of privilege and snobbery, and be free to give their talents and energies in service to their country.

The authors of those two statements were Phillip Snowden, in 1926, and Harold Wilson in 1964 (neither of whom were ever called "the greatest blatherer alive"). There is no reason to reveal who said which, because both statements are equally meaningless. The point is that the blathering of capitalism is an enduring as the system itself.

Proper soldiering. Massively destructive machines, the deadly rivalry between opposing capitalist blocs, poverty and strife, all covered by an enormous blanket of politicians’ nonsense. The working class may vote for all of this, although they are the people who suffer most acutely under it. But a few of us will have no part of the soldiering. We have our eyes and thoughts on the better world and you will not find us on parade in the morning.

Ivan.

Sheharazad's thousand and second tale or would you let your daughter marry a green hair? (1964)

A Short Story from the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Know then, oh glorious king! that in days of yore and in times and tides long since gone there existed a strange and wonderful land known as Vespucci. The inhabitants of that country, as was universally the case even in those days, were divided into rich and poor, but this fact was not that which made Vespucci a strange and wonderful land. There was a different sort of division among the people that cut across economic status and which, confusing as it may seem to us, was the cause of much more confusion than it is easy for us to imagine. For the Vespuccians were also divided according to the colour of their hair.

Not that they had as many divisions as there are colours! No! There were but two general divisions—those with green hair (the minority) and all the others regardless of colour and combination of colour. A Vespuccian might have but a faint tint of green in his hair against a background of any other colour or combination of colours, but the green tinge officially stamped him as a Green Hair. He might have no green hair visible whatsoever yet he was classified as a Green Hair if both or either of his parents were officially Green Hairs. Only if he chose to hide the fact that there were Green Hairs in his background could he pass as a Normal Hair when, of course, the green in his hair was not visible. There were a few of the Green Hairs who disappeared from the census each year but by and large the divisions were constant.

Vespucci was also divided geographically into Upper Vespucci and Lower Vespucci and although there was a common law for all citizens which was inscribed in a book and interpreted, from time to time, by a group of nine old Cadis in the capital city—a town named Dryington— the separate sections of the country also had sectional laws pertaining to Green Hairs, written laws in Lower Vespucci, unwritten laws in Upper Vespucci. In Upper Vespucci the Green Hairs were, for the most part, segregated in housing and schools in a de facto manner while in Lower Vespucci the segregation was maintained as a matter of law. And this arrangement lasted for many generations with segregation carried out fairly generally and even in the armed forces and the prisons.

But certain developments began to take place in the economic life of the nation, developments which caused a great stir throughout the length and breadth of Vespucci. On the one hand a growing number of Green Hairs began to earn more money than had been the case hitherto and, at the same time, to get more education. On the other hand the larger manufacturers and merchants of the land found it expedient to expand into the more backward areas where more underprivileged Green Hairs were to be found and these big moneyed interests felt that a greater degree of stability among the working population (Green Hairs and Normal Hairs alike) was in order.

The wealthy Vespuccians, like the rich of our own times, were altruistic and never had other than the general welfare at heart. And so the group of top-ranking Cadis decreed in their wisdom that the arrangement that had, up until now, been legal was no longer legal and that all Vespuccians regardless of the colour of their hair were equal under the law, the only inequality , henceforth, to be that which is natural and normal and fitting—the inequality caused by the possession or non-possession of money in large quantities.

There was no great rush, however, to obey the new law on the part of the Lower Vespuccians and several years passed with no more than a token breakdown in the segregation pattern and even this in a restricted area of the Lower section. So great discontent became generated among the Green Hairs of Lower Vespucci while, in the other part of the nation, their fellow Green Hairs decided that de facto segregation would also have to go. They felt that their children were getting an unequal education and they resented the social inequality which was their lot despite there being no written laws on the matter in their area. And so they, too, began to demonstrate and to demand rights.

As of now, Your Highness, the affair should not seem to be too confusing. The Green Hairs were discriminated against in every manner and they were organizing to do something about it with the help, let me add hastily, of a number of Normal Hairs. They demonstrated in the streets, they picketed places of employment, they argued with school boards and with politicians, they boycotted stores, and many of them were subjected to various degrees of brutality by the forces of law and order. All of this is understandable. The Green Hairs wanted “Freedom” and they shouted to the rooftops that they wanted it now. But despite the fact that everything seems to have been quite in order, a certain confusion begins to develop in the story and seems to hinge around the meaning of the word Freedom, and also of the word Equality.

The Green Hairs were by no means united in their fight for Civil Rights. There were a number of organizations which represented them and which ran, in attitudes, all the way from conservative advocates of passive resistance—meek and humble followers of Christianity in its meek and humble forms, down through the more militant sects of that Infidel Religion, and even to the followers of the one, true, faith, the Muslims (Green Hair Muslims). And even the chosen of Allah were to become divided on the basis of militancy and action between the followers of the old leader, Mustapha Prophet, and the adherents of a younger and more fiery leader, Roderick Zee. But despite the divisions and differing attitudes there seemed to be one thing in common among the organizations of the Green Hairs and that was their universal agreement in a “practical” interpretation of the meaning of the terms Freedom and Equality. And this will best be explained by recounting the following adventure of a colour-blind Vespuccian who spent much time among the Green Hairs.

Our hero, who we will call Ali McKhan, chanced one day to step into the office of the largest of the Civil Rights groups, the National Brotherhood for the Aid of Green Hairs. He felt impelled to have a look at some of the literature of this organization and he entered into conversation with an official named Emmanuel Prince. “ Right at this moment,” he was told, “ Our main concern is in breaking down discrimination in housing. We are attempting to compel landlords in all neighbourhoods to rent to Green Hairs, and real-estate brokers to sell to them regardless of how snooty the neighbourhood.”—“ Very interesting,” remarked McKhan, “but tell me something. I know a lot of Green Hairs in the Ghetto and I'm certain that most of those I know can't afford to pay the rents in the better neighbourhoods and certainly don't have enough money saved for a down payment on a house in the swank sections. What about them? ”

Prince waved a deprecating hand, “ We can't be concerned with those people. The trouble with a lot of my fellow Green Hairs is that they just don't have the initiative to better themselves. Let them stay where they are.”

“ But,” argued McKhan, “ It is my understanding that there are some new and wonderful machines on the scene today that make it possible to produce an abundance of food, and clothing, and houses, and everything else. Don't you think it would be better if your organization tried to get all Vespuccians, regardless of colour, to see that it is now easy to produce enough for everybody and that something should be done to change the present basis of production for sale — change it to a system where everybody can have free access to their needs? Don't you think that nobody would pay any attention to colour of hair under such conditions? That all Vespuccians would become colour blind? ”

“My dear fellow,” snapped Prince, “ You arc obviously some sort of Red. What we want is freedom and equality. The freedom to rise on the economic ladder and an equal chance with Normal Hairs to compete for his freedom. How can you have freedom if you do away with poverty? And we don't want everyone to become colour-blind. We’re proud of our colour. We are a rich mixture of great ancestors and we have a glorious history. Furthermore, we are loyal Vespuccians and we demand nothing more than our rights under the Constitution of our glorious nation.”

So McKhan sadly bowed his way out and went down the street in the direction of the Green Hairs Freedom Now Society. “They’re a militant bunch, not like that other gang of phonies,” he muttered. But on the way he suddenly noticed a bright sign with a star and crescent over the doorway of a building. He straightened his shoulders and pounded fist in palm. “ The devil with the rest of them. This is the real McKhoy, the headquarters of Roderick Zee, the New Muslim Leader. (The name was formerly Zed, but the new arrangement called for a revolutionary change.) This bunch will really understand what freedom and equality mean.” And he went in.

Fortunately for McKhan, Roderick Zee had overcome the old dislike of being friendly with Normal Hairs and he found the young Green Hair Muslim to be not only enthusiastic but affable. “ \Yes, my friend. What we Green Hairs need in order to attain freedom is a country of our own. We demand that the Vespuccian Government give us an area where we can set up our own government and produce and distribute for ourselves. We want Separation, and we want it now, even if we have to organize rifle clubs among the Green Hairs "

McKhan was dubious about the separation bit and even more dubious about the rifle clubs. “Seems to me," he interposed, “ that it will take more than rifles to offset the weapons of the Vespuccian Government. And what's this business about separation into your own country? I like the idea of producing and distributing for yourselves, but why restrict this to Green Hairs? Don't you think it is possible to produce enough for everybody, regardless of colour of hair, to have all they want if we stop holding back the machinery and produce for use?  Of course, we would have to abolish private property universally, though, and not just for Green Hairs"

Roderick Zee's eyes bulged in horror. “ Get rid of private property? ” he screamed. “ What in the devil are you talking about? ” Didn’t you hear me say we want Freedom Now? How can we have freedom if we don’t have the freedom to own private property and hire other people to work for us - Green Hairs, of course. We don’t want any Normal Hairs in our factories.”

“But,” argued McKhan, “why would anybody want to work for you if they were producing for themselves? I thought people worked for other people just because they have to in order to eat, because they don’t own the means for producing things. And you say they—all of the Green Hairs—will own their own factories and workshops and still most of them will go to work for some of them? Its all quite confusing.” He was still mumbling as he was led out the door.

And so you see. Oh Illustrious King, that the Vespuccians, regardless of the colour of their hair and regardless of the animosities between the Green Hairs and the Normal Hairs, did have a common belief in the meaning of freedom and equality. They understood that unless one could rise above his fellows, climb over the bodies that form the broad base on the bottom of the economic pyramid toward the narrow apex at the top, there can be no freedom. This was the basis of Vespuccian Ethics and Vespuccian Religion and Vespuccian Morality and Vespuccian Law, and it was written in a big book in the capital city of Dryington and interpreted, from time to time, by nine old Cadis.

H. Morrison.

Nationalism and Communism by Hugh Seton-Watson (1964)

Book Review from the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nationalism and Communism, by Hugh Seton-Watson, Methuen, 36s. 

One of the minor effects of the many years of political tension between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, that has become known as the Cold War, is a widespread ignorance of those European countries that are within the Russian bloc. Occupied by Russian troops at the end of the second world war, and kept in military and economic subjection ever since, they tend to be dismissed as of no importance.

People with extensive knowledge of West European or American politics and their economic problems, know nothing of the affairs of Eastern Europe. Only when, as in 1956 in Hungary, the scene erupts into violence, do they receive much attention. Yet a hundred million people live here in an area of nearly half a million square miles. We buy food and manufactured articles, gramophone records and books from them in ever increasing numbers, but most of us have a very scanty knowledge of the countries themselves.

Nationalism and Communism is a collection of essays written between 1946 and 1963, and first published in a wide variety of newspapers and periodicals. It contains interesting and detailed reports from the Eastern European States, of the ruthless and cynical methods used by the Communist parties of those countries to gain and hold power.

The book contains also an excellent potted history of the rise of Nationalism. The conceptions of “nation” and “race” that have played so large, and so destructive, a part in recent history, are modern.

The idea of the “nation” was largely unknown before the 18th century, and it first became a major political issue in the French Revolution. As late as 1815 Metternich and Alexander 1 of Russia regarded nationalism as a subversive idea. It was in the 19th century that nationalistic theories spread throughout the world. Not only the major powers, but economic groups seeking independence from domination by a greater power, began to build up theories about their origins to prove that they were a race apart.

Les Dale

Political Parties by Maurice Duverger (1964)

Book Review from the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Political Parties, by Maurice Duverger. (University Paperbacks, 16s.)

During the past few weeks we have had every opportunity to watch modern political parties in action. We have witnessed these parties using every possible method, both ancient and modern, to draw the voters to the polling booth, and to flatter, cajole or panic them into putting their crosses against the right names.

The performances of the two main parties in the last election were worth examining. They knew that scares must not be overdone and no drum must be banged for too long, less the public get bored. Because if they get bored they might not turn out to vote, and however stupid or ill-informed the voters may be, it is their vote that decides the election. The ultimate power rests in the hands of the mass of the people, the working class, and it is the tragedy of the age that they use this power—not to end their bondage, but to perpetuate it.

It is to secure the votes of the electorate, and to ensure that the power, both national and local, stays in the hands of the party caucus, that modern parties exist.

Although many of the present day parties, such as the Liberal and Conservative parties in Britain, have a long history and still retain their old names, they have changed so much in their organisation as to be really different bodies. The twentieth century party system is modern, and has little in common with the parties of the 18th and 19th centuries.

The parties that existed before universal suffrage were mere Parliamentary groupings with the object of getting a working majority in Parliament, to enable a group to operate as a government. They had little real existence outside of Parliament.

With the coming of the 19th century and a wider but still limited franchise the so-called “middle class” parties came into being. These were based on groups or caucuses, composed of influential or well-known people. Narrowly recruited and with a rather exclusive membership, they did not want the masses to join and made no effort to recruit them. Each party was very decentralised, with their local groups largely independent of the others. Often these groups centred round the leading family in an area.

Those who remember the late 1940’s will recall the frantic and, as it turned out, successful efforts of the Conservative Party to shed the last remnants of the 19th century, and to transform themselves into a modern party. Modern parties, with their mass membership, their constant drives for new members, and their high degree of centralisation, are products of a world in which the masses can no longer be ignored.

Political Parties, by Maurice Duverger, recently published as a paper back, is a very useful text-book. A trifle heavy going, it is nevertheless well worth reading. It deals with Political Parties throughout the world, and describes in detail the Parties and electoral systems of all the more highly developed countries, including totalitarian, one-party states.

Les Dale.