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

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

Famine, Death and Poverty

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

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

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

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

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

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

We could tell him

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

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

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

“A dog’s life”

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

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

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

Weep for the Suffering Rick

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

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

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

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

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

 S. A.