tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69032810422427918132024-03-18T21:03:11.757-04:00Socialist Standard Past & Present<i>'Something old, something new,
something borrowed, always red.'</i>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.comBlogger18559125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-84687972243803404262024-03-15T08:51:00.000-04:002024-03-15T08:51:11.709-04:00News in Review: Keeping cool in the space age (1966)<div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLU2EpBz2hZenVLKL0IlMwDZnoPdlb-QRmWwUKweIrj6EHvEq-EtyVTwOEAlGrrlmqnU8XGXqLD-qaDzbRkg1nVkZsWt7vbnRbOALiyc4v44qdQ6MlHtnaHdmZVpV48_nMigksqpbUX3DSoXa7v_VS-z88qTh7x0YgFiCx_1ATpUW0bggb8tAR3_NdDdZ6/s1600/March%201966%20SS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1163" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLU2EpBz2hZenVLKL0IlMwDZnoPdlb-QRmWwUKweIrj6EHvEq-EtyVTwOEAlGrrlmqnU8XGXqLD-qaDzbRkg1nVkZsWt7vbnRbOALiyc4v44qdQ6MlHtnaHdmZVpV48_nMigksqpbUX3DSoXa7v_VS-z88qTh7x0YgFiCx_1ATpUW0bggb8tAR3_NdDdZ6/s320/March%201966%20SS.jpg" width="233" /></a></div>The News in Review column from the March 1966 issue of the<i> Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><b><span style="color: red;">Keeping cool in the space age</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The fabulous achievement of Luna 9 was bound to cause a lot of excitement. But when everyone about you is losing their heads it is, as we know, a sound idea to keep calm.</div><div><br /></div><div>What does a long, cool look at space flight reveal?</div><div><br /></div><div>In the first place, it speaks volumes that with a mass of unsolved problems like hunger, crime, bad housing and war plaguing us on earth, capitalism spends such enormous efforts on investigating other worlds.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is not an objection to space flights on moral grounds; there is no logical reason to expect capitalism suddenly to start putting human welfare before its own interests.</div><div><br /></div><div>Space investigation is given a high priority by the world’s two great powers and it is not difficult to see why this is so.</div><div><br /></div><div>Both the United States and the Soviet Union make no secret of the fact that their space programmes are an essential part of their military effort, yielding valuable information on guiding systems and aiming techniques for long range missiles.</div><div><br /></div><div>Already the information is being used for military purposes; both powers have observation vehicles in orbit above us and the Americans have actually publicised their plans for a military space laboratory to be sent up in the near future.</div><div><br /></div><div>But even if we make the effort to ignore this consideration and assume that the exploration of space is purely a matter of scientific investigation, there is still the question of what the world working class can hope to gain from it all.</div><div><br /></div><div>Have the conditions of any worker, anywhere, improved—indeed, can they hope to improve—as a result of the space flights, the probes into the moon, the dare-devil acts of space walking and the rest? The answer is clearly no.</div><div><br /></div><div>Who, then, stands to gain? Even at the present, new industries have arisen as a result of space flights, and established ones have done their best to get in on it. (The <i>Daily Express</i>, whose equipment helped to receive the moon pictures from Luna 9 made some quick advertisements out of it)</div><div><br /></div><div>Presumably, other new industries will rise in the future, employing and. exploiting their workers in their efforts to make profit from the romantic business of space travel.</div><div><br /></div><div>Eager investors will want to get in on this. Perhaps there will be a Unit Trust which deals in space shares.</div><div><br /></div><div>In short, all capitalism’s normal standards of commerce and profitability will be applied to the Space Age. The knowledge which the flights yield will be used, as all such knowledge has been in the past, for the benefit of the ruling class —to improve the returns on their capital, to protect their interests, to establish them in new markets.</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps, in the end, to help them blast their rivals out of the field—or the sky or whatever.</div><div><br /></div><div>Man’s probing into space is only the latest of his victories over his environment, and the same lesson applies to it as to the others. Capitalism is the cause of the problems of modern society and until it is ended man’s achievements— his skill, his knowledge, his courage- will be misused and perverted.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Rail strike and the incomes policy</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>It would be difficult to say whether the last minute calling off of the rail strike was more of a relief to the Government or to the National Union of Railwaymen.</div><div><br /></div><div>From the word go, the threatened strike was given a dramatic build-up; expressions like ’’last ditch” and ’’breaking point” cannot have been given so thorough an airing in the press for a long time.</div><div><br /></div><div>The railwaymen were assailed from all sides. Even papers like <i>The Guardian</i> and the <i>Daily Mirror</i>, which in the past have been sympathetic to them, were urging the strikers to have what they called common-sense.</div><div><br /></div><div>It was, apparently, a time fraught with danger for us all. If the railwaymen got their way the Government’s Prices and Incomes Policy would collapse and ruin, which anyway has never stopped hanging over us, would descend.</div><div><br /></div><div>But it was no secret that the Incomes Policy was already a flop. Sooner or later then the Government had either to abandon it openly or provoke a head-on clash with a big union.</div><div><br /></div><div>The NUR was predictably resentful at being awarded the part of keystone in George Brown’s policy, although they really had little to complain about, they, after all, support the Labour Government and they also support its Incomes Policy.</div><div><br /></div><div>The trouble was the usual one, of getting a union which accepts wage restraint in principle to apply it to its own members in practice. The NUR was all for the Incomes Policy, but did not want to be the one to start it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Indeed, who is going to volunteer for this role? Who will choose to ignore the effects of rising prices, who will forego a chance to improve their conditions, who can escape the class struggle?</div><div><br /></div><div>So far, the answer is—nobody. The railwaymen are only the latest in a long queue of those who have campaigned for higher wages since the Labour Government came to power. Some have got it without resorting to anything as vulgar as a strike threat; the judges, high rank Civil Servants and members of the Armed Forces have all been given more than the Incomes Policy allowed them.</div><div><br /></div><div>And, of course, there was the case of the Members of Parliament and the Ministers who, being in the happy situation of being able to give themselves a rise, agreed soon after Mr. Wilson took over that they should all have one.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yet Ministers and M.P.s are the very people who are urging the rest of us to hold back on our claims. It is by no means unreasonable to expect that, if the Incomes Policy had to be started somewhere, it should have been in the House of Commons.</div><div><br /></div><div>But the Members, when they were deciding that they should have a rise, used exactly the same sort of arguments as any trade union. They said they were overworked, that they could not make ends meet, that the House was not attracting the best sort of Member because they could get better money outside.</div><div><br /></div><div>So the Incomes Policy, at least on the surface, is saved and staggers on to fight another day. Mr. Wilson has once more stood, like a knight in shining armour, between us and disaster—and once more has gained a lot of political advantages out of it, especially over George Brown, who was shown up publicly as unable to pull off something which Wilson could do.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>Mr. Wilson has scored another palpable hit. But there is no denying the class struggle of capitalism. There will be other battles, and other strikes, and more undercover deals to settle them.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">All right for some</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>It was most inconsiderate of the North Vietnamese Government; they might have guessed the effect it would have. True, they did their best to rectify the matter but in future they really must be more careful.</div><div><br /></div><div>It happened on the 8th February last and it was started by a statement from the North Vietnamese Consulate in Delhi that President Ho Chi Minh had asked India's help in putting out peace feelers over Vietnam.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Consulate quickly pointed out that the same request had been sent, presumably as a matter of routine, to several other governments, most of whom had dismissed it as the customary meaningless public relations stuff.</div><div><br /></div><div>But before anyone had realised this a minor wave of panic hit Wall Street, where some investors were appalled by the prospect that peace would actually break out in Vietnam.</div><div><br /></div><div>What would happen in such a situation to all that money invested in the aerospace and defence industries? When a war is hot and the killing fast, the sun shines on these investments. But the terrible prospect of peace brings dark and heavy clouds.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thus it was that when some idiot in Delhi got the wrong end of the stick, and when the information was passed on, Wall Street's war stocks took a tumble. It took the later explanation from the North Vietnamese to put the matter right</div><div><br /></div><div>Then Wall Street recovered. All the war investors there, who stay so courageously out of the firing line, made good their losses and that little corner of capitalism went merrily on. Of course in Vietnam the killing and the suffering continued, but what was that against the averting of a crisis on Wall Street?</div><div><br /></div><div>This is all reminiscent of the 1951 slump in business in the United States and England, which was caused by the cancellation of government contracts no longer needed after the end of the Korean War.</div><div><br /></div><div>It goes to show that not only does capitalism cause modern war but it also makes a business out of it—a business with its salesmen, its stocks and shares and its investors.</div><div><br /></div><div>And let us not forget that the man who does well out of war investments, the man who gets a nice profit from putting his money in bombs and bullets, in fear and destruction, is that thing so beloved of capitalism — a Successful, Patriotic Business Man.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Mr Heath makes a discovery</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Mr. Edward Heath, who fought his way up from the world-famous slums of Broadstairs through Oxford University to become (he hopes) the next Prime Minister of Great Britain, has recently made a staggering discovery.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, since he became Tory leader Mr. Heath's publicity boys have been making sure that we discovered one or two things about <i>him</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>He's a bachelor. Lives in a flat in Albany, which is not one of those places you get into because you have enough points in the council housing list.</div><div><br /></div><div>He plays the piano. And the organ. And he likes to conduct choirs dressed up (Mr. Heath, not the choir) in a big yellow sweater.</div><div><br /></div><div>All of this should prove to us that Mr. Heath is a Man Of The People. And in case there are any doubters on this score, the leader himself has recently been probing around the People; that is how he made his staggering discovery.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>There are far too many under privileged people in Britain</i>. (Mr. Heath’s words, not ours—he said them at Birmingham last month.) Not only that; a fearless searcher after Truth like Ted Heath has more to reveal. There are also, he said, places which are “. . . breeding grounds of exceptional misery, poverty and crime; bad housing, oversized classes and rootlessness."</div><div><br /></div><div>Now none of Mr. Heath’s public relations boys has ever issued a hand-out telling us that he suffers from a bad memory. But he seems to have forgotten that it was only two short years ago that he was an important member of a Conservative Government which was asking us to put them back into power because under them we “never had it so good."</div><div><br /></div><div>And if Mr. Heath has forgotten this, what hope is there that he will remember the promises he is making now, to “. . . put an end to poverty and hardship in this country once and for all . . ."? Or that especially moving bit about old age pensioners “. . . a bit of extra tea to entertain a friend . . .”?</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps the safest thing to assume is that the Tories do not expect this sort of drivel to be taken seriously; perhaps they think that in this time of pre-election fever anything goes. (A couple of days after his Birmingham speech, Mr. Heath was challenging the Government to let the electorate decide . . which party most has the welfare of the needy at heart”)</div><div><br /></div><div>But if the Conservatives do mean it to be taken seriously—and if that is how the electorate take it — then there is clearly no bottom to the depths of political cynicism, and a depressingly dense stratum of working class gullibility to be penetrated.</div></div></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-64142560597738226142024-03-15T08:50:00.001-04:002024-03-15T08:50:53.046-04:00Capitalism and health (1966)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl71CVHoWrroaaWo3InW8Gsz9KlNBJgRxVSee-Mt9L6FjseaLFp0RsgaDUc91Flx-egUcDIQv2MorwqNtvny6KkhkvDGYMXINXCozOW6FgCoWnCAcwCt1xoemCaE-oqBE7vSSouvOMZ4lO_c07eZpRM96pRWWDc14Bij01q9boLgr0cbHwI98g7QofHU5f/s320/March%201966%20Cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="232" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl71CVHoWrroaaWo3InW8Gsz9KlNBJgRxVSee-Mt9L6FjseaLFp0RsgaDUc91Flx-egUcDIQv2MorwqNtvny6KkhkvDGYMXINXCozOW6FgCoWnCAcwCt1xoemCaE-oqBE7vSSouvOMZ4lO_c07eZpRM96pRWWDc14Bij01q9boLgr0cbHwI98g7QofHU5f/s1600/March%201966%20Cover.jpg" width="232" /></a></div>From the March 1966 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>Twenty years ago the advocates of a National Health Service asserted that capitalism need not be detrimental to the health of working men and women. Speaking as Prime Minister in the spring of 1944, Winston Churchill stated that it was the policy of the Government to establish a National Health Service which would make accessible to all, <i>irrespective of social class or means</i>, adequate and modern medical care. With the introduction of the Health Service four years later the Minister of Health, Aneurin Bevan, also promised that it would be a classless service. Thus both Labour and Conservative Parties committed themselves to the same objective and they have now had the best part of two decades to. achieve this end. Have they succeeded?</div><div><br /></div><div>In Britain chronic bronchitis is a widespread and killing illness, to such a degree that it has become known as “the English disease." The Registrar General's statistics reveal that in 1963, in England and Wales alone, there were thirty thousand deaths from this cause. Bronchitis is largely due to atmospheric pollution, cigarette smoking and the unfavourable, dusty conditions associated with jobs such as foundry working and coal mining. Pick up any medical text-book and you can read passages similar to the following, taken from a standard work : “<i>If the individual's economic status permits</i> he should be advised to live in a warm, dust free area . . ." “If the occupation is a dusty one then the individual should be advised to change it <i>although in many cases this may not be a feasible proposition</i>.”</div><div><br /></div><div>If working men and women are complacent about the general standard of health, this can only be due to ignorance of the facts. The trends in death rates reveal that while some of the older traditional working class diseases—such as tuberculosis—are on the wane, others are becoming more common to take their place.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVT-m62cCW8lyVcf12EOk2qLvT3K5XRsz2Hi-cBURmZXMHwhkWsUD0bPFeFKRm6HD0eCgqopIDE3BfMYuoYRldYsopvpRbf6Ad4JKtRPeaZzeDxFLSN1P7dmBaA_HjyUbv1gu9Xtc3DjsiNyX5-APMUepJns2AMx3qgvgNc50LGQXrtfX09NdFNaast7vl/s846/%22John%20Crump%22%20SPGB%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="846" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVT-m62cCW8lyVcf12EOk2qLvT3K5XRsz2Hi-cBURmZXMHwhkWsUD0bPFeFKRm6HD0eCgqopIDE3BfMYuoYRldYsopvpRbf6Ad4JKtRPeaZzeDxFLSN1P7dmBaA_HjyUbv1gu9Xtc3DjsiNyX5-APMUepJns2AMx3qgvgNc50LGQXrtfX09NdFNaast7vl/w400-h200/%22John%20Crump%22%20SPGB%20copy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="text-align: justify;"><b>(Respiratory diseases, including bronchitis, were of lesser importance in 1964 than for the previous three years, this was probably due to the exceptionally mild winter. The long-term trend still shows an increase.)</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The causes of lung cancer and coronary artery disease are not known with any certainty. It has been noticed with the latter, however, that there is a very high incidence among men whose work provides considerable tension and anxiety, with little opportunity for exercise. How many millions of “white- collar" workers—chained to a desk for eight hours a day and then jammed into a commuting train for a further period—would meet this description?</div><div><br /></div><div>One of the main causes of chronic bronchitis is atmospheric pollution. This is a feature of towns and cities in every advanced capitalist country; 133 tons of industrial dirt fall on to the town of Duisburg (about half-a-million inhabitants) in the German Ruhr every day and the sulphur dioxide level in the air is far above that which is believed to be dangerous for humans (see report in the <i>Daily Mail</i> of 5th April, 1965). The same kind of muck falls on to Sheffield, Birmingham and London. It is a withering criticism of capitalism that the “cleaner-air" campaign, conducted in the Ruhr during 1964/65, was judged to be a success for the simple reason that it resulted in the first winter when the German industrial belt was not brought to a standstill because of smog. Any benefits to the health of the inhabitants were of secondary importance.</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps some of .the most frightening statistics are those concerned with mental illness, In barely 10 years the number of patients entering mental hospitals has virtually doubled.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgF5BkUhZ83upsb9UwK20776fVIayZBfzrei7dWa2yFcps3rO-8hj-h3S_QEqh2LvROI6zyDb6Ls5mSBvshPDK6ZJTTIaXWAvTjjpV1MynPXBEfZ4X4KEuaqr7CfrxIdaAz3DRmjdAGWNRAuVSYZ0Do8XfQTK9X21oJKLTeo4Ckj8CZf7PWiO6V1uuruNK/s848/SPGB%20+%20%22John%20Crump%22%202%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="452" data-original-width="848" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgF5BkUhZ83upsb9UwK20776fVIayZBfzrei7dWa2yFcps3rO-8hj-h3S_QEqh2LvROI6zyDb6Ls5mSBvshPDK6ZJTTIaXWAvTjjpV1MynPXBEfZ4X4KEuaqr7CfrxIdaAz3DRmjdAGWNRAuVSYZ0Do8XfQTK9X21oJKLTeo4Ckj8CZf7PWiO6V1uuruNK/w400-h214/SPGB%20+%20%22John%20Crump%22%202%20copy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div>In Britain today patients with severe mental disturbances (the psychoses), together with serious cases of neurosis, occupy almost as many beds in hospitals as those suffering from all other illnesses put together. In his book on social medicine, S. Leff, M.D., D.P.H., describes the situation in the United States: approximately four out of every ten patients there are said to consult doctors with complaints due at least in part to emotional disorders; some 600,000 mental patients are in hospitals and 150,000 are admitted every year; eight million persons are suffering from mental disorder and one out of twenty of the United States population at some time requires psychiatric care. One million of the twenty-four million children now in schools in the United States are likely to spend some portion of their lives in a mental hospital. There are between three and five million people suffering from amentia or dementia who are not in institutions and about six million are incapacitated because they are on the border line of mental disorders.</div><div><br /></div><div>In Great Britain no comprehensive field survey has yet been made into psychiatric illness, but less extensive studies have been conducted. One such study, which was designed to give a conservative estimate, showed that in a typical group practice in South London psychiatric illness could be observed in one year in 14 per cent of all patients who consulted their doctor. In addition a further five per cent of the registered patients showed distinct “abnormal" personality traits. Two large surveys in factories have revealed that from one-quarter to one-third of the total sickness absences from work are due to neurosis. Another study of 30,000 workers employed in thirteen light and medium engineering factories showed that one in ten suffered from disabling neurotic illness, and two in ten from a minor form of neurosis. Although there has been controversy over the validity of some of these figures, these “findings have been reinforced by a series of estimates which have been made of the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in the total populace." (<i>Modern Trends in Occupational Health</i>—K. S. F. Schilling, 1960.)</div><div><br /></div><div>We may be accused of taking every unpleasant feature of the modern world and using it unfairly to illustrate the social bankruptcy of capitalism. It might be said that we are not justified in concluding that it is the social environment which gives rise to mental disease. The Ewing Report on <i>The Nation’s Health</i> to the President of the United States argues our case for us:</div><div><div><blockquote>Man's mental as well as physical health is very much at the mercy of what goes on about him. The economic insecurity of unemployment and old age, the lack of opportunity for education and adequate health services, poor housing and lack of good sanitation, prejudice and discrimination, failure to share in the civil liberties guaranteed to all citizens, inflation, the threat of atomic war—these are very real every-day problems and they are the kind of social factors that can wear away personal defences and destroy mental health.</blockquote></div><div>It makes bitter reading to look back and see that in 1944 the workers in Britain were guaranteed “adequate and modern medical care.” The hospitals, for example, are in a sorry mess. The general situation is one of too few doctors struggling on with out-dated equipment and facilities. The Government’s official publications admit as much:<span style="white-space: pre;"> " . . . </span>under present conditions work properly belonging to consultant posts is being regularly discharged by senior registrars and members of more junior grades.” This is simply because the number of consultants “is still inadequate to the needs of the hospitals.” The reasons for this include “financial restrictions to which hospital authorities are subject” and “inadequacies in accommodation and facilities, especially operating theatres and laboratories.”</div><div><br /></div><div>And what about that section of the working class which runs the health service? Probably if one conducted a census, at least 90 per cent of doctors, nurses, dentists, etc., would deny that they were members of the working class. But whether they choose to face up to reality or not is largely immaterial; every working day of their lives they are confronted with the hard facts of their wage earning status. They, too, are forced to conduct a ceaseless struggle to maintain their salaries and working conditions. On top of this they find themselves faced with the problem common to all working men and women—such is the pressure on them, they must work to a standard far inferior to that which they are capable of. One dentist recently referred to the “sheer vocational frustration induced by the fact that practitioners are virtually denied the opportunity of practice at the level which their ability and enthusiasm could achieve.” What other working man, forced to prostitute his skills and talents, could not echo this?</div><div><br /></div><div>It is axiomatic in medicine that the doctor should concentrate on eradicating the disease itself and not waste valuable time and effort on palliative treatment for individual symptoms. The working class could do worse than apply this principle to capitalism—a system of society which brings each one of us little more than poverty, insecurity, frustration and ill-health.</div></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>John Crump</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-34135621543969376512024-03-15T08:50:00.000-04:002024-03-15T08:50:25.952-04:00Adulterating our food (1966)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQSu9J1TPrHSQHO9wD7nv8JhYNw3mNI35u9qRayr8ektirTV8Obej0GGKwfvHYw52XNOLIEIgPLn8RdQ5A177ox7tfOb7Ikeo8Mvc84wGbwiHWEBF-h9im-BDgU6LQ1HzHWRu7wbqs4KOjDZxPL34JDc5twSSuvrUkONZkREQTfJ7rNDa7Ljfp3XXculKR/s320/March%201966%20Cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="232" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQSu9J1TPrHSQHO9wD7nv8JhYNw3mNI35u9qRayr8ektirTV8Obej0GGKwfvHYw52XNOLIEIgPLn8RdQ5A177ox7tfOb7Ikeo8Mvc84wGbwiHWEBF-h9im-BDgU6LQ1HzHWRu7wbqs4KOjDZxPL34JDc5twSSuvrUkONZkREQTfJ7rNDa7Ljfp3XXculKR/s1600/March%201966%20Cover.jpg" width="232" /></a></div>From the March 1966 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i><blockquote>“If you must adulterate your milk, please use this clean water.” (Notice on a water tank in an Indian dairy, in the 1930's.)</blockquote></i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>Did you know that the first ever attempt, in the English speaking world anyway, to legislate against food adulteration originated in Britain in 1860? That year “An Act for Preventing the Adulteration of Articles of Food or Drink” was passed by Parliament, although by the time it reached the Statute Book it had itself suffered such adulteration that it was virtually inoperative. However, it paved the way for the other laws that followed fairly rapidly, and an interesting point about its original draft was that there was provision for regulation-making powers almost as wide in some respects as those which exist today. That should be a sobering thought for the enthusiastic reformist.</div><div><br /></div><div>Like so many comparatively modern problems, food adulteration became a real headache only with the advent of capitalism. It was the Industrial Revolution which pushed the peasants into the towns, no longer producing their own foodstuffs but having to rely on those produced and sold by others. There was a growing demand for cheap food in line with the wage worker's puny purchasing power, and it was little wonder that adulteration began to flourish. Indeed, it became a very profitable business and by the beginning of the 19th century some of the more far-seeing capitalists were getting rather alarmed at its possible effects on the labour force.</div><div><br /></div><div>It was not just that ale and milk were being watered down, but also that highly poisonous substances such as lead, mercury, tincture of capsicum and essence of cayenne, were being added to food. These and other abuses were publicised by <i>The Lancet Analytical Sanitary Commission</i>, and were investigated by a Parliamentary committee in 1855. Their confirming report is interesting for its assessment of the problem in commercial terms, something with which we are so familiar in 1966: —</div><div><blockquote>Not only is the public health thus being exposed to danger and pecuniary fraud being committed on the whole community, but public morality is tainted and the high commercial character of the country . . . lowered both at home and in the eyes of foreign countries. (Quoted by Dr. J. H. Hamence, in a paper to the Pure Food Centenary Conference, 1960.)</blockquote></div><div>Since those days we have come a long way. or have we? It is true, as Dr. Hamence also tells us, that by the turn of the century “the grosser forms of adulteration had largely disappeared and the lesser forms were being kept well under control” due mainly to the efforts of the public analysts. Equally true is it that today most food manufacture's have their own scientific staff and analytical chemists to help them keep within the mass of Government regulations. Yet the duties of the public analyst, although much changed when compared with his early predecessors, have expanded a great deal over the years. They now involve use of such methods of detection as chromatography and spectro-photometry. Why is this?</div><div><div><br /></div><div>Well, capitalism doesn’t stand still, of course. As we have said, it was responsible for the emergence of the adulteration problem, and it also causes it to continue, but in different guises and forms. (This, by the way, is not to mention the very real new danger of contamination from radio active fallout.)</div><div><br /></div><div>The analyst of the 1960’s has to be on his guard against a multitude of additives, colourings, anti-oxidants and pesticide residues (there were about 750 different pesticides on the market last year), to say nothing of the need to check manufacturers' claims on the nutritional value of their products. In this connection, the 1960 words of Dr. Hamence could easily have been written today:—</div><div><blockquote>. . . advertising is straining at the leash and heaven knows what we should be told about a foodstuff if there were no public analyst.</blockquote></div><div>All this is not surprising in the context of mid-20th century capitalism. For while the question of purity is one which may constantly concern a food manufacturer this is only part of the story. In the chaos that is capitalism, all sorts of interests compete, sometimes with the result that for each step taken forward, just a bit more than that one step is taken backward, Agriculture, for instance, has become “agribusiness” with the accent on intensive methods—hence the arrival of the broiler chicken, that “rather dull food for masses of humans, most of whom live mechanised and rather dull lives” (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elspeth_Huxley">Elspeth Huxley</a>—<i>Brave New Victuals</i>), And with it goes the problem of diseases—serious ones like leukaemia —to which the broiler seems particularly prone, and which some doctors fear may be passed on to consumers.</div><div><br /></div><div>Again, with an eye on the market and a quick turnover, cockerels are caponised and bullocks fattened by giving them synthetic oestrogens (female hormones), which are apt to hang around in the carcasses and are resistant even to cooking. Miss Huxley points out:—</div><div><blockquote>Oestrogens are potent substances, liable if carelessly handled to induce in human males squeaky voices, beardless chins and swelling breasts. In female domestic animals they can cause cystic ovaries, prolapse of the rectum and nymphomania, so they might not be good for the girls.</blockquote></div><div>The amounts in meat are residual only, but the experts cannot say for sure whether they might accumulate over a period and damage health (prolonged administration of oestrogens to rabbits and mice has caused them to have cancer). So in the meantime, the practice will continue, together with the profits.</div><div><br /></div><div>The <i>Sunday Times</i> colour magazine for October 17th, 1965, contained an interesting survey on current food production and tastes. It drew attention to the uniform "blandness” of taste at which the manufacturers aim .and blamed this trend at least in part on to that evil euphemism of the sixties, ‘market research”. This, thought Priscilla Chapman, was what had persuaded food firms to produce, and consumers to ask for. the dull flavourless substances that our poorer grandparents would have rejected out of hand. But to blame market research is to beg the question. Why market research? Why markets? And there is another side to it. intimately bound up with the production of things for the market goes the modern rush and tear which have pushed working class tastes further down the scale. A prime Scots sirloin is expensive and <i>takes a long time to cook</i>, unlike the pre tenderised steak, cut from low-grade mass-produced barley beef, and packed ready for (he oven. And as time is becoming daily a more important consideration, barley beef steak is ousting the sirloin.</div><div><br /></div><div>But the <i>Sunday Times</i> survey was at least useful in reminding us of the truly enormous amounts of synthetic colours, flavourisers, stabilisers, emulsifiers and preservatives we consume with our foods, many of them doubtful from a health point of view, on the experts own evidence. We are reminded, too, of the pesticide danger to which Rachel Carson so vividly drew attention in <i>Silent Spring</i>. Following her book, the late President Kennedy appointed a committee to investigate the question in detail. Said the committee, the average American has about 12 parts per million of D.D.T. in his tissues, the figure among farm workers being 17 p.p.m., and 648 p.p.m. among workers at pesticide factories. The committee admitted the possibility of toxicity. They could hardly do otherwise in face of the wholesale destruction of wildlife and fish in the Mississippi Basin from the effects of the same chemical.</div><div><br /></div><div>No one seems to know just how harmful the effects of ibis and other pesticides are, although according to Anthony Tucker (<i>Guardian</i> 1.2.66) they are real enough, “in spite of an upsurge of defensive comment from the pesticide industry itself." Uneasiness continues to grow over the whole question, meantime: in America, Germany and other European countries, some of the substances have been banned, but are still permitted in Britain—and vice versa. But the basis of the problem, remains the same everywhere—production for profit. As Elspeth Huxley again puts it:—</div><div><blockquote>The chemical industry is highly competitive, and pressure very strong to move anything new on to the market before the rival backroom boys across the way get on to it. This pressure has forced new products into use before they should have been. (<i>Brave New Victuals</i>. PP. 115-116)</blockquote></div><div>So this is the background against which the public analyst and his equivalent abroad have to work, it is little wonder that he finds it hard going. And contrary to popular belief, the mass production of today is not geared to meet the needs of an increasing population, but to meet the needs of a market. How else can we explain the crisis of over-production which hit the broiler industry, for example, soon after it started in this country, so that many suppliers were driven out of business? Today, less than 1,000 growers produce 90 per cent of all broilers marketed, and the number of chick breeders has fallen in 10 years from 3,000 to 12.</div><div><br /></div><div>It cannot be denied, of course, that there is a problem of pest control in food production. Nevertheless, many of the chemicals turned out are quite unnecessary and overlap the effects of others. The much safer method of breeding animal and plant strains resistant to the pests concerned, is promising, but developments are necessarily slow and do not hold out the hope of quick profitability. But when all is said and done, it is only in a crazy set-up of private property that such a situation is tolerated. In a sane world, it would be unthinkable that any substance should be used which involved even the smallest element of risk to human health and welfare. And the production of any chemical would depend solely on whether, <i>after the most exhaustive testing</i>. it could be said to be of real benefit to human beings What other motive could there possibly be?</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Eddie Critchfield</b></div></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-2559497752487615722024-03-15T08:49:00.003-04:002024-03-15T08:50:12.440-04:00Special issue of the Western Socialist (1966)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b>From the March 1966 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>A special number of the <i>Western Socialist</i> will be published in August. The issue will be partly devoted to the 50th Anniversary of the World Socialist Party of the USA and the period 1915-1921. Information is urgently needed from members and sympathisers on the following: events leading to the organisation of the Party in, Detroit in 1916; information on British and Canadian members in the USA during the 1914-18 War; associations with the Socialist Party of America and information on the Duffield Hall Classes. On the organisation of the Party information is required on events causing the changing of the Party name; copies of the First Manifesto and the War Manifesto and the Jack London letter (which will be returned if offered on loan).</div><div><br /></div><div>On the activities of the WSP of US details are required of the “Tea Drinkers"; Adelaide Street; halls hired for meetings; recollections of meetings, classes, debates, etc.; <i>Western Clarion</i> connection; Socialist Party of North America (Toronto); the Socialist Educational Classes in New York; the activities of such members as Baritz and Kohn and personal anecdotes, correspondence, records, etc</div><div><br /></div><div>Material should be either sent direct to Editorial Committee, World Socialist Party of the USA, 11 Faneuil Hall Square, Boston 9, Mass, USA, or to the General Secretary SPGB, 52 Clapham High Street, SW4.</div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-42286856812391880882024-03-15T08:49:00.001-04:002024-03-15T08:49:22.824-04:00The Passing Show: Is He Really So Greene? (1966)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZLwWZMlLrSLbtUpHbE_vi0gteULekC3pnL5JSlRd1mBIZoycVL-i0IcrY5CgzE8D-O0umrMWysPVtcvXW4hBK7g496RRbgE7eP_JGyCx-dYsvHAcnsPGjXpi7rzXznMK0gtuShXJT4RajWFMJb-AjUNwvBf_dICYPzA5QZflKMlHwBcwxIdS7fdZYlkuj/s1600/March%201966%20SS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1163" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZLwWZMlLrSLbtUpHbE_vi0gteULekC3pnL5JSlRd1mBIZoycVL-i0IcrY5CgzE8D-O0umrMWysPVtcvXW4hBK7g496RRbgE7eP_JGyCx-dYsvHAcnsPGjXpi7rzXznMK0gtuShXJT4RajWFMJb-AjUNwvBf_dICYPzA5QZflKMlHwBcwxIdS7fdZYlkuj/s320/March%201966%20SS.jpg" width="233" /></a></div>The Passing Show Column from the March 1966 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><b><span style="color: red;">Is He Really So Greene?</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>At the time of writing rail union secretary <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Greene,_Baron_Greene_of_Harrow_Weald">S. F. Greene</a> has a lot on his mind. Even though the rail strike was called off at the last moment, there is still plenty for Mr. Greene and his lads to do round the negotiating table.</div><div><br /></div><div>Which perhaps explains the very terse letter one of our members received from him at the beginning of February. You may know that it is the practice for the Socialist Party to send speakers to put our case to other organisations where possible, particularly trade unions. No strings attached, incidentally, except perhaps payment of the speaker’s fares. So one of our branch organisers wrote to the N.U.R. headquarters asking for a list of their branch addresses, intending to write to some of them direct.</div><div><br /></div><div>Nothing very difficult about that, you might think? Well, you’d be wrong. “Dear Sir,” came back Mr. Greene’s reply of February 3rd. “1 have received your letter ... but regret 1 am unable to supply you with the information you require.” That was all, leaving us to draw whatever conclusions we liked. For example, was it that he just did not have the information? Is it possible that the N.U.R. is a union whose general secretary doesn’t know where its branches are? How on earth did he let them know whether or not to strike?</div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe Mr. Greene is just not allowed by his executive to tell us what we asked, which seems pretty daft when you think that any railway porter could probably tell you the address of his union branch without a second thought. No, we can only think that perhaps he doesn't want us to speak to his branches, and that maybe the word has got around that the Labour Party doesn't like us very much (it’s mutual, by the way). After all, the N.U.R. is affiliated to that body. Let us then suggest a rewrite of Mr. Greene’s reply for hint: -</div><div><blockquote>I have received your letter, and have the information you require, hut if you thing l'm sending it to you you're jolly well mistaken. I'm not having any incitement to disaffection—we've supported the Labour Party for more years than I care to remember (and a lot of them I don't care to remember), and we’re going on doing it, never mind their anti-working class actions and the stand-up fight we’re having with them over pay and conditions.</blockquote></div><div>Which, when you think of it, seems to typify the sort of logic behind the thinking of most Labour supporters.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">The ''Mirror" Again</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>And while we're talking about railwaymen, I suppose it was inevitable that they would get precious little support from the rubbish mongers of the capitalist press in general, and that the <i>Daily Mirror</i> would wade into them with two-inch headlines. ‘‘Chaos — Or Commonsense?” yelled the front page on February 10th, while the centre pages of the same issue carried on the attack with an article by that very rich friend of the workers, Labour M.P. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wyatt">Woodrow Wyatt</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>The <i>Mirror</i> has always prided itself on its plain speaking and down-to-earth attitude, but this does not make it really a very original newspaper. It says mainly what the others are saying but in a brasher and coarser manner, and, of course, it specialises in large headlines and meagre reading content. In the past it has made a practice of picking out certain strikes and condemning them because they were small and petty. Now the N.U.R. gets it in the neck for precisely the opposite reason.</div><div><br /></div><div>Because of the <i>Mirror’s</i> deliberately cultivated COR-BLIMBYness, many people think it has working class interests at heart, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is, as ever, firmly on the side of British capitalism, even though it may niggle some capitalist politicians and at times land itself with a libel action. It deals always with superficialities, never scratching under the surface of any social problem. This is not surprising—all newspapers distort facts and pander to ignorance and prejudice to a greater or lesser extent. But the <i>Mirror</i> must truly be the envy of Fleet Street in having developed the technique to the <i>nth</i> degree and built a circulation of many millions on a veritable mountain of bewilderment and bigotry. Therein perhaps lies its only claim to originality. It ran true to form over the railmen's strike.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">How Much Are You Worth?</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>"What sort of—um—salary were you thinking of, Mister—um—?" I was asked by the lean, sharp featured, fussy little personnel man. I was a fresh-faced school leaver, determined to start to start as I meant to go on, and really get somewhere in the world. I swallowed hard.</div><div><br /></div><div>‘Two pounds a week?” I suggested in a squeaky voice which belied my attempts to sound bold and confident. He wrote it on his pad, ringing the figure round slowly and heavily with his pencil, simultaneously shaking his head and drawing in a long slow breath through rounded lips. “Frankly, you’ve gone down in my estimation,” he confided. “I was hoping that you would be different from the usual run of money-grabbing youngsters we have coming to us for jobs. We can offer you (pause for effect) twenty-five shillings a week (this slowly and deliberately, savouring every word). You must be prepared to work hard, plenty of opportunities here for advancement . . . show what you’re worth . . . etc., etc.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Obviously his idea of “getting on” was a bit different from mine. I bid him a polite goodday and got a job elsewhere —at two pounds a week. When I look back on that first encounter (there have been a few since then) I’m inclined to wonder if the mincing little man is still with his firm, so diligently guarding his boss’s interests. Certainly he was only putting a line which is as old as the hills and which is trotted out just as much today as ever it was. Many workers do believe it, however, and spend their lives trying to show their boss what they are worth; only the boss’s assessment invariably falls short of theirs. Which is a big snag and shows that the strength of your bargaining position is what matters, not the strength of your moral arguments.</div><div><br /></div><div>But now look at the other side of the coin. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Davis_(journalist)">William Davis</a>, <i>Guardian</i> financial editor and a man prone to moralising lectures in his column, on how much harder we must all work, has been asking “How much is a company chairman worth?” On February 5th he gave a table showing the average payment to directors of various big firms, the figures ranging from £9,800 to £38,500 a year. But the thing to notice was the absence of any moralising sentiment in answering his own question, thus:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>Business men should he made to feel proud of high salaries. The ambition of lower-paid people should be to equal them, not to show jealousy. </div></blockquote><blockquote><div>I never really understood why there was so much fuss about the £24,000 a year paid to Dr. Beeching ... on simple business grounds alone, it was a good price.</div></blockquote><div></div><div>To which every capitalist politician will say Amen. I don't think they will be saying quite the same thing, though, in the next few weeks when some of those "lower-paid people." like bus and railway workers, push for higher wages. That's not quite the sort of equalising ambition Mr. Davis has in mind.</div><div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Up, Up, Up It Goes</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>I have before me some cuttings taken at random from newspapers over about one week in January. They are all about the same problem—crime in its various forms, crime major or petty, but crime nevertheless Over two thousand London telephone boxes wrecked by vandals, gang attacks on transport lorries, drug peddling, robbery with violence. The list is as long as your arm. and very depressing.</div><div><br /></div><div>“We are determined to stamp this out,” says a magistrate to a phone box wrecker. “You may expect long prison sentences," says the Lord Chief Justice Lord Parker, in a blanket warning to dope peddlers. How many times have we heard this sort of remark? And still the crime situation worsens. Home Secretaries have come and gone, but crime, it seems, goes on for ever. Mr. Roy Jenkins is the latest to try his hand. “I intend to mount a sustained and effective attack on crime," he is reported as saying at Hull on January 17th.</div><div><br /></div><div>He proposes to "give the police every support, best equipment." etc, which may make them more efficient at crime detection, but will never solve the problem itself. And what of the criminals themselves? They will be modernising their methods, just like the police, using the means which current science puts at their disposal, so that in a few years time yet another Home Secretary will be saying he is going to wipe out crime.</div><div><br /></div><div>Why is it so persistent, and defiant of efforts to end or even check it? Basically it is a fight over property of some kind. Even the apparent senseless hooliganism of ripped train seats has behind it a blind resentment towards property owned by someone else. And since no Home Secretary ever aims to remove private property society, crime stays stubbornly with us.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Gaspers</span></b></div><div><blockquote>“Before independence we ensured that our army, civil service and judiciary were insulated from politics." (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nnamdi_Azikiwe">President Azikiwe</a> of Nigeria. 16.1.66—just after seizure of power by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Aguiyi-Ironsi">Major-General Ironsi</a>.)</blockquote></div></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Eddie Critchfield</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-28803678788733663602024-03-15T08:49:00.000-04:002024-03-15T08:49:03.581-04:0050 Years Ago: The State and Socialism (1966)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXb2l-P9Uc9bVkdGhbyypDqM6W_GhoR9eMbmeuHQH2evIrljfLKh-myeste89Mt_4nbfzgsl0qNVutANFMPxUR9QQ6EM2FRHGWa6jDLoNTTMzp6hgEW9mP2tBIpRwuSeUvQNXRbUnirhpD9gsu4Bb8aZr75rgYmbEeNSTxzLh4NupNWLUTr1o7qyYryRJM/s200/50%20Years%20Ago%20+%20logo%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="96" data-original-width="200" height="96" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXb2l-P9Uc9bVkdGhbyypDqM6W_GhoR9eMbmeuHQH2evIrljfLKh-myeste89Mt_4nbfzgsl0qNVutANFMPxUR9QQ6EM2FRHGWa6jDLoNTTMzp6hgEW9mP2tBIpRwuSeUvQNXRbUnirhpD9gsu4Bb8aZr75rgYmbEeNSTxzLh4NupNWLUTr1o7qyYryRJM/s1600/50%20Years%20Ago%20+%20logo%20copy.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>The 50 Years Ago column from the March 1966 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>It is an underlying principle of State activity that human life and liberty are minor considerations compared with the rights and safety of property. This is no new discovery. Today the fact is so glaring that it seems idle to dwell upon it. Yet it is no mere wartime principle; it arises from the very nature of the capitalist State. That State mainly exists in order to provide the force to guarantee the rights and emoluments of property to the possessors. The origin of the State was in the necessities of the institution of property. Today its predominate function is that of the armed forces of repression. In essence it has always been an armed policeman. The State and its chief function is necessitated by the antagonism of interests, the division of the people into oppressors and oppressed, propertied and propertyless, brought about by the institution of private property. It cannot live longer than the system that is based on properly. With the reabsorbtion of property into social ownership the repressive State will disappear. As a State it will die out. In its stead will arise the administration of things in common for the common weal. These are truisms to every Socialist, but how completely are most workers deluded into believing that the State exists to protect their lives, liberties and happiness. Yet the lessons have been both numerous and conclusive. Despite the veil of hypocrisy that has been thrown over the facts, they are, and always have, been plainly visible to all who have eyes to see.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>[From the <i>Socialist Standard</i>, March 1916.]</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-18106907093982340862024-03-15T08:48:00.000-04:002024-03-15T08:48:38.743-04:00Bloomsbury Branch lectures (1966)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Party News from the March 1966 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>These held at 2 Soho Square. W.1, on Sundays at 8 p.m., have been running since mid-October and will continue until Sunday, March 27th. They are well attended, but not as many attend as could be accommodated. The average attendance had been 50 until Sunday, February 13th, when the room was full with an audience of 100, and we wish to see this figure maintained. The room is a very pleasant one with comfortable seating. One hour is allowed for questions and discussion. As with all Party lectures and meetings admission is free and to all readers, especially those living in London we invite you to attend.</div><div><br /></div><div>The address is two minutes from Tottenham Court Road Tube Station, Soho Square, being the first turning on the left going from the tube station in the direction of Oxford Circus. (See directory in this issue for particulars of lectures.)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Blogger's Note:</b></div><div>I know what you're thinking: what was the meeting on the 13th February which doubled the usual attendance? It was Ron Cook speaking on the subject of Freud and Marxism. </div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-61980719892713337462024-03-15T08:46:00.004-04:002024-03-15T08:48:12.792-04:00SPGB Meetings (1966)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Party News from the March 1966 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDGZqHLYAJA1sb74HQ6ym_VQOh46QQmuslDDRS7svju893h1obMs7FBHU_o0g6Sudg1bIuBRzyprMgN9h5IqOnRGPzu3EsqasPEteuqbP5yLA2H-XKx7pKPK4-h9y5u7CaFM9EBY0kgnmKSGo1P9Jx0RpU1N7Ms8ZbES0wvwJk3F9j0ZTAFSizYwQGKW2_/s1264/%22March%201966%22%20%22SPGB%20Meetings%22%20copy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1264" data-original-width="592" height="1138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDGZqHLYAJA1sb74HQ6ym_VQOh46QQmuslDDRS7svju893h1obMs7FBHU_o0g6Sudg1bIuBRzyprMgN9h5IqOnRGPzu3EsqasPEteuqbP5yLA2H-XKx7pKPK4-h9y5u7CaFM9EBY0kgnmKSGo1P9Jx0RpU1N7Ms8ZbES0wvwJk3F9j0ZTAFSizYwQGKW2_/w533-h1138/%22March%201966%22%20%22SPGB%20Meetings%22%20copy.jpg" width="533" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmWoPoi0PPYxbq0LD9H5ovWqo5jjmBgiGSnzIuwXgFoHIBaOlrn-2_rjpVpmJlfyqd54Luq_TczTGq8t40il6bZG2NtRoIuSjsPB9VSkhLxNjFo0sg9HQtRmHaQqMR7hmxFKR9jEw01rF_DVd_8P1kgN44DyJWMmFHVbFt3iXcqTJmnZj4ykAZVVui4mOY/s572/SPGB%20Day%20School%20+%20March%201966%20copy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="486" data-original-width="572" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmWoPoi0PPYxbq0LD9H5ovWqo5jjmBgiGSnzIuwXgFoHIBaOlrn-2_rjpVpmJlfyqd54Luq_TczTGq8t40il6bZG2NtRoIuSjsPB9VSkhLxNjFo0sg9HQtRmHaQqMR7hmxFKR9jEw01rF_DVd_8P1kgN44DyJWMmFHVbFt3iXcqTJmnZj4ykAZVVui4mOY/s320/SPGB%20Day%20School%20+%20March%201966%20copy.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-45646110823006632002024-03-12T10:22:00.002-04:002024-03-12T10:40:11.993-04:00New Blog Page: Material World<div style="text-align: justify;"><div>Following on from the recent <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2024/03/new-blog-page-pathfinders.html">post</a> detailing the addition of the <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/p/pathfinders-column.html">Pathfinder column page</a> to the blog, here's a similar type post giving details of the <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/p/material-world-column.html">Material World column page</a> which has also been added to the blog homepage.</div><div><br /></div><div>As mentioned previously, with so much material now on the blog, it now makes sense to bring together the articles and reviews into themed pages which can properly aid the reader. Current <i>Socialist Standard</i> columns are first up to be featured but in the future I'll also be creating pages for writers - past and present - and old columns.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Material World column first appeared in the pages of the <i>Socialist Standard</i> in January 2008 and, in many regards, can be a considered a successor to the old World View column which appeared in the<i> Standard</i> in the 1990s and the early 2000s. Arguably the crucial difference between the two is that the World View column focused more on nations states and their intra-capitalist rivalry but what is common to both columns is that they set out to cover the world outside the borders of the UK from a uniquely socialist standpoint and, unlike the Pathfinders and Cooking the Books columns, both have always had a wide array of writers.</div><div><br /></div><div>As we are fast approaching 200 Material World columns in the <i>Standard</i>, here is a rundown of the 20 most popular columns as featured on the blog as an introduction for the first time reader:</div><div><br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>20. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-bottom-line-on-climate-change.html">The Bottom Line on Climate Change</a> by Janet Surman (December 2011)</b></div><div><b>19. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2013/09/material-world-mexico-disappeared.html">Mexico – The Disappeared</a> by Peter E. Newell (September 2013)</b></div><div><b>18. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2013/09/material-world-mexican-drug-wars.html">Mexican Drug Wars</a> by Peter E. Newell (April 2013)</b></div><div><b>17. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/06/south-sudan-another-failed-state-2017.html">South Sudan – Another Failed State</a> by Alan Johnstone (June 2017)</b></div><div><b>16. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2013/12/antarctica-end-of-last-wilderness.html">Antarctica - End of the Last Wilderness?</a> by Stephen Shenfield (December 2013)</b></div><div><b>15. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/02/socialism-seeks-well-being-for-all-2016.html">Socialism Seeks Well-being For All</a> by Alan Johnstone (February 2016)</b></div><div><b>14. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/06/indigenous-suicides.html">Indigenous Suicides</a> by Alan Johnstone (June 2015)</b></div><div><b>13. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/08/co-operatives-no-way-to-socialism-2018.html">Co-operatives no way to socialism</a> by Alan Johnstone (August 2018)</b></div><div><b>12. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/11/capitalising-on-disease.html">Capitalising on Disease</a> by Alan Johnstone (November 2014)</b></div><div><b>11. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/03/migration-internal-and-external-2017.html">Migration - Internal and External</a> by Alan Johnstone (March 2017)</b></div><div><b>10. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/11/workers-of-world-in-it-together-2011.html">Workers of the World – in it together</a> by Janet Surman (March 2011)</b></div><div><b>9. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-porn-business.html">The Porn Business</a> by Stephen Shenfield (February 2012)</b></div><div><b>8. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/04/feeding-world-2017.html">Feeding the World</a> by Alan Johnstone (April 2017)</b></div><div><b>7. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/01/there-is-only-one-humanity-2017.html">There is Only One Humanity</a> by Alan Johnstone (January 2017)</b></div><div><b>6. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/01/its-not-overpopulation-its-system-2017.html">It’s Not Overpopulation, it’s the System</a> by Alan Johnstone (September 2017)</b></div><div><b>5. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/12/money-waste-of-resources.html">Money – a waste of resources</a> by Stephen Shenfield (July 2011)</b></div><div><b>4. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2020/09/material-world-vaccine-development.html">Vaccine development: another market failure</a> by Alan Johnstone (September 2020)</b></div><div><b>3. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2009/06/mystery-of-pig-bird-human-flu-virus.html">Mystery of the Pig/ Bird / Human Flu Virus</a> by Stephen Shenfield (June 2009)</b></div><div><b>2. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/01/all-migrants-are-workers-2017.html">All Migrants are Workers</a> by Alan Johnstone (May 2017)</b></div><div><b>1. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/04/body-parts.html">Body Parts</a> by Alan Johnstone (April 2015)</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-88308565872912473232024-03-11T14:16:00.000-04:002024-03-11T14:16:09.785-04:00Are You Satisfied with Your Pay? (1956)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT84DbylzCm0CSLhSw0ZU1IRYhhjL_jwKhl9qGuvi4hEmkXckgeN5iUXzByGEBIvgkEthlZ8NFgUlyrGf7T-HJJotYCAgy15fS25z3loCKl74C2Gp9aj8pW9aMc-SdT0Pye-1yKeaEHzrSvEjbIP08Tm13Kn8VBUZ8UqufoEyQTwVGnAuaGR5K2yGnQlwU/s320/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="204" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT84DbylzCm0CSLhSw0ZU1IRYhhjL_jwKhl9qGuvi4hEmkXckgeN5iUXzByGEBIvgkEthlZ8NFgUlyrGf7T-HJJotYCAgy15fS25z3loCKl74C2Gp9aj8pW9aMc-SdT0Pye-1yKeaEHzrSvEjbIP08Tm13Kn8VBUZ8UqufoEyQTwVGnAuaGR5K2yGnQlwU/s1600/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" width="204" /></a></div>From the March 1956 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>Ask any body of workers if they think they are getting enough pay, the pay they think they are worth, and it is safe to say that nine out of every ten would answer No! They nearly all think they ought to get more, and would get more if things were run properly. They nearly all have a vague feeling that things aren’t run properly. They are annoyed that nobody—this includes the trade unions, the employers, the political parties and the Government—does anything about it and they all have some notion about what ought to be done. Some point to the impossibility of keeping themselves and their families “decently” in face of the cost of living—in their view it ought to be the duty of the employers or the Government to see that everybody has enough to maintain this “decent” standard of living.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some think that things would be all right if wages were raised and their employers' profits lowered. But if they happen to work in a firm or an industry where sales are falling and profits are small or non-existent they look to the Government to give subsidies or do something to improve the sales of the article they produce. Lots of workers blame or envy other workers. The labourers envy the craftsmen, while the craftsmen and foremen complain that they do not receive wages sufficiently above the labourer’s rate to compensate for their skill and responsibility. Many teachers have a special resentment because, as they allege, they receive no more than do dustmen. University graduates think that a proper wages policy would recognise more the importance of having a degree, and scientific workers think that the scales are unjustly weighted in favour of administrative workers. Feminists clamour for the male “rate for the job” and provoke some of their male colleagues into demanding “justice” for the married man with dependents. The queue of the disgruntled stretches indefinitely and encircles the globe.</div><div><br /></div><div>They are all there, the bank clerks and postal clerks, the parsons, the lawyers, the doctors, the dentists and nurses. The shopkeepers, too, have their grievances against the manufacturers and are looking with envy now at the furore created in France by the shopkeepers' dingy saint <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Poujade">M. Poujade</a>. Then there are the pensioners, the police the soldiers, the prison warders—and the Red Dean’s revolting choristers at Canterbury. At the end of the line are the non-workers the small unhappy band of surtax payers and millionaires who swear that high taxation compels them, if they are to live the lives of conspicuous wastefulness fitting to their station, to overspend their incomes and eat up their capital; a practice as loathsome to a Capitalist as is cannibalism to a missionary.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>And for every group of complainants there is an aspiring trade union official, politician, or economist with a glib solution. The solutions are too numerous to list here. They are seemingly as varied as the occupational groups from which they spring but they all have one thing in common. They all assume that there is, or could be, in the world of Capitalism a defensible social principle by which wages could be fixed at a “proper” level. They all ignore the facts of Capitalist life. As practical solutions they are all so much trash.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>The Law of the Jungle</b></div><div>Capitalism knows no social principle of distribution according to need, or responsibility, or skill, or training, or risk, or so-called “value of work,” or “usefulness to the community.” If Capitalism has anything that' approaches a principle it is that income shall be in inverse proportion to work. If you own capital in sufficient amount you never need work at all, and the more you avoid work in order to enjoy luxurious living the greater the esteem and attention you will have bestowed upon you.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Socialist knows why this is and how the system works. Society’s means of living are owned by the propertied class, the Capitalists who are in business to provide themselves with their kind of income, profits. They employ the working class in order to make profit out of them, a proceeding the working-class are forced to accept because they are propertyless. The Capitalist pays as little as he can for the kind of worker he needs. All the worker can do is to bargain and struggle to get as much out of the employer as circumstances permit and what circumstances permit depends on whether the Capitalist needs the kind of skill the worker has to offer. If the employer needs a certain kind of skill and if the number of workers having that skill is limited the employer will1 have to pay accordingly for it, he will have to pay more to the skilled than to the unskilled worker. But if owing to the decline of a given trade, or the invention of a machine, which replaces craftsmanship, skilled operatives are not in demand their wages will fall.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the depression of the nineteen thirties apprenticed engineering craftsmen, skilled coal miners, university graduates, and agricultural labourers, were a drag on the market. Capitalism had no need for all there were of them and their wages fell. During the war Capitalism had need of coal and food, of engineering and chemical products, and all these groups had their chance to push up wages beyond the rise of the cost of living. “Merit” and “human needs” and “usefulness to the community” and all the other fine-sounding phrases, have nothing to do with it. What counts is whether the worker is useful to the Capitalist, and the only usefulness the Capitalist knows is usefulness in making profit. The only argument he has to listen to is the fact of inability to get sufficient of the workers he needs, and the amount of strike pressure trade union organisation can bring to bear to prevent him getting enough workers at the wage he offers.</div><div><br /></div><div>Is it crude, callous and inhuman? Of course it is. It is the law of the jungle, the only law Capitalism knows.</div><div><br /></div><div>And has Socialism any alternative to offer? Indeed it has, but by Socialism we mean the Socialism of Socialists, not the spurious State Capitalist nostrums offered by the Attlees and Bevans and the clique who run Capitalism in Russia.</div><div><br /></div><div>All over the world the cut throat Capitalist wages system operates and only Socialists have as their aim the replacement of Capitalism by a Socialist system of society in which there will be no wages system, no propertied class and working class, the one living on income from property and the other on wages. Under Socialism people will work cooperatively to produce what all need and all will freely take what they need out of the products and services cooperative effort achieves.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course the pseudo-Socialists named above all pay lip-service to the ideal of abolishing Capitalism and the wages system but whether or not they understand what they are talking about they show by their actions and programmes that they do not intend to seek that solution. They all in their time bleat about the need for bold, far-reaching action but all with one accord recoil from the Socialist objective they profess to desire.</div><div><br /></div><div>For the working class of the world the choice is simple, either to take the organised political action necessary to introduce Socialism or to continue with Capitalism. The one thing that cannot be had is to impose on the Capitalist jungle some socially acceptable and satisfying wages policy.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Edgar Hardcastle</b></div></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-54601592868011337122024-03-11T14:15:00.002-04:002024-03-11T14:15:54.016-04:0050 Years Ago: The Ethics of Revolution (1956)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVSR1zO_NeQJ7OAk9jR2JSOYuM0KXerZ1Mlyvl9f9Sow-GVuV1ucz0AUGwqduy2Jrr1OlHPudo-DqQp2thH6GOb2GHpK-3Kdji9qOSM5SN94ugNFEoRLWwuQV1ULuofdB6D8FeoyaCqcFgPWEtemLKflgz8UhyphenhyphenS94ehhCIj4VzieHswsSCpa7qymwpEdlw/s200/50%20Years%20Ago%20+%20logo%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="96" data-original-width="200" height="96" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVSR1zO_NeQJ7OAk9jR2JSOYuM0KXerZ1Mlyvl9f9Sow-GVuV1ucz0AUGwqduy2Jrr1OlHPudo-DqQp2thH6GOb2GHpK-3Kdji9qOSM5SN94ugNFEoRLWwuQV1ULuofdB6D8FeoyaCqcFgPWEtemLKflgz8UhyphenhyphenS94ehhCIj4VzieHswsSCpa7qymwpEdlw/s1600/50%20Years%20Ago%20+%20logo%20copy.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>The 50 Years Ago column from the March 1956 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>Some good people in the Labour movement . . . are keenly endeavouring to get the workers to study ethics. They urge that the world would be much better and happier if only people were more moral and altruistic, and they further argue that if the working class, the despised and rejected of men, would display a higher morality, the Capitalist class would be converted to the Labour movement. The Socialist has one of his most insidious foes in the ethical culturist. Their position is a denial of the materialist basis of Socialism, because it is simply an appeal to the individual, as though the majority of individuals could elevate themselves above their environment. If the teaching of ethics were all that is required to bring social salvation, how comes it that after 2,000 years of the teaching of the ethics of Christianity for example, the hewers of wood and drawers of water are worse off, than they have been for ages? Buddha, Confucius and others taught the Golden Rule long before Christ, yet the world is little the better.</div><div><br /></div><div>The teaching of love and brotherhood, in a system that exists owing to the robbery of one class by another, is immoral. The moral course is that followed by the Socialist, who points out why this robbery takes place, explains the method by which it is done, and shows how it may be ended.</div><div><br /></div><div>Standing firmly all the time on his material philosophy, the Socialist keeps clear of the illogical position taken up by the ethicist and the alleged Labour leader. Realising that with a society whose material foundation is conducive to a better relationship between man and man, a higher morality must ensue because of this advance in civilisation, he endeavours to teach his fellow members of the working class the opposition of the Capitalist class and their system to their interests, and the immorality of their position, and he organises them for the overthrow of Capitalism and the establishment of the higher system—Socialism. The revolutionist is the most moral because he points out the causes of today's evils, and organises to uproot them, while the Utopian ethicist leads the workers, consciously or unconsciously, in a manner calculated to breed despair, since they do not show the way to social emancipation, but on the contrary, blind them to the root causes of their misery. Revolution alone is moral, because it is consistent with the facts of life. The revolutionist is the true ethical teacher, because he endeavours to establish a form of society in which man’s relationship with his fellows would necessitate a higher ethic than that of today.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>[From the “<i>Socialist Standard</i>", <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-ethics-of-revolution-1906.html">March, 1906</a>]</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-30986310902501337842024-03-11T14:15:00.001-04:002024-03-11T14:15:41.217-04:00The Passing Show: Declaration of Washington (1956)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyuKdPqXvnYzHIcVhyphenhyphenaqGLrclmIp2AShzSDWmHz2hMDUjLiRB4g780fZEouhvYNTcVDEEVOJnuPm3OFM9eO_P_KyXxRMDWgMxK2W46-tv4jwy7oymDbOOlXGqoHVt6bWJqcdGzNa_pHRdH-HBwZ_i1bqJS0_5LI9OGNWg0D-PbvBOU2xG5aQqhLC8X9Fmy/s320/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="204" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyuKdPqXvnYzHIcVhyphenhyphenaqGLrclmIp2AShzSDWmHz2hMDUjLiRB4g780fZEouhvYNTcVDEEVOJnuPm3OFM9eO_P_KyXxRMDWgMxK2W46-tv4jwy7oymDbOOlXGqoHVt6bWJqcdGzNa_pHRdH-HBwZ_i1bqJS0_5LI9OGNWg0D-PbvBOU2xG5aQqhLC8X9Fmy/s1600/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" width="204" /></a></div>The Passing Show Column from the March 1956 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><b><span style="color: red;">Declaration of Washington</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-declaration-washington-joint-declaration-the-president-and-the-prime-minister-the">declaration issued jointly</a> by President Eisenhower and Sir Anthony Eden after their recent talks in Washington must long stand as an object-lesson in the art of inserting the maximum amount of inaccuracy in the minimum amount of space. The declaration occasionally approaches the truth when it deals with the misdeeds of “the other side,” the Soviet bloc.; but when they dwell on their own records and aims, the president and the Premier rarely get even with hailing distance of the facts. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Theological Gambit</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The Anglo-American leaders begin roundly:</div><div><blockquote>“We are conscious that in this year of 1956, there still rages the age-old struggle between those who believe that man has his origin and his destiny in God and those who treat man as if he were designed merely to serve a state machine.”—(The Times, 2-2-56.)</blockquote></div><div>Eden and Eisenhower thus blandly ignore both those of no religion who support the Anglo-American bloc, and all those fervent religionists—including the large Russian Orthodox Church, for example—who would die for the Stalinists. In fact the struggle between the two blocs has nothing whatever to do with religion or irreligion: each state has its tame churches to give it the divine sanction: the struggle is between the British ruling class and the American ruling class (who happen to have sufficient mutual interests to support an alliance) on the one hand, and the Russian ruling class (usually supported by their Chinese opposite numbers) on the other. But the desire for self-justification is strong: hence the habit of claiming the approval of the Almighty.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">One for Ripley</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>But this is merely an opening canter. Warming to its theme, the second paragraph of the declaration runs (believe it or not):</div><div><blockquote>“ Because of our belief that the state should exist for the benefit of the individual and not the individual for the benefit of the state, we uphold the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice."</blockquote></div><div>Or, as one might paraphrase it when one has regard to reality, “because of our belief in something we don't believe in, we uphold what we deny.” The claim of Eden and Eisenhower to believe that “the state should exist for the benefit of the individual and not the individual for the benefit of the state” surely borders on the farcical. Both the President and the Prime Minister were in the highest counsels of Great Britain and the U.S.A. during the last war, when the state in each of these countries so far denied the elementary rights of the individual that it conscripted millions of its citizens and sent them off to kill other individuals and be killed themselves. Not only do Eden and Eisenhower believe that the individual exists for the benefit of the state: they go further—they believe that when called upon he should cease to exist for the benefit of the state. But official pronouncements would not read so well if they confined themselves to the truth, nor would they make such good propaganda.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>What can be said about the second part of this almost incredible paragraph, where the signatories allege that they uphold the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice? When one thinks of the Prime Minister giving his consent to this clause, at a time when British troops are on an active footing in British Guiana, Cyprus, Kenya and Malaya expressly to prevent their people's having governments of their own choice, one can only feel grateful that the cares of high office have not deprived Sir Anthony of his sense of humour.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">All my own work</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Lack of space prevents the analysis of the Declaration in the detail it deserves. But one other paragraph must be quoted:</div><div><blockquote>“During the past ten and more years 600 million men and women in nearly a score of lands have, with our support and assistance, attained nationhood. Many millions more are being helped surely and steadily towards self-government. Thus, the reality and effectiveness of what we have done is proof of our sincerity."</blockquote></div><div>Since Britain has been in the Empire racket longer than America, the insincerity of this statement is more immediately obvious in regard to Eden than Eisenhower. Britain attempted to retain her Indian Empire (which contains the great majority of the 600 millions referred to) by every means at her disposal. A great army was maintained there; any expression of opinion in favour of independence invited ruthless official action; if the people demonstrated for independence they were forcibly scattered and the leaders (including for example Pandit Nehru) thrown into British jails. Riots and shootings and massacres marked the progress of the years. At length the British power waned, and the British State could no longer afford to maintain the repression in face of the almost unanimous opposition of the peoples of the Indian Empire. And so the Attlee Government withdrew from India, being no longer physically capable of remaining there. It is this eviction of the British by the Indians which Sir Anthony Eden now tries to describe as a British achievement. It is as if a boxer, after fighting a dozen rounds, is at length knocked out; and as he is carried from the ring opens one eye long enough to remark “I retire voluntarily from the contest and claim all the credit for my opponent’s victory.”</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Who said aggression ?</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>No doubt if the British are thrown out of Cyprus this will also be counted as a great British contribution to the establishment of self-government, and the British ruling class will expect the Greek ruling class (which will take over from. them) to be duly grateful. But until this happens the task is to explain why Cyprus should not have self-government. In this connection a recent letter written to <i>The Times</i> (11-2-56) by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Vansittart,_1st_Baron_Vansittart">Lord Vansittart</a> is of considerable interest.</div></div><div><div><br /></div><div>It appears that Britain has every right to be in Cyprus, because it “belongs to us.” Since Lord Vansittart coyly refrains from explaining how it came to “belong to us,” a word on the subject might not be out of place. Briefly, in 1877-8 Russia attacked Turkey, with the aim of seizing part of her Balkan territories; Great Britain, in the role of knight in shining armour, sprang to Turkey’s side to defend her against Russian aggression; the fleet was ordered to the Turkish coast, and alarm and counter-alarm succeeded each other. But when the smoke had cleared away, it was found that the noble British Government had taken advantage of the crisis to force Turkey to hand Cyprus over to British rule. The Cypriots, of course, had not been consulted.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is this expert piece of sharp practice which Lord Vansittart now contends gives “us” the right to stay in Cyprus.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">A little late to recant</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>But do not think that Lord Vansittart’s endorsement of this smooth-faced knavery means that he has no principles. He has. Or rather he used to have. He refers in his letter to “ the primary principles for which millions died in two vast wars”: and among them, it will be remembered, was the principle of self-determination. None was more vociferous than Lord Vansittart in his clamour for strict measures against German aggression before 1939, and for the merciless prosecution of total war against Germany between 1939 and 1945. But now, it appears, Lord Vansittart has had second thoughts. The principle for which millions died, to quote his own letter, no longer engages his support That “self-determination should be automatic ” Lord Vansittart now decries as a “delusion” The Germans under Hitler, of course, were in favour of self-determination in certain circumstances; it was only the application of the principle to countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland that they objected to, because there it was against the economic interest of the German ruling class. Lord Vansittart has now accepted the pre-1945 German view of the matter, which could be summarized as “self-determination unless it conflicts with one’s own interests.”</div><div><br /></div><div>And so Lord Vansittart changes his mind. But all the British soldiers who died in the war of which Lord Vansittart was the prophet, and in which he beat the drums louder than anyone else, they stay dead. The principle they thought they were fighting for is now found by the noble lord to be a “delusion.” If only it was as easy to bring the millions of dead to life again as it is for a politician to change his principles!</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Alwyn Edgar</b></div></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-42725056579640421462024-03-11T14:15:00.000-04:002024-03-11T14:15:13.386-04:00How to live on your £100 a week (1956)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp85Wz6w53yNXuIebr6qKPOVQo2tAVZZQvMW7K5drp00AyiPyftdKVL1hFit4ugJwzv2h-QWhBluB8qjCjXitPbangScBlepWJ6K1QkbWE1YJFVpJ4I8FoKNNqL1ga3QoD8uU4RzHh3o0vG81mE2nbrar1H2bukToc9iBmpIz9CuJDdLP459hr2f05aV7A/s1350/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1350" data-original-width="862" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp85Wz6w53yNXuIebr6qKPOVQo2tAVZZQvMW7K5drp00AyiPyftdKVL1hFit4ugJwzv2h-QWhBluB8qjCjXitPbangScBlepWJ6K1QkbWE1YJFVpJ4I8FoKNNqL1ga3QoD8uU4RzHh3o0vG81mE2nbrar1H2bukToc9iBmpIz9CuJDdLP459hr2f05aV7A/s320/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" width="204" /></a></div>From the March 1956 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>In the course of this little piece, our readers are invited to try their wits at guessing in a sort of “‘<i>What’s my Lin</i>e” manner, the identity of the person we have in mind. We can offer no special prizes of vacuum cleaners, cars or trips to Hollywood for any correct answers because you may not have swallowed the Labour and Tory party lines about the class-struggle being a “myth.” You are warned that the person in question could be employed as any of the following—(or has some alternative means of living such as an Old Age Pensioner), a road sweeper, bus driver, school teacher, coal miner, docker, textile worker, an engineer or an “over paid” meat porter in Smithfield Market. Now for due number one, the amount received by our “object” is only £100 per week and the <i>Daily Express</i>, well known for its distortion of Socialism and its supports of wage claim, publishes some details in its issue of January 23, 1956. The “object” says “£100 a week doesn’t go far,” and this is why she lives in a villa 15 miles outside Paris, and is being sued by her husband for £75,000 worth of jewellery.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ambitious workers whose idea of curing their poverty is to win the Pools, regard this paltry sum as more than enough for the rest of their lives. Simple arithmetic shows, however, that if a Pools winner spent £75,000 on jewellery there would not be much left for that “little car and little house” (the Capitalists always find it pays to keep workers thinking “little”).</div><div><br /></div><div>Now as the result of the husband’s changed feelings the villa was scantily furnished; “ it contained: one settee, two small chairs, an old garden table, no carpets, no curtains.” Without going to New Bond Street, which caters entirely for the “lower income groups,” we could buy enough working class “furniture” in six months to fill a warehouse with half the “objects” income, and not on the never-never either.</div><div><br /></div><div>To anyone so naive as to think she is well off she says “it’s about time the truth were told.” She married a Swiss multi-millionaire in Ceylon 18 months ago and “among the presents to her: a Caribbean Island, two cars, a black panther.” Remember that set of cheap pillow cases you bought when Bill got married? In the court she will be claiming £25,000 to furnish her prefab—sorry, villa—plus £100 a week when she is finding it so hard to keep herself, the panther, ten dogs, two Brazilian parrots and two humming birds on.</div><div><br /></div><div>Answering questions by the <i>Daily Express</i> reporter, whose job in life is to chase around after the wealthy to keep the workers informed, our “object” says regarding the gems and paintings “I’ve no idea of the total value, perhaps £75,000. The Old Masters? I have one—an El Greco he gave me for my birthday.” And about the £400 a month “ That might seem a lot, but it doesn’t go far with a 70 acre estate. 1 live quietly here since the divorce writ came through. 1 haven’t put a foot inside Balmain’s or Dior’s—haven’t bought a thing.” Apart from in London, “where 1 did buy two Borzoi dogs because 1 need some protection here. 1 have eight other dogs all Pekinese.”</div><div><br /></div><div>If a superannuated worker, at the age of 65, having worked 35 or 40 years for the same exploiter, gets £400 to spend the rest of his life on, maybe 10 or 15 more years, he is considered comfortably off and well provided for yet this sum is a month’s allowance for our hard-up “ object.” In the back-yard—sorry the grounds, among the terraces, the fountain nymph and sagging model teahouse, there was a “huge swimming pool with a great hole in one side ” which the husband does not seem to care about. “I feel he should put the place back in order,” she said. Well, that’s the story, or rather a story, one of the many that come up. "Of course by the standards of her class. Baroness von Thyssen, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3898250/The-tale-princess-Jaguar-Unexpected-discovery-sheds-light-tragic-history-Nina-Aga-Khan-British-model-turned-1960s-high-society-queen-killed-aged-35-second-husband-Persian-prince-divorced-her.html">ex-model Nina Dyer</a>, is hard pushed; after all, Monte Carlo and such places are not kept going by people who get only £100 a week. The amazing thing is that the members of the working class who make all the wealth and are always told the boss can’t afford more wages, continue nevertheless to take a keen interest in the exploits of Sir Bernard Docker, Aly Kahn, Rita Hayworth and Prince Rainier, etc.; amazing that is until we take account of the drab, colourless and repetitive lives workers live. Perhaps, then, we can understand the attraction of the circus.</div><div><br /></div><div>To understand it is not, however, to condone it, because as Socialists we know the kind of world the workers can establish when they wake up—the world of Socialism, with no contrasts of riches and poverty, peace and war, but a community of social equals freely talcing what they need from the wealth they have produced in co-operation without the hindrance of wages and profits.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Harry Baldwin</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-70875342816925181972024-03-11T14:14:00.002-04:002024-03-11T14:14:47.211-04:00Marxism and Inevitability – The Critics Criticised (1956)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWruExvxrUObv_mtKttwXKf_Grn5xpmMKjMNJDL5uXBi62dILqWicTtcZ9-ZcsE07jiRIzzbO3qqT_dLclGw4F6gxzy2zXdPfefIkKjDDH9X4W60Z-P_rnuhsJHpJhTetNFKwwrdyud1uIyN9wkfXC3vQ0dAy_W4HbRG887jeloBPrddMfimiYM4H6I8Nl/s320/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="204" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWruExvxrUObv_mtKttwXKf_Grn5xpmMKjMNJDL5uXBi62dILqWicTtcZ9-ZcsE07jiRIzzbO3qqT_dLclGw4F6gxzy2zXdPfefIkKjDDH9X4W60Z-P_rnuhsJHpJhTetNFKwwrdyud1uIyN9wkfXC3vQ0dAy_W4HbRG887jeloBPrddMfimiYM4H6I8Nl/s1600/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" width="204" /></a></div>From the March 1956 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>“There’s a destiny that shapes our ends, rough hew them as we may.”</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>Is Marxism the prose <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam">Rubaiyat</a> of economic fatalism? Many pseudo-Marxists have half believed it. Quite a few critics of Marxism—<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Eastman">Eastman</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin">Berlin</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper">Popper</a>, etc., have wholly asserted it. A host of sentimental liberals and political do-gooders have also chosen to see Marxism as a secularised version of—”and the good must come to pass.” For such critics Marxism is either a synonym for Kismet or a variation of “The Lord will provide.”</div><div><br /></div><div>It is true that the <i>Communist Manifesto</i> states, “Capitalism is its own grave-digger; its fall and the victory of the proletariat are alike inevitable.” This has been taken up by opponents of Marxism and echoed and re-echoed down the corridor of the years as evidence of the fact that Marxism spells out fatalism with a capital f. Yet anything less like religious or philosophical quietism than the <i>Communist Manifesto</i> it would be hard to imagine. Not only do its pages breathe political activism but it ends with a stirring call to action—”Workers of the world unit,” utterly at variance with any predestined assumptions. It is not difficult, however, to tear a sentence from its context and make the author appear to say the opposite of what he actually meant.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now this particular type of criticism of Marxism pivots on the word “inevitability.” If we are to believe the critics of Marx the term inevitability, especially as related to human society, is synonymous with fatalism or predestination—”The moving finger writes and having writ moves on.” Thus in the Marxist scheme of things, vide the critics, inevitability means that human wills are writ so small as to be virtually non-existent.</div><div><br /></div><div>The word “inevitability” as used by the critics in reproaching Marx carries a stigma; the stigma being that human beings are but puppets in some vast cosmic process. But is that the only significance which can be given to the word? One of course does not deny that in a given context the word “inevitability” can be synonymous with fatalism. What one does deny is that in the Marxist context they mean the same thing.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let us, to paraphrase Marx, consider the word “inevitability” a little more closely and see how its meaning varies with the context. Thus we say night, inevitably follows day. Do we imply by such a statement that fatalism or predestination of some kind is involved in the rotation of the earth on its axis? It can, we think, be agreed that the regular sequence of events connected with the solar system has nothing to do with fatalism or any other kind of supernaturalism. Some one might, of course, say “but is it not true that men are nevertheless powerless to control solar events?” Here it would seem that inevitability implies the powerlessness of men. But surely the answer is that such events being non-human have nothing to do with the powers possessed by socially organised men. Therefore the question of powerlessness on the part of humans in non-human processes does not arise. The power of human beings lies in the fact of their ability to understand and utilise natural phenomena to their social advantage.</div><div><br /></div><div>Again the inevitable sequences of events which occur in the solar system are of inestimable advantage to humans during the course of their lives. It enables one to go to bed supremely confident that after a night’s sleep one will wake up and it is morning. And to feel assured that in making an appointment a week hence the solar sequence of things will not have been reversed. If solar events were so arbitrary that in the words of the song “when it’s night time in Italy it’s Wednesday over here” then life on this planet would be a matter of conjecture. If inevitability, then, entails some aspect of a regularised and sequential eternity one can only add—long live inevitability.</div><div><br /></div><div>One can further expand the advantage which inevitability has for us humans. Thus if we know that “A” will always bring about “B” then the certainty of this knowledge gives us an assured basis for utilising it. Such knowledge not only gives us power to understand the world but the power to change it.</div><div><br /></div><div>On the other hand, if events were so capricious that water raised to a certain temperature did not always produce steam, or in switching on an electric kettle the water got colder instead of hotter, then the organisation of knowledge consequent upon an inevitable sequence of things would be impossible.</div><div><br /></div><div>It does not follow then that inevitability pre-supposes the powerlessness of humans. It can, in fact, imply the contrary. Thus, for example, if the Moscow Dynamos were to meet a scratch village eleven we could say the result would be inevitable. This would not be because of the inability of the scratch side to kick a ball but of the highly trained athletic power of the Dynamos.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now the working class in Capitalist society constitute not only the bulk of the population but are a highly trained productive class. Potentially they are the most powerful social group and the only section capable of basically transforming existing social conditions. When Marx spoke of social inevitability he was not as vulgar critics such as Eastman and Isaiah Berlin contend, postulating mysterious agencies beyond the control of humans, but had in mind the latent powers resident in the working class.</div><div><br /></div><div>Marxists recognise, however, that inevitability has a twofold character; one of denial as well as one of affirmation. From one aspect it can be considered as a restraint on human power. From another, a source of possibilities and opportunities. Thus Capitalism through its social productive agencies constitutes a fetter on the free and fullest use of human skills and productive resources; just as the ownership of these productive resources by a class gives them power over the lives of others and inhibits their free development. Only in a classless society can human activity be equal, creative and shared.</div><div><br /></div><div>If then extant society gives rise to certain social consequences inseparable from its existence, i.e. if “A” always affects “B” then, in order to eliminate “B” we must get rid of “A.” It is this recognition of the “must” which makes possible our decision to achieve the “ought.” Because the pressures and conflicts of Capitalism are permanent, powerful and pervasive, it becomes not a matter of preoccupation for the few but the concern of the many. If “A” is then a necessary condition for “B” this itself promotes the idea and need of getting rid of the cause. To say that in a system such as Capitalism which generates the consequences of its existence as a continuous and cumulative process men will never, never be able to correctly diagnose their social ills is to condemn them to a moronic level utterly out of keeping with their own history.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Marxist concept of inevitability links the negative and positive aspect of the social situation and reveals the driving force of social change.</div><div><br /></div><div>Socialists do not deny human will and choice. What they say is that if men are to raise themselves to a truly human stature this exploitative set-up where magic and myth, charlatanism and violence are agencies through which social problems are mediated, must go and the choice can only be a social arrangement of free and equal access to social wealth. Given the means the choice is inevitable.</div><div><br /></div><div>Among the critics of Marx, and they are numerous, are those who fail to grasp the aspects of affirmation and denial in the concept of inevitability. For them social laws are another name for pre-determinism or an animistic notion of causality. They regard society, if they can commit themselves to such an organised notion, as a laissez-faire arrangement which can be altered and re-altered like a meccano set. Having no social charts or compass they remain as “free” as a cockle boat in mid-ocean.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is also irony in the criticism of Marxism which asserts that not only is Marx’s inevitability, fatalism, but Socialism is utterly impossible. To the Marxist “aye” they can only counter with an everlasting “nay.” Their inevitability is shot through and through with fatalism, a sublime belief that inscrutable agencies control men and make it impossible for them to master a world.</div><div><br /></div><div>Such critics can be shown on analysis to be supporters of the “eternal status quo.” For that reason their misunderstanding of Marxism is perhaps—inevitable.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Ted Wilmott</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-76151106156178455492024-03-11T14:14:00.001-04:002024-03-11T14:14:31.570-04:00Editorial: Planless Booms and Runaway Slumps (1956)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib9DVqUrLgSq6Q9u3MemFuejtqYEVohSbB0_XBA8cjmTdgh8tX2zjyk2gGWI2ZWXKq6J7jFuylp3CRFOmoyV9tUqHz2a0N5jXWnO1nJNo51RMthb0fFXy9mLdLrtzQ4E26iiwQsm33e3gfN99-Wp-vMRFqXqz6IFCVFcx5WPvJcf9y1M7cYKFegBtw7eFS/s320/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="204" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib9DVqUrLgSq6Q9u3MemFuejtqYEVohSbB0_XBA8cjmTdgh8tX2zjyk2gGWI2ZWXKq6J7jFuylp3CRFOmoyV9tUqHz2a0N5jXWnO1nJNo51RMthb0fFXy9mLdLrtzQ4E26iiwQsm33e3gfN99-Wp-vMRFqXqz6IFCVFcx5WPvJcf9y1M7cYKFegBtw7eFS/s1600/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" width="204" /></a></div>Editorial from the March 1956 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>Although the periodical crises under post-war Labour Government rather took the shine off the idea of planning there is still a lot of belief in it. A hundred years ago those who believed that Capitalism is the best of all possible systems had a different idea. They thought that if each individual went about the business of making money or getting a job on his own the medley of efforts and strivings would, like a mosiac, combine together to make harmony for the nation as a whole. It did not work like that and 19th century Capitalism was rent by class struggle and rocked from time to time in the cycle of boom—crisis—slump.</div><div><br /></div><div>So the theory grew up, not only in Labour Party circles, that the remedy must lie in the direction of planning. The same idea caught on in other parts of the world and many people believe that governments, alone or in international organisations, can and do plan and control the course of economic events. That is why the “inflation” crisis of the past 12 months and the dark forebodings of another slump inspire such bewildered comments from the “experts” and the newspapers. For if everything is planned and under control then the crisis and possible slump must have been planned—which is absurd—or must be due to pure ignorance and incompetence by the Government and its advisers—which is now meat for the Opposition but poison for the Tories. Certainly the Government's defenders have much to explain away. To start with, the theory that everything is planned to run smoothly according to design, requires, not only that there shall be no crisis and no slump to come after it, but also that there shall be no bursting boom to come before it. So the boom itself proved the failure of planning, though only last year the Government spokesmen were claiming it as their own work and soliciting votes on the strength of it.</div><div><br /></div><div>The next thing is the “inflation" from which they say we are all in dire peril. They are all now agreed. Government and Opposition alike, that “inflation” is the enemy. A year ago, in February, 1955, the Government raised the bank-rate from 3½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. This was the first step to halt that enemy, and it was followed in July by the instruction to the banks to restrict loans. These measures were supposed to be the cure. They failed, and in October came the emergency budget with more measures. Why then the need for more and still more remedies to curb demand and capital investment? The answer is in the admission in a <i>Daily Mail</i> editorial of 17 February, 1956, that “ inflation . . . gains momentum every day,” and in the declaration of Sir Eric Gore-Brown, chairman of Alexanders Discount Company, (a declaration endorsed by the financial editor of the <i>Manchester Guardian</i> 17/2/56) that “in his view monetary restraints, for example the use of the bank-rate and a credit squeeze, could not either alone or in combination, stop the spiral of wages and prices.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The leader-writer of the <i>Daily Mail</i> (17/2/56) seeks to condone the failure of the Government to control this crisis with the plea that “in some ways the looming crisis is one we have not encountered before.”</div><div><br /></div><div>This crisis, according to him, is different because unlike earlier ones, it </div><div><blockquote>“could be called a crisis of prosperity, for it is caused by the weight of earned money making undue demands on out resources.”</blockquote></div><div>Far from being novel this has always been a mark of booms and crises. Every boom has the superficial appearance of “too much money chasing too few goods” as every depression has the superficial appearance of “ too many goods chased by too little money.”</div><div><br /></div><div>But booms and slumps are not caused by monetary factors but by conditions in the field of production and marketing, basically by the class ownership of the means of production and of production for sale and profit.</div><div><br /></div><div>When the Capitalists are convinced that they can look forward to a period of expanding sales and rising profits they rush in to enlarge their factories, buy more machinery and raw materials, and bid for more workers. They all use what money they have and try to borrow more. In these conditions prices and wages rise and the competition for loans sends up interest rates. The raising of the bank-rate a year ago only put the seal on a rise of interest rates that was already happening.</div><div><br /></div><div>Anyone who thinks this has not happened before need only look at the situation in 1920. There was then a seemingly unlimited demand for goods and for workers. The trade unions (mainly of skilled workers) that kept an unemployment register showed unemployment of about 1 per cent., as it is now. The cost of living was rising, it jumped by 23 per cent, in the year ended November, 1920. Bankers and others were complaining of “inflation ” and the Cunliffe Committee had reported at the end of 1919 on measures to combat it.</div><div><br /></div><div>And the bank rate was in the news as it is today. In February, 1956, it was raised from 4½ per cent, to 5½ per cent In November, 1919, it was raised from 5 per cent, to 6 per cent., and in April, 1920, to 7 per cent. Then, as now, one of its declared aims was to discourage lending by the banks. Mr. A. W. Kirkcaldy in his “<i>British Finance</i>” (1921, p. 55) says of the first of those two rises:—“in the main it was designed to check the speculative movement that became pronounced during the closing months of 1919, and to administer an effective check to the demand for further expansion of bank credit, if not to commence a gradual process of deflation.”</div><div><div><br /></div><div><b>Inflation the Friend—or the Enemy ?</b></div><div>In 1920 and 1956 inflation is, by common consent, the enemy. It now has not a friend in the world, or at least not one who will disclose his friendship openly. It was not ever thus. In 1932 Lord Beaverbrook’s newspapers were running a great campaign for inflation! The <i>Sunday Express</i> (15/5/1932) had this:—</div><div><blockquote>“The movement is growing and spreading. Most public men are now in favour of inflation. Practically every Member of Parliament speaking in the debates is an inflationist. Some of them are no longer even shy of the word. The movement is extended to many of the newspapers. It is even being adopted by the <i>Times</i>."</blockquote></div><div>Prominent members of the Labour Party were rushing in to support the great new cause of inflation.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now they have got what they asked for and they like it hardly more than they did the slump situation of 1932 from which inflation was to save them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Many of them are fearful that this “inflation” crisis may be followed by a slump. (The 7 per cent. bank rate of 1920 preceded the over 2,000,000 unemployed of 1921).</div><div><br /></div><div>So indeed it may. There are certainly in evidence some of the chaotic features that precede slumps and that in any event provide proof of how planless Capitalism always is and must be.</div><div><br /></div><div>The American and other governments are embarrassed by the enormous stocks of unsaleable wheat and butter they hold. Was this planned? And the motor manufacturers here and in the U.S.A. are cutting back production “temporarily” because of stocks of unsold cars. But simultaneously all the big motor companies are going ahead with plans to expand their manufacturing capacity, amounting in the aggregate to many tens of millions of pounds. This is not planning but gambling. They all hope that demand will increase again and absorb their still further expanded production. They all fear that there is a possibility that demand may collapse instead of increasing, but they can’t be sure, and at the moment no big company dare drop out of the race to design and produce new and better cars and more of them. The company that ceases to compete fades out. And as if the car manufacturers of the Western Powers had not enough to worry about Russia too is now an exporter.</div><div><br /></div><div>But who knows how Capitalism will run in the next five years or even one year? It may happen soon that the world’s markets will collapse as in 1921 and 1930— or it may not; or it may happen that particular countries, among them Britain, and particular industries may be hard hit while the rest may be little affected. Such things have happened before and could happen again. The evidence does not by any means all point to a serious depression. A large and rapidly growing place in production is being taken by the new atomic and electronic industries. For production and for military purposes enormous new investments are going on. and will go on even if depression does hit some established industries. A case in point is the raising of £24 million new capital by Associated Electrical Industries Ltd., only one of the many firms interested in this new and rapidly expanding field. It will, of course, seem to the men inside each of firms such as A.E.I., as to the men inside the motor firms, that they are carefully planning every move they make and with every possible effort to foresee the conditions in which their products will be coming on to the market one year or many years ahead. But this is all beside the point as far as world demand and world supply are concerned. While every British firm is planning to sell its products in the world market, so are similar firms and governments in every other country. They do not know very much about the eventual size of the potential world demand for all their products, and they know less still about the total supply there will be to satisfy the demand when all these unrelated plans for expanded production are completed and the bigger flow of products pours out. They all hope to get a large enough share of the market and all hope that the price they get will be a profitable one. They all hope, but they cannot know. They all gamble on the future. And every now and then the gamble produces chaotic conditions of such extent as to disorganise all markets and slow down all production. Capitalism is that sort of system and there is no cure except Socialism.</div></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-4094704442772757772024-03-11T14:14:00.000-04:002024-03-11T14:14:12.203-04:00Our complaint against the "Evening Standard" (1956)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh58M28U9__8zlB2G1FOt411GnU7YuhegyG8oTQeFpPRQSbJnJUi76xd4sr8eouxFEzBWUKi3I58_2jcz2saXgmlHeNTpDF_n1vPW4fgsAHTWB6PSyyLXab81emM4wqY2Mh-eCs0ykOSgtIhqSkqEgbb4VdWh6t8R-JLYPPCO-C-Zry8TbDH2nYSIsGsfZK/s320/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="204" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh58M28U9__8zlB2G1FOt411GnU7YuhegyG8oTQeFpPRQSbJnJUi76xd4sr8eouxFEzBWUKi3I58_2jcz2saXgmlHeNTpDF_n1vPW4fgsAHTWB6PSyyLXab81emM4wqY2Mh-eCs0ykOSgtIhqSkqEgbb4VdWh6t8R-JLYPPCO-C-Zry8TbDH2nYSIsGsfZK/s1600/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" width="204" /></a></div>From the March 1956 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><b>Negative reply from the Press Council</b></div><div><br /></div><div>In October last the <i>Evening Standard</i> (12/10/55) published an article by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Baxter">Sir Beverley Baxter, M.P.</a> about the annual conference of the Labour Party, which be described however as the Socialist Party of Great Britain.</div><div><br /></div><div>We wrote to Sir Beverley Baxter asking “why go out of your way to give to the Labour Party a name that you know is not its own, and why you select for that purpose, also as you know, the name borne by this organization, which incidentally was formed before the Labour Party." He replied as follows:—</div><div><blockquote>“ I have noted your letter of disapproval and am obliged for the trouble you look in writing to me.”</blockquote></div><div>We then wrote to the Editor of the <i>Evening Standard</i> enclosing a copy of the correspondence with Baxter. From the Editor, Mr. Percy Elland, we received an equally brief reply:—</div><div><blockquote>“ Thank you for sending me these letters between yourself and Sir Beverley Baxter. 1 have nothing to add to this correspondence."</blockquote></div><div>We then (on 15 November) sent the correspondence to the Press Council with the following letter:—</div><div></div><blockquote><div>“Dear Sir,</div><div><br /></div><div>We wish to bring to your notice an example of deliberate presentation of incorrect information in the Press. As you will see from the enclosed copies of letters written by us to Sir Beverley Baxter and the Editor of the <i>Evening Standard</i> respectively and their replies, a deliberately inaccurate statement was published but the writer of the article and the Editor both declined to treat seriously a reasonable complaint.</div><div>It would seem to us that deliberate falsification of this kind is incompatible with a claim to publish accurate reports.</div><div><br /></div><div>What is the purpose of this particular practice on the part of those concerned we are unable to guess. We would like to have your views on the matter.</div><div style="text-align: center;">Yours truly.”</div></blockquote><div></div><div>Later on (4 January, 1956) we supplied the Council with a copy of an article in the <i>Socialist Standard</i> of June, 1939, showing that at that time Sir Beverley Baxter was habitually describing the Labour Party as the Socialist Party of Great Britain in his regular articles in the Canadian Weekly, <i>Maclean's.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>We had in 1939 sent a copy to Sir Beverley Baxter to remind him (if that were necessary) of his error.</div><div><br /></div><div>We have now received the decision of the General Council of the Press in a letter dated 20 January, 1956, the Council’s Secretary, Mr. Alan Pitt Robbins, C.B.E. </div><div></div><blockquote><div>“ Dear Sir,</div><div><br /></div><div>I am instructed to inform you that at its quarterly meeting on January 17th, the Press Council considered your complaint against the <i>Evening Standard</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Council decided to take no action in the matter in view of the fact that readers of the article would clearly understand the organisation to which Sir Beverley Baxter was referring ”</div></blockquote><div></div><div>We do not find the reason given by the Press Council at all satisfactory because the absence of confusion is by no means as clear as they would have it. Every speaker on the platform of the S.P.G.B. knows by experience that there are large numbers of people who do not know the difference between the S.P.G.B. and the Labour Party. How does the Press Council know that there is no such confusion in the minds of <i>Evening Standard</i> readers.</div><div><br /></div><div>And it would seem that Sir Beverley has had doubts himself, because in the issue of <i>MacLeans</i> dated 24 December, 1955, his <i>London Letter</i> contains the following:—</div><div><blockquote>“ I am sorry to confess that while I rarely attend the Tory Conference 1 never miss the one held by the Labour Party.”</blockquote></div><div>But we shall probably never know why Baxter started the practice years ago (was it one of those silly brain waves of Lord Beaverbrook?) nor why he has abandoned it now—if he has abandoned it now—(perhaps he is going to have one rule for Canada and another for Britain).</div><div><br /></div><div>Before the Press Council had given us its decision on the complaint against the <i>Evening Standard</i> we had published in our issue for <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-faking-of-reports-by-beaverbrook.html">January, 1956</a>, the editorial dealing with the faking of reports in the Beaverbrook Press in years past. The Council have taken no action on this (understandably perhaps in view of the lapse of time since the incidents referred to occurred) and their letter to us dated 20 January, 1956, refers only to Sir Beverley Baxter's article in the <i>Evening Standard</i> of 12 October. 1955.</div><div>There, at the moment, is how the matter stands.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Editorial Committee.</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-83188875853734504192024-03-11T14:12:00.000-04:002024-03-11T14:12:31.025-04:00Professor Cole rides again (1956)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB-821cVu9F5DnVksDyMbdmKVSOnsuYV_RsYBUy_CQGl-cxthULgsZ5rz1La5LBE_TL-ZooCORVZBqBtgq_6uj2cskoKfZa_tsYr_0VXqtV_5MH1-tlehPfAj6KZUSWJ14TalmFOtkvA0kcJGmPeFRFF9YARkFRzQo_TE7Y02oH-B79PXrYXQH5mWQ3eML/s320/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="204" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB-821cVu9F5DnVksDyMbdmKVSOnsuYV_RsYBUy_CQGl-cxthULgsZ5rz1La5LBE_TL-ZooCORVZBqBtgq_6uj2cskoKfZa_tsYr_0VXqtV_5MH1-tlehPfAj6KZUSWJ14TalmFOtkvA0kcJGmPeFRFF9YARkFRzQo_TE7Y02oH-B79PXrYXQH5mWQ3eML/s1600/_robert%20barltrop_%20spgb.jpg" width="204" /></a></div>Letter to the Editors from the March 1956 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i><blockquote>We received the following letter to which a reply is attached.</blockquote></i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: right;"><b>S.W.3.</b></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>17.1.56.</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">World Socialist Movement</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Dear Sirs,</div><div><br /></div><div>In the January issue of the <i>Socialist Standard</i> there is a reference on p. 3 to “movements like the one sponsored by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._D._H._Cole">G. D. H. Cole</a>”—presumably referring to the World Socialist Movement. Since your writer gave a quite erroneous impression of the nature of this movement I should be obliged if you would publish the following information in the <i>Socialist Standard</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>The World Socialist Movement is not a movement craving for a mass following. Naturally we seek to convince people of the possibility and desirability of world Socialism (as, we understand, does the Socialist Party of Great Britain). Your article refers to “ those who . . . have hedged, compromised, and thrown principles to the winds in order to swell the numerical support,” etc. However applicable these statements may be to the other movements you mention, they most certainly do not apply to the World Socialist Movement, which is quite explicitly an educational and not a mass movement. Your readers can confirm this by reading our introductory leaflet (obtainable from the above address) which contains a summary of our beliefs in six principles—” the minimum, which can on no account be diluted in an attempt to gain popular support.’</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Yours,</b></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>John H. Roddam.</b></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Secretary W.S.M.</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Executive Committee, S.P.G.B.,</b></div><div><b>52, Clapham High St., S.W.4.</b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Reply:</span></b></div><div>In an article that appeared in an American periodical “<i>The Nation</i>” (April 23rd. 1955), G. D. H. Cole outlined the practical suggestions he thought would come from the organisation that he proposed should be established. As a preliminary he stated:</div><div><blockquote>“Besides, mass parties cannot think; they can only be influenced by the thinking of individuals or small groups of people who are prepared to think for them.”</blockquote></div><div>Whit would this group of intellectual snobs do?</div><div><blockquote>“The immediate task of this group would be not to act but to think together and to plan—to restate Socialist principles in relation to the most pressing contemporary problems, and to base on these principles a broad programme of action to which the various national movements would be called upon to play their part. Each member of the group, or order, would publicize its ideas in his own country and try to induce the national leaders to take them up.” </blockquote></div><div>What is this but an attempt to get a mass following of blind supporters? And what is the nature of the ideas that would be publicized?</div><div><blockquote>“First, a clearly defined attitude towards the making and potential use of atomic weapons; second, a well-thought-out plan of campaign for a ‘war upon want’ designed to equalize, as nearly as possible, conditions of living in all countries; third, plans for a world economic structure that will avoid the evils both of capitalism and of bureaucratic centralization and will open up for the workers in every country rapidly increasing opportunities for democratic, responsible self-government in their working lives; and fourth the complete ending of imperialist domination, both political and economic, and the extension of self-governing independence to all people."</blockquote></div><div>In other words Cole had gone back to the position of the early Fabians whose policy was largely responsible for the present position of the Labour Party.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now let us turn to the leaflet which our critic encloses. It opens with the following three paragraphs in heavy black type:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>"The World Socialist Movement strives to justify through its members its claim to be the nucleus of the coming world socialist society and not of a new party.</div><div><br /></div><div>“We regard national governments and institutions as outmoded and aggressively competitive and militaristic in conception; and so we appeal to socialists all over the world to combine with us in the struggle to free ourselves and others from that which fetters our thoughts, falsifies our actions and makes a virtue of competition and segregation in place of co-operation and unity.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>“We believe that socialists are hampered in their attempt to bring about a socialist world society less by opposition from without than by dissension from within, and our basic principles have been formulated in the belief that they are acceptable to all socialists; but they are the minimum, which can on no account be diluted in an attempt to gain popular support.”</div></div></blockquote><div><div></div><div>The leaflet concludes with the following paragraph, also in heavy black type:</div><div><blockquote>“We do not ask you to renounce existing loyalties; but there is no alternative to accepting new and greater loyalties if a socialist world is to come about.”</blockquote></div><div>What is all this empty and dubious phraseology but an attempt to form a mass party. As an inducement they even say, in effect, stick to your old wrong-headed parties but also join us and help to swell our ranks. If this is not throwing principles to the winds, what is? To help swell their following they say, in the body of the leaflet:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>“We are not concerned with attacking any country or political party. . . . There is no time to be wasted on destructive criticism;”</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>. . . </b></div><div>“We do not believe that a socialist world can be achieved merely by persuading national governments to cooperate more closely. Neither do we believe that people will think as world citizens if we merely attack their deep rooted patriotic emotions”</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>. . .</b></div><div>“The World Socialist Movement has been started to bring together all the answers to the problems but we want everyone who shares the same reasonable belief to join us and work with us in the pursuit of our ideal.”</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>. . .</b></div><div>“But we shall have no rigid dogma that must be accepted before an individual can become a member. Every man and woman who wants a socialist world can find a place in our Movement and will be expected to give, in work and money, according to his means”</div></blockquote><div></div><div>Well! Well! Well! “Never mind whether you support nationalisation, Social Credit, the Co-operative Movement or any other anti-Socialist idea that you wrongly believe is Socialist; join us and help to swell our ranks. We are the re-incarnated Fabians waiting to help you along the road to futility again!" It’s the old old stuff again with a new label on the bottle.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now let us take a look at the “ ideal ” of this new party that is not a party. Here is their definition of it:</div><div><blockquote>“The first need is to outline the sort of world we are striving for. We want a socialist world and by that we mean one in which there is common citizenship under a single code of law, in which every human being has equal rights. It means that there must be world planning for the production of raw materials and the manufacture of basic commodities, with world ownership of essential industries.”</blockquote></div><div>What Labourite or advocate of state-ownership would disagree with that vague definition? Most Capitalists would find little fault with it; it is just an expansion of the “Welfare State” idea. There is nothing here about the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution by. and in the interest of, the whole community. Is there not in this country already common citizenship under a single code of law? Is it not true that the heavy hand of the law falls equally on the millionaire and the pauper if either steals a loaf of bread?</div><div><br /></div><div>The underlying implication of the leaflet is that its authors envisage Socialism as (synonymous with State ownership—with the qualification that it is a world state and not a national one. There is no suggestion of the abolition of buying and selling: no suggestion of a class cleavage in society, nor of the power of the class state. In the main the leaflet consists of vague generalities, inept proposals, and ignorance of the nature of the social problem and of the only steps that can be taken to solve it. It contains a number of contradictory statements. We have mentioned one or two: the claim that they are not a new party—but everyone should join them; that everyone should stay in their old parties—but ought to join them; that they have no dogma—but basic principles to which all must agree.</div></div><div><div><br /></div><div>Now let us examine the six basic principles to which, they say, all prospective members must agree.</div><div><blockquote>“1. To a socialist racial prejudices, religious intolerance, and class distinctions have no justification.”</blockquote></div><div>That does not get anyone farther than polite agreement, though one might argue about the “justification.” Many who are not Socialists would agree to it. as they would agree to 'statements like “Poverty, hunger and oppression have no justification.”</div><div><blockquote>“2. The ultimate aim is total disarmament, renunciation of national sovereignty, and positive co-operation between all peoples.”</blockquote></div><div>Here we have the cloven hoof. The <i>ultimate</i> aim. not the immediate aim. The immediate aim can be the reformers' usual quiverful of projects that lead up blind alleys. What reformer would disagree with that alleged principle?</div><div><blockquote>“3. 'Equality of opportunity' and 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' should be applied on a worldwide as well .as a national scale.”</blockquote></div><div>We note that these principles <i>should</i> be applied, not <i>must</i> or <i>will</i> be applied. And what is the meaning of “a world-wide as well as a national scale?” Is it suggested that they are now applied on a national scale? As there is no explanation of what the authors mean by the two principles, either here or in the body of the leaflet, we are left in the dark about how to interpret them.</div><div><blockquote>"4. The means of production, distribution and exchange should belong to the community, and not to any individual or group.”</blockquote></div><div>As money is the means of exchange the authors apparently envisage it belonging to the community. Consequently they are assuming the continuance of buying and selling. In an earlier part of the leaflet (which we have already quoted) they say that private enterprise has proved inadequate and the profit motive inefficient, but they do not attack state ownership—or nationalisation— so we are justified in assuming that this is what they mean by belonging “to the community” as this has always been the pseudo Socialist outlook.</div><div></div><blockquote><div>“ 5. True socialism is true democracy and must be practised in political, economic and social fields.</div><div>“ 6. Socialism is a faith, an economic system and a political creed—the only real solution to the problems with which man is faced.”</div></blockquote><div></div><div>What these two “principles” mean we do not know. There is nothing in the leaflet to explain them, and we take it that they are just some more wind. But we note that Socialism is “a political creed.” We assume, therefore, in spite of their denial, that they are in fact a new political party.</div><div><br /></div><div>One thing, however, can be admitted about these “principles ”; they are so vague, windy and diluted that it would be difficult to dilute them any further. Consequently the supporters of multifarious reformist programmes, who falsely call themselves Socialists, should have no difficulty in accepting them and thereby building another road to the wilderness of futility, in the interests conscious or unconscious, of keeping the wheels of Capitalism running along smoothly.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Gilmac.</b></div></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-79328065297629661772024-03-11T14:11:00.003-04:002024-03-11T14:11:38.601-04:00SPGB Meetings (1956)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Party News from the March 1956 issue of the <i>Socialist </i>Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEvXW8JZBf6So8Kye0LhwEYVDhNUL7Amsmd85meQsszWUn9K_xYUWMS0fDqQm7sYUlMcuJz5n384zhuEDhWOpWsNwgk3XrxLaq-s7Lh-jnnsOFuT_a6jIt_iLYuaGzBiQ2njHDAfqYDETNOsMOQjqmU8KDJ8zmAojV-JPt2aOdmGhJ25mznkCyvHBzb9NO/s1048/SPGB%20Propaganda%20Rally%20+%20March%201956%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1048" data-original-width="850" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEvXW8JZBf6So8Kye0LhwEYVDhNUL7Amsmd85meQsszWUn9K_xYUWMS0fDqQm7sYUlMcuJz5n384zhuEDhWOpWsNwgk3XrxLaq-s7Lh-jnnsOFuT_a6jIt_iLYuaGzBiQ2njHDAfqYDETNOsMOQjqmU8KDJ8zmAojV-JPt2aOdmGhJ25mznkCyvHBzb9NO/w325-h400/SPGB%20Propaganda%20Rally%20+%20March%201956%20copy.jpg" width="325" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><br /><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtm1N0QkZfDZ8Obx6jOlDJBs8bh7y3kCQaiiuusxstcAKLT0z86pBSti-SWdUQEQSAiPqH04d6sM-RUMV7LJ2c6H3uP9VOBzYXlzlVqO8ptaTi1UoWL-jDinSRCscMm1UXV5_cWCqNGW1cXgOlIEfsWIRA2coeh6Z_4rEsFej4RwMvPvaWfYkFeQnqF6wP/s860/%22SPGB%20Manchester%22%20%22March%201956%22%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="860" data-original-width="822" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtm1N0QkZfDZ8Obx6jOlDJBs8bh7y3kCQaiiuusxstcAKLT0z86pBSti-SWdUQEQSAiPqH04d6sM-RUMV7LJ2c6H3uP9VOBzYXlzlVqO8ptaTi1UoWL-jDinSRCscMm1UXV5_cWCqNGW1cXgOlIEfsWIRA2coeh6Z_4rEsFej4RwMvPvaWfYkFeQnqF6wP/s320/%22SPGB%20Manchester%22%20%22March%201956%22%20copy.jpg" width="306" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaUEORFfyCrsYUriBTI3wLc6OfjZfR7gBckLf1GGU9jjLFZwyhwqm0lrZCB_GKyCAKNhatiYEJCjJm8YNem2Pr83qqiaMRGOATr1IhpUXAKAAlQEpW3rYD0SBebSOn6B-ZlkOlf9WE2Xjdbm84i91AWicNuTew87UetsMzlum00GhueN92zGEJDTgDkY5e/s792/Nottingham%20+%20Robert%20Barltrop%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="278" data-original-width="792" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaUEORFfyCrsYUriBTI3wLc6OfjZfR7gBckLf1GGU9jjLFZwyhwqm0lrZCB_GKyCAKNhatiYEJCjJm8YNem2Pr83qqiaMRGOATr1IhpUXAKAAlQEpW3rYD0SBebSOn6B-ZlkOlf9WE2Xjdbm84i91AWicNuTew87UetsMzlum00GhueN92zGEJDTgDkY5e/s320/Nottingham%20+%20Robert%20Barltrop%20copy.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyMCx1F7qnJxiB7t5M2XcurjAFLGk15Efn512aQdG8oZ_gLAJU9eEzMrPhtlJMVRHfWFKVGyTqPu856V7RNG3J3oagiBf8B_ju7o4Iy7NsO5e1UbWFyj2QSZrVJU1AIJ-XFhSizXz-0aDZ0M8iUH0FgkAqWSbY1TxSgfUp02ILpOwzYWs-_my6IgZZvlIC/s1162/%22SPGB%20Docs%22%20%22March%201956%22%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1162" data-original-width="794" height="438" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyMCx1F7qnJxiB7t5M2XcurjAFLGk15Efn512aQdG8oZ_gLAJU9eEzMrPhtlJMVRHfWFKVGyTqPu856V7RNG3J3oagiBf8B_ju7o4Iy7NsO5e1UbWFyj2QSZrVJU1AIJ-XFhSizXz-0aDZ0M8iUH0FgkAqWSbY1TxSgfUp02ILpOwzYWs-_my6IgZZvlIC/w300-h438/%22SPGB%20Docs%22%20%22March%201956%22%20copy.jpg" width="300" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxd_NcTGAf1zeLnSGCOJzu9tgf0NDsFKbK0Eh-K1ndND9oVAzhi-oBs-auHpxqMiyXv-EXSe3v7eS3_w1Q0gO69Mo5k6POddwyQdVsAAEcL7zFNPl16D_8f8mayyNfIT-AmsWdWrXilTkWO-7q3T2x-huK4FpkKjRUtFJlgNIoMdWSJbiUu20Az2F8Dp8H/s804/SPGB%20Annual%20Conference%20+%201956%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="582" data-original-width="804" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxd_NcTGAf1zeLnSGCOJzu9tgf0NDsFKbK0Eh-K1ndND9oVAzhi-oBs-auHpxqMiyXv-EXSe3v7eS3_w1Q0gO69Mo5k6POddwyQdVsAAEcL7zFNPl16D_8f8mayyNfIT-AmsWdWrXilTkWO-7q3T2x-huK4FpkKjRUtFJlgNIoMdWSJbiUu20Az2F8Dp8H/s320/SPGB%20Annual%20Conference%20+%201956%20copy.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-14244687808628276482024-03-10T18:22:00.004-04:002024-03-10T18:22:40.548-04:00Editorial: Looking Back and Looking Forward (1945)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMiDF1DrLsDwZnbwgdzpXFio5fkUZcX5bxxZplK5fvZUQGZgWIDqXXiUnQab2_174Uc02KXBXnscPZpvd9mQ5Ob6OWEymLPiSznzn7iGnEre7Ry0pkUU6y53SzhbqMdOuMFXDbE-VyNh-zAggG4JsbkwRdgkmIuxvVhua5T3dHYKeBe7eC5_cfYcxqBbJV/s320/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="241" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMiDF1DrLsDwZnbwgdzpXFio5fkUZcX5bxxZplK5fvZUQGZgWIDqXXiUnQab2_174Uc02KXBXnscPZpvd9mQ5Ob6OWEymLPiSznzn7iGnEre7Ry0pkUU6y53SzhbqMdOuMFXDbE-VyNh-zAggG4JsbkwRdgkmIuxvVhua5T3dHYKeBe7eC5_cfYcxqBbJV/s1600/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" width="241" /></a></div>Editorial from the March 1945 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>We may reasonably hope that our Party Conference at the end of March will be the last to be held while the war in Europe is still in progress. It is an appropriate moment to take stock and glance back to the time when the last world war was nearing its end. The columns of the <i>Socialist Standard</i> in 1918 contain plenty of material to provoke useful contrasts and to enable us to weigh up our prospects in the future.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are likenesses as well as contrasts in the two situations. First the cynical observer may provisionally conclude that “wars to end war” tend to get longer and worse, and to leave the world in ever greater disorder. He may observe, too, that the active and increasing opposition to war that asserted itself in all countries in the later phases of the last one is missing now. This can be explained by the surface changes that have taken place in the administration of capitalism and by the enormous advance made by the ruling class in their technique for keeping the working class quiet. Thirty years ago the ruling class, with their figureheads of kings, czars and kaisers, were only beginners at the craft of using labour leaders and the phraseology of the labour movement as means of allaying and blunting working class discontent. Under the strain of that war, masses of war-weary soldiers and workers came to feel hatred, mistrust and contempt for the ruling class politicians in their respective countries. This time it is all looked after. No capitalist government that knows the tricks of the trade would now try to rule in times of stress without its ministers drawn from labour ranks, and its contacts with the trade unions and political labour organisations. By this means and by bountiful promises of social reforms (not to mention the official adoption in some countries of the title “Socialist”) the ruling class have delayed the storm of discontent. But have they weathered it finally? We are confident they have not. Capitalist exploitation and capitalist contradictions have not been eliminated merely because the iniquitous system has been labelled “Socialism” or because labour leaders grace it with their presence in Cabinets and with their blessing.</div><div><br /></div><div>One aspect of this change is that no events have occurred this time capable of stimulating the working class and giving them new (if illusory) hope such as the war-time revolts in Germany and the overthrow of Russian Czardom. A sign of the times is that with Russia a first-class Power. represented at “Big Three” conferences, the Communist Party falls into line as defender of the Allied capitalisms (including, of course, Russian State Capitalism). Last time it was the “right wing” labour leaders (denounced by those who later formed the Communist Party) who supported capitalist campaigns to get the workers to work harder and join in the scramble for more trade. Now it is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Pollitt">Mr. Harry Pollitt</a> who “has sent an appeal to all his mining members to speed up coal production” (<i>Daily Express</i>, February 19th). The <i>Express</i> report continues: —</div><div><blockquote>“His [Pollitt’s] more serious concern, however, is that lack of British coal supplies for devastated European countries will delay the fruits of victory, and substitution of American and South African coal supplies may permanently injure British export markets.“</blockquote></div><div>In France it is the same. <i>The Observer</i> Paris correspondent reports (February 18th):—</div><div><blockquote>“Temporarily at least, Conservatism has triumphed in France. The Provisional Government of General De Gaulle is to-day eminently Conservative. It is a Coalition Cabinet based solidly on the support of moderate Roman Catholic elements on the Right and of the Communists on the Left, for the catchword of politics in France just now is the new conservative role being played at present by the Communists.”</blockquote></div><div>As if to clinch the matter, the French Communist leader <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Thorez">Maurice Thorez</a> recently gave an interview to a French Catholic journal <i>Temps</i>, in which he is quoted as declaring that Marxism “is only a dogma,” and that he is “infinitely respectful of religion.” His present slogan is “One army, one police force, one administration.” (Quoted by <i>L’Humanité</i>.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Russia now, with its restored Greek Orthodox Church, its nationalist propaganda and worship of military success and pre-revolutionary national heroes, its great and growing inequality of wealth, is not the Russia that gave fire to working class discontent all over Europe at the end of the last war. A country in which, even before the Russo-German war, there were said to be 30 rouble millionaires in Moscow alone, as well as rouble multi-millionaires, is not the country to encourage the uprising of the dispossessed !</div><div><br /></div><div>Other items in the news in 1918 strike a familiar note. The Labour Party was reconstructing itself with an eye on gaining office. The Liberals were trying to stage a comeback. The Tories were getting ready by an education bill and by their propaganda for cheaper production, to reap the fruits of victory. “Intervention” was an issue—but intervention in Russia, not in Greece.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here are two quotations from the <i>Socialist Standard</i> that are as applicable to-day. The first was on the glaring deficiencies of the Trades Union Congress : —</div><div><blockquote>“If the rank and file of the trade unions desire the Congress to become a useful gathering, they must drop their apathy, take an interest in its actions, and, above all, send representatives from their own ranks instead of the case-hardened officials with their dirty tricks and old ambitious, who use the Congress to crawl further into the graces—and the jobs—of the master class.” (<i>Socialist Standard</i>, <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-fiftieth-trade-union-congress-1918.html">September, 1918</a>.)</blockquote></div><div>The other concerned the urgent efforts of the Party to get funds to carry on and expand its work:—</div><div><blockquote>“The failure of the capitalist system to properly meet the requirements of human society—clear to us in times of “peace”—is now, in the course of the struggle on the bloody battlefield, faintly dawning on many others of our class, and a greater opportunity, as well as a greater need, for Socialist propaganda may speedily present itself.” (<i>Socialist Standard</i>, May, 1918).</blockquote></div><div>What about the condition of the S.P.G.B.? Our membership, small though it is, yet is very much greater than it was in the difficult period at the end of the last war. Our production of propaganda material has been likewise greater, though now we are crippled by the paper restrictions, which were far less stringent then. We have a larger head office and larger income and expenditure. We have made a beginning with the appointment of a full-time Provincial Propagandist Organiser, and hope to be able to put others in the field. Above all, we have many more young speakers and writers acquiring the experience that will make them efficient workers to spread the Party’s influence in the years to come. The harvest is there—for, despite superficial appearances to the contrary, the workers are more and more recognising the need for fundamental social change—let us therefore all resolve to do our best to reap the hardest without delay. Down with capitalism—forward to Socialism.</div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-60997183203795190062024-03-10T18:22:00.003-04:002024-03-10T18:22:30.396-04:00The Bogey Man (1945)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp9fMVRVOVihhilEQHL3i02CFByX5KSQu_Haj7l1ZJGDp7y3-ngb1IlqI-qtFg_i0I6iLqsRc_EeskN3yjLplx7b-aZBjM4ZviUypABhtlgBcZ4-7pJphZK1GDjGJ3yNi2XiPtn5riZ1anSglF8-fayHWE3cWxmweZrxA15EZXz8n9FzuWw3R3-Yl-GW6A/s320/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="241" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp9fMVRVOVihhilEQHL3i02CFByX5KSQu_Haj7l1ZJGDp7y3-ngb1IlqI-qtFg_i0I6iLqsRc_EeskN3yjLplx7b-aZBjM4ZviUypABhtlgBcZ4-7pJphZK1GDjGJ3yNi2XiPtn5riZ1anSglF8-fayHWE3cWxmweZrxA15EZXz8n9FzuWw3R3-Yl-GW6A/s1600/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" width="241" /></a></div>F</b><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; display: inline !important;"><b>rom the March 1945 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div></b></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The ruling classes of all time have used in their armoury of weapons the powerful one of leadership. In order that the workers may be prevented from discovering their own strength and power, priests, politicians and teachers have saturated the workers’ minds with awe, fear and reliance upon some great deliverer, spiritual and otherwise. In times of stress, social, economic or political, the workers’ thoughts (skilfully prepared) turn to a “leader” or “saviour.” This mental condition enables the ruling class to canalise the thought-tendencies of the workers away from the emergent growing <i>class</i> concept of events to one of <i>individualist</i> responsibility, all dependent upon a “good” or “bad” leader. Parents having been trained that way themselves, continue on the same lines with their children.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In order to curb the ardent spirits of their unruly progeny, mothers call to their aid their own childhood teachings, and threaten their offspring with fears of a “bogey man.” The ruling class do the same. In the first years of the nineteenth century British capitalism had as its challenger the new youthful capitalism of France, and in order to harness the common people to their war machine, preached fear of the French through the medium of “bogey man” number one—Napoleon. Whilst the common people were dying at Waterloo to prevent “their” country from being stolen, three million acres of “common” land was filched by various enclosure acts. Four years after (August, 1819) the men who had won Waterloo were peacefully assembled in Peter’s Fields, Manchester, listening to orator Hunt, when the Yeomanry charged them, and the subsequent massacre became known as Peterloo. Half a century after (the Peterloo and Waterloo heroes being safely dead) British capitalism was in danger at its Empire gateway in the Mediterranean, so the workers had to be frightened by “bogey man” number two. This was the Czar of Russia, who on behalf of his own ruling class was seeking a warm-water port. The bones of British working men lay bleaching on the Crimean snows in a war waged so that “Russia shall not have Constantinople.” Half a century later we fought a war to see that she <i>should</i> have it. For fifty years after the Crimean war decent sized “bogey men” were scarce, and only practice matches were played against small-timers learning the trade, such as Dinizulu, Charka, Lobengula, the Mahdi, the Mad Mullah, etc., but the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the present century brought us “bogey man” number three—the Boer Kruger. Now here were the ingredients for a “just and righteous” war. We fought it to free the “outlander,” give “equal rights to all whites,” and at the same time collar the gold of the Rand and the diamonds of Kimberley. The net result being—two independent republics lost their “independence,” cheaper Chinese labour introduced into the mines, and a big slice of Africa marked red on the map. The workers of Britain got an extra dose of unemployment, but had laid low “that” bogey man. Another dozen years passed, and “bogey man” number four appeared on the scene. Not a Frenchman, not a Russian, not a Boer, but a German—the Kaiser. Once again the workers, true to their training, determined to lay him low, and fear of the “bogey man” became most pronounced in such questions as “What would you do if the Germans came?” This time there was to be no nonsense. We would make Germany pay and hang the Kaiser. Alas! the workers paid in blood and tears and intensified toil for some and unemployment for millions, and they didn’t even hang the Kaiser; he settled in Doorn, doing well until he went to his hall in Valhalla. Will the workers always fall for a “bogey man,” or will they learn Socialism?</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Lew.</b></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-65967867621365146012024-03-10T18:22:00.002-04:002024-03-10T18:22:17.650-04:00Do We Need a Bigger Population? (1945)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOuAY7DSS3HxOOME4rG9t5jUr8fnVM0oUPpD1V8SVNiLf7S3IK6_YdMje_8CCXilAGdmtR_Y6wD_JvKNi0RLZtKO7dY87CStTZ0zDHSOaTzonqEICURNsoaiheQYnENlRJDqplbiQHqllom-cIIBUpd0X1fMN1Vy_gT0PmxUVX-g_9bTEIdlNurblsJ4jv/s320/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="241" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOuAY7DSS3HxOOME4rG9t5jUr8fnVM0oUPpD1V8SVNiLf7S3IK6_YdMje_8CCXilAGdmtR_Y6wD_JvKNi0RLZtKO7dY87CStTZ0zDHSOaTzonqEICURNsoaiheQYnENlRJDqplbiQHqllom-cIIBUpd0X1fMN1Vy_gT0PmxUVX-g_9bTEIdlNurblsJ4jv/s1600/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" width="241" /></a></div>From the March 1945 issue of the <i>Socialist </i>Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>A revolution in ideas regarding population has taken place since 1798, when <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus">Malthus</a> wrote his coldblooded “<i>Essay on Principles of Population</i>.” It had a favourable reception from the ruling class of the day, but the passing of time has shown his ideas to be fallacious, and they have been superseded by ideas which are quite contrary to his conclusions. His doctrine, which declared that there is a universal tendency for population to outrun the means of subsistence, expressed the ignorance of his time.</div><div><br /></div><div>The only solution Malthus saw to the poverty of his day was to get a decrease in the population and so raise the standard of living among the remainder. He does not seem to have been quite so heartless as some of his contemporaries, who regarded the lower class as a variety of animals requiring even less care than domestic animals. Commenting on one of them, the notorious Count Rumford, who had concocted <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumford%27s_Soup">recipes for cheap soups</a> as a suitable diet for the common people, Malthus writes:</div><div><blockquote>“They (the soups) are excellent inventions for the public institutions and as occasional resources; but if they were once universally adopted by the poor, it would be impossible to prevent the price of labour from being regulated by them . . . perhaps some cold politician might propose to adopt the system with a view of underselling the foreigners in the markets of Europe. … I really cannot conceive anything much more detestable than the idea of knowingly condemning the labourers of this country to the rags and wretched cabins of Ireland, for the purpose of selling a few more broadcloths and calicoes.” (<i>Essay on the Principles of Population</i>, page 232-233.)</blockquote></div><div>So Malthus was not completely unaware of the trend of wages, although he knew nothing of surplus value !</div><div><br /></div><div>The housing problem was then, as always, acute among the poor, but Malthus saw in it a weapon for keeping down the population.</div><div><blockquote>“One of the most salutary and least pernicious checks to the frequency of early marriages in this is the difficulty of procuring a cottage, and the laudable habits which prompt a labourer rather to defer his marriage some years in the expectation of a vacancy, than to content himself with a wretched mud cabin like those in Ireland.” (<i>Ibid,</i> page 250.)</blockquote></div><div>Portal houses are now to be produced for precisely the opposite reason.</div><div><br /></div><div>As Socialists profiting by the work of Karl Marx, we realise that workers are short of the means of life, not because production falls short of demand, but because the present anarchy of production is concerned merely with profit-making and not with supplying people’s needs the latter being incidental.</div><div><br /></div><div>Turning to recent writers on population, we find them arguing in the opposite direction to Malthus. The writers and investigators on the subject—Glass, Carr Saunders of the Eugenic Society, Titmuss, Charles and Ginsberg, to mention just a few—are full of woe and gloomy prognostications. They foresee something like extinction for the Western nations in 200 years time, and for the near future they predict more old people in bathchairs than infants in prams.</div><div><br /></div><div>They relate it to economics too. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glass_(sociologist)">D. V. Glass</a> states :</div><div><blockquote>“The population will suffer from a much higher degree of invalidity and the burden of State health insurance will be greater. So, too, will the relative cost of old age benefits. On the other hand, this large section of aged and therefore unemployed people will have to be supported by a relatively much smaller proportion of able-bodied persons. That is, proportionately the amount of taxation per head will rise, while the ability to bear it will fall. Moreover, the position of industry is likely to be more difficult. In the last century the industrial system recovered fairly easily from the depressions through which it passed, and one of the major factors in this case of recovery was undoubtedly the growth of the population. An increase in the numbers of people meant an increase in the demand for the products of industry, and with it the slump period of the trade cycle was shortened. The much reduced rate of the increase of the population of the world since the war has no doubt helped to intensify and prolong the economic crisis, and if population actually falls in the future, the effect of the trade cycle upon economic prosperity is likely to be much more severe.” (“The Struggle for Population,” pages 14-15.)</blockquote></div><div>To a Socialist such fears appear fantastic; to the orthodox economist, however, they are very real : immersed in a vain effort to reform and prevent the worst trends of capitalism, the real solution escapes them. Under Socialism people would not deny themselves the pleasures of children and the play of their normal instincts. Generally speaking, contraception is practised because would-be parents either cannot afford children or wish to do better for the ones they have. The working class, possessing only their power to labour, possessing no resources of wealth on which they can draw in bad times, find the inclination is not strong to procreate merely to create a reserve army of unemployed for the capitalist to draw upon in boom periods and that will languish on the dole during slumps. The worker is not interested in falling populations, but he is well aware that after successful strikes or negotiations for a rise in wages, a usual practice in the times called peace is to turn off many workers and instal bigger and better machines to do their work, and thus reduce the wages bill.</div><div><br /></div><div>In an effort to stem the falling birth rate (rising temporarily in the present war), the Government of this country are about to institute some form of family allowances. As an inducement to parenthood it does not bear the stamp of originality. Family allowances were first given in France in 1854 but did not become general until 1916, when rising prices were making it increasingly difficult for the parents of children to maintain their standard of living. It was resisted by the trade unions, who claimed that it would reduce real wages. Until 1932, when the Equalisation Fund was set up, the scheme was a voluntary one run on contributions obtained only from employers. We dismiss at once any suggestion that it might be due to their innate generosity or love of little children (for it is not characteristic of employers as a class), and look for a more likely reason. Possibly the following quote fills the bill:</div><div><blockquote>“Among other factors which may have influenced employers is the one given by the Director of the Fund for the Stephanoise Region. He believes that the granting of allowances has effectively withdrawn the family man from the ‘class struggle.’ If this is true, the employers had very strong grounds for extending the system.” (D. V. Glass, “The Struggle for Population,” page 52.)</blockquote></div><div>The Fascist powers, in their rise to domination, in Italy and Germany, made a determined attempt to increase the birth rate. The Nazis made loans free of interest to young couples, cancelling repayments at the birth of each child. Promotion was also given to fathers of families, together with opportunities to obtain the best houses or flats.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Italian plan, though on the same principle, had different features. A bachelor tax was levied, and financial burdens decreased in large families, by means of tax exemptions. The large family, however, consisted of seven children among State employees and ten children among other workers! In both countries improvements were made in maternity and child welfare.</div><div><br /></div><div>Methods employed in Russia are akin to the Fascist powers in this as in other matters. A 50 per cent. increase has been made in maternity benefit and endowments given to mothers of six or more children, whilst the mother of ten qualifies for a medal. L. Ginsberg, in a Fabian pamphlet, “<i>Parenthood and Poverty</i>”, thinks, in the Fabian manner, that it is merely an extension of the social services and an attempt to raise the standard of living; we prefer to view them in a more realist manner. The anti-abortion law of 1936 marked the commencement of a new policy regarding population which finds expression in the more recent changes.</div><div><br /></div><div>A method used by these countries is discouragement of birth control propaganda and sale of appliances. In Italy the latter became illegal, but was avoided in a truly commercial manner by selling certain articles under the heading of preventatives of disease.</div><div><br /></div><div>Individual capitalists are not concerned with the state of the population in a hundred years’ time; they want their profits now.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sweden, claimed as one of the most democratic countries, has adopted a saner method. Deciding that wanted children thrive best, birth control information is disseminated, whilst granting allowances and improving maternity and child welfare.</div><div><br /></div><div>Most Western countries now grant allowances for children. These include Spain, Hungary, Holland and Belgium. So also do Australia and New Zealand. The Baltic countries and Switzerland, Austria and Bulgaria grant them to State employees.</div><div><br /></div><div>The latter grants seem to indicate the desire of these countries to keep State servants loyal to the government and to induce them to refrain from following their class aspirations. We find Britain only recently tackling her problem. The proposed allowance for each child (after the first) is to be 5s. and not the 8s. suggested by Beveridge.</div><div><br /></div><div>From Malthus to his modern counterparts, no solution to the so-called population problem along their lines can be effective!. Malthus advised continence among the “lower orders,” the moderns advise the opposite, and neither solves any real problems for the working class.</div><div><br /></div><div>In a world torn and bleeding by a ruthless and brutal war, it is sheer humbug, cant and hypocrisy to talk of a population problem. Capitalism, which dooms millions to hunger in a world of plenty, wastes the lives of millions in useless toil, and periodically sends millions to their death in futile wars in every part of the globe, will appeal in vain to the working class to solve capitalism’s future population problems. There can be only one answer to such appeals-— a determined purpose to change the basis of society on the part of the workers, and to win a world with natural resources so vast and with productive forces so great that the needs of all can and will be supplied. Intelligent men and women will not then deny themselves the joys that children can give, and no special incentives need be offered to induce unwilling people to procreate. Family allowances and medals are devices of a ruling class endeavouring to solve its particular problems.</div><div><br /></div><div>Workers should cease looking to family allowances and social services for the solution to their present troubles. Why ask for paltry sums when the world is yours to win ?</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>W. P.</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-73767808131289373422024-03-10T18:21:00.002-04:002024-03-10T18:21:31.075-04:00New Leagues for Old (1945)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJSwZGL7WyerDq7Cx8AECgi5XvaCtHiWUc6rB7zJG2OkS1-QH0sJRwMcG5LwAYmgUyeZd8Yd75vX2kfNACiCATZ2el-nQmEhhTCD28LGB41ipH4cp4Ii_ItJwJIuqXZhSybFM1b_BWTdUrp_Ih_Pksk_G4kSHPnNT-wea51HQNJ-2J7MAuPq6Mrwm6oWSU/s320/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="241" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJSwZGL7WyerDq7Cx8AECgi5XvaCtHiWUc6rB7zJG2OkS1-QH0sJRwMcG5LwAYmgUyeZd8Yd75vX2kfNACiCATZ2el-nQmEhhTCD28LGB41ipH4cp4Ii_ItJwJIuqXZhSybFM1b_BWTdUrp_Ih_Pksk_G4kSHPnNT-wea51HQNJ-2J7MAuPq6Mrwm6oWSU/s1600/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" width="241" /></a></div>From the March 1945 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>The only political organisation in this country to consistently hold and propagate the view, during the peace interval 1919-1939, that the League of Nations would inevitably fail in its professed purpose ot preventing war was the S.P.G.B. We knew that peace would not come merely from the setting up of “right” machinery, nor would war come because we may lack this machinery. We knew that, given the capitalist system, with the competitive struggle for markets and its conflicts over spheres of influence, etc., war was inevitable. As a result of our analysis we did not welcome the League in an exultant mood—our attitude was sceptical. We asked this question : —</div><div><blockquote>“Is this pact an admission that the League is a mere phantasm, a spineless, parchment entity which can have no power or influence in the real world—the world of strife for economic interests?” (<i>Socialist Standard</i>, <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2020/06/peace-and-again-war-1919.html">July, 1919.</a>)</blockquote></div><div>The question posed by us was answered during the next twenty years. Workers, however, did not question the League as we did; they took an opposite view. They believed in the League and its work, and they supported parties that “stood by the League.” Thousands of sincere and earnest workers devoted their time and energy building up the organisation which they thought would help to establish peace. Probably the supreme effort of the League of Nations Union was the organisation of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Ballot">Peace Ballot</a> in 1935. 12,000,000 voting papers were issued and over 11,500,000 people voted on the questions asked. One of the questions was: “Do you consider that if a nation insists on attacking another, the other nations should combine to compel it to stop by, if necessary, military measures?” 6,784,368 voted in favour of military measures and 2,351,981 voted against. Most of the remainder abstained. Our masters were, however, not disturbed. Fifteen years of “peace” talk from the League had brought this result—that given certain conditions a majority of the workers were willing to fight. When the story of the Ballot was written, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil,_1st_Viscount_Cecil_of_Chelwood">Viscount Cecil</a> added a chapter in which he said:—</div><div><blockquote>“Nor must we forget that a second object of the Ballot was to convey to foreign countries the assurance that the British people stood firmly behind the League . . . in recent years too many people have been ready to suggest that, contrary to the best traditions of their history, the British people would not be ready to fulfil their obligations under the covenant; that they would never be ready to risk their money, and less their lives, in the repression of lawless breaches of international peace. It is satisfactory to know that there is no justification for such a slander on our people. By immense majorities they have declared themselves ready to restrain an aggressor by economic action and, with more reluctance and by smaller but still important majorities, to follow this up, if necessary, by military measures.” (“<i>The Peace Ballot</i>,” page 62. Gollancz.)</blockquote></div><div>The way was now clear to ruling-class representatives. They had useful information to guide them. War under the auspices of the League would gain the support of the working class. Few politicians failed in their week-end “perorations” for peace to speak strongly in favour of collective security and the League. But our rulers were not alone in speaking like this; the Labour leaders excelled at it. At week-end meetings, divisional meetings and conferences workers were told that it was essential that we stood by our “obligations under the covenant.” They who for years had advocated disarmament were now demanding strong action by the League (action which obviously required arms), claiming that this was the way to ensure peace. So belligerent did Labour leaders become that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Wilkinson">Miss Ellen Wilkinson</a> was moved to remonstrate:—</div><div><blockquote>“Is the Labour Party leadership trying to commit the Party to suicide? Must they always make the same kind of mistakes? For ten years they have been the head and front of the peace and disarmament movement. In the eleventh hour they clamour for sanctions that if meant seriously will lead to war. . . . There are even innocents who imagine that we can close the Suez Canal without an immediate state of war ! British Labour leaders have been trapped by cleverer men than themselves into sharing responsibility for a possible war, in the conduct and on the terms of settlement of which they in all likelihood will have no say whatever.“ (<i>The Plebs</i>, October, 1935.) .</blockquote></div><div>The flood of pro-League and anti-aggressor propaganda could have but one ending. When it was considered necessary war was declared on Germany.</div><div><br /></div><div>The League had failed to prevent war. Workers who had toiled hard for the League, imagining that it was an answer to international conflicts, had toiled in vain. The prize of peace was not theirs—the prize of working-class support for war was their masters’. The League had fulfilled that purpose. Thus were we justified in the view we had held for twenty years.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now the League is starting again, only with a different name. The “peace-loving” nations have held a conference at Dumbarton Oaks and issued various proposals for a new organisation, the “United Nations Organistion.” Should this unity break, they want disputes between adherent members to be settled amicably. It is intended to have a “serviceable set of teeth” to deal with recalcitrant or aggressor nations, it is to have a Military Staff Committee, a sort of United Nations General Staff. Its armed strength is to be contributed by the various members. Will the British ruling class hand over the Navy ? In the old League any member charged as an aggressor was not allowed to vote on the matter in dispute; Russia proposes that such member should have this right. The <i>Economist</i> was right when it described it as a blood-brother to the old League. What are the chances of this League succeeding where the last League failed?</div><div><br /></div><div>First, will the war end with the causes that gave rise to the war being swept away ? Recently Turkey became a “benevolent collaborator” of the British Empire. This prompted <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Hore-Belisha">Mr. Hore-Belisha, M.P</a>., to write a short survey of Turkish history showing the importance of the Dardanelles and Constantinople to the British Empire. He mentioned how in 1878 Britain agreed to defend the Asiatic dominions of the Turkish Sultan by force of arms because they feared the proximity of Russia to Constantinople. He also pointed out that as the Straits of Dardanelles are as vital an interest to-day as a hundred years ago, they must be kept in friendly hands. (<i>News of the World</i>, August 6th, 1944.) Two months later, when Greece was invaded by the Allied forces, Belisha stressed that just as Britain, as an island, had to prevent the domination of the Low Countries, so was it necessary, as an Empire, to prevent the domination of Greece. (<i>News of the World</i>, October 15th, 1944.) (He did not show how these matters are vital to the working class in these affairs, so “vital” to British interest, the working class is neither considered nor consulted.)</div><div><br /></div><div>What will happen should Russia become an “aggressor” in these parts? Who will settle the disputes then? Does anyone imagine that the British ruling class will allow such matters to be settled outside their jurisdiction? Will they await an “impartial” and perhaps unfavourable verdict from other capitalist powers ? Also, who will settle the present dispute between the Russian and the Polish rulers? So we could continue enumerating the problems that the League may and will have to face, but “enough is a feast,” so we will leave them the task. The problems still remain because the causes of war are not removed. When the capitalists are faced with threats to their interests they will not stop to consider the “rights” or “justice” of the case. They will not forfeit their “right” to act in their own interests. They will move to defend these, “with the League or against the League.” As a force for peace this new organisation promises to be as innocuous as the old.</div><div><br /></div><div>It has been said that we must see that the new organisation has “a serviceable set of teeth.” We want workers to get their teeth into the problem. What is to be their attitude ? Let them ask themselves this question : Is the next twenty years to be a mere interval between wars? We will answer, “Yes, unless workers show a considerable advance in Socialist understanding.” Capitalist Leagues and organisations exist to maintain that which now exists—capitalism. Those who help to maintain capitalism are helping to maintain a “cellarful of explosives.” Has the Labour Party any alternative to this prospect? During a debate on foreign affairs, Mr. A. Greenwood stated, “We yield to none in our admiration of the British Commonwealth and Empire.” (Official report, House of Commons, 25.5.44.) If in the future areas in close proximity to Empire bases or routes are attacked, the Labour Party will join in the struggle to defend those areas.</div><div><br /></div><div>Socialists alone have an alternative. It is not sufficient to work simply for peace. Our task is to work for a new social order where, because articles will be produced solely for use, conflicts such as those we are now witnessing will become things of the past. Not new Leagues for old, but Socialism is the solution.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Lew Jones</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-8122437677707952442024-03-10T18:21:00.001-04:002024-03-10T18:21:20.413-04:00By the Way: Unfaithful Wives of Soldiers (1945)<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggpgPA2RmaqhOjiIX5JdxBwYyUf4QuQZqGTBmgHzQvHw-YZYCNO0wT1rTUcdI_aKW0QHgecMBPIXn0yoF798_dK6MgxybNMPOPIQY6IQaRJg_CZXPLyM8ibc0aRgrXv1ZC5dAHMygKrpikbpug2pESkNSlUGjxvrmOzVA2YPbJw_VgYBXA8vDhOt3PMQOB/s320/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="241" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggpgPA2RmaqhOjiIX5JdxBwYyUf4QuQZqGTBmgHzQvHw-YZYCNO0wT1rTUcdI_aKW0QHgecMBPIXn0yoF798_dK6MgxybNMPOPIQY6IQaRJg_CZXPLyM8ibc0aRgrXv1ZC5dAHMygKrpikbpug2pESkNSlUGjxvrmOzVA2YPbJw_VgYBXA8vDhOt3PMQOB/s1600/March%201945%20Cover.jpg" width="241" /></a></div>The By The Way Column from the March 1945 issue of the <i>Socialist</i> Standard</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><b><span style="color: red;">Unfaithful Wives of Soldiers</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Dr. Percy Herbert, the Bishop of Norwich, is very worried about unfaithful wives of soldiers.</div><div><br /></div><div>He says unfaithful wives “are very widespread” (<i>News-Chronicle</i>, January 4th)—(presumably this means there are a lot of ’em, not that they are broad in the beam)—as high as one in ten, in some units in the Mediterranean.</div><div><br /></div><div>The chaplain who gives him this information adds : “It is impossible to describe the mental and moral devastation caused to a husband when he hears of his wife’s infidelity.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The Bishop is very concerned about the men who are engaged in “tearing the guts out” of the Germans (Mr. Churchill’s elegant phrase) being “morally devastated.” It really is difficult for a man to be “a combination of gangster, poacher, cat-burgler and footpad,” as Lord Wavell has defined a modern soldier, if he’s worrying about his wife’s fidelity.</div><div><br /></div><div>Wives should remember that soldier husbands will stab, shoot, roast, blast and throttle the enemy much more efficiently if they are not “morally devastated.”</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * *</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Medals and Principles</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Mr. Jos. Shelley has refused to accept the M.B.E. awarded him, saying:—</div><div><blockquote>“I am an active member of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, in which I serve on two of its important committees. If I accepted it questions regarding my principles might be raised and a false interpretation drawn. Principles matter; medals don’t.” —(Daily Herald, January 11th.)</blockquote></div><div>Good for you, Joe!—this is only the beginning of the end of Sir Walter Citrine. Sir Mark Hodgson, Lord Ammon, Lord Latham, etc.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * *</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Privates, Infantry, Discharged : for the Information of :</span></b></div><div><blockquote>“In Sunny Bahamas.—Opportunity to acquire Land and Building Sites now being developed in the most beautiful part of the Bahamas Islands, near Nassau. Suitable either for retirement or investment. Ideal climate, fishing, bathing, golf, etc. Low taxation and living costs. Regular air and shipping services after the war. . . .”—(Advert. in <i>Evening Standard</i>, January 13th. 1945.)</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * *</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Paris—and London</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The <i>Daily Herald</i> sent a British housewife, Mrs. Barker, to Paris to find out how the housewives are faring there after the liberation.</div><div><br /></div><div>She tells a harrowing story of the terrible privations now being suffered by the population as a result of an artificial famine created by the war, and concludes: —</div><div><blockquote>“Till then, it means unhappily that the larger your purse, the better you fare. The poor are often hungry. The middle class get by. The rich do very well indeed.”—(<i>Daily Herald</i>, January 12th, 1945.)</blockquote></div><div>The same issue of the <i>Herald</i> (January 12th) carries a special Black Market story on how Inspector Yandell is cleaning up the Black Market—(Yes! Again!)—by Gordon Cummings, which states that: —</div><div><blockquote>“Trafficking in coupons is a serious problem. On top of actual private deals, some retailers are getting supplies to cover their ‘off-the-coupon’ sales at fancy prices.”</blockquote></div><div>And who, dear Mrs. Barker, are the people in London, as well as Paris, who can pay “fancy” (read high) prices? Who will always outbid the poor man?—i.e., the working man ! The question has only to be asked to be answered. Rationing has little or no significance for the rich. There are always plenty of really good substitutes, or rather alternatives, to be had.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you can’t run a car. you can always take a cab or engage a private car. If there are no oranges—there are hot-house grapes and peaches. No cloth coats?—always one or two fur ones, at a price. Always grouse in season, or venison for a change—if you can afford it. No central heating at home? There are always good hotels for the best (richest) people.</div><div><br /></div><div>In London, as in Paris, Berlin as New York or Moscow. “The poor are often hungry. . . . The rich do very well indeed”–in peace or war time. That’s capitalism, Mrs Barker. The only way out is Socialism.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * *</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Tailpiece</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><i>Racket No. 3—Coupons.</i></b></div><div></div><blockquote><div>“Clothes coupon traffickers are getting bold. They are now openly offering coupons to strangers in public houses, night clubs, hotels, and even in the streets. </div></blockquote><blockquote><div>“Their supplies are stolen, forged or ‘traded’ coupons. </div></blockquote><blockquote><div>“Large numbers of the ‘traded’ coupons are bought from people who cannot use their quotas.”—(<i>Daily Herald</i>, January 16th.)</div></blockquote><div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * *</b></div><div><b><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Wrong to Kill</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.executedtoday.com/2016/05/08/1945-pvt-george-edward-smith-on-ve-day/">Private George E. Smith</a>, US. soldier, was on trial for murder of Diplomat Sir Eric Teichman by shooting him in his own grounds on December 3rd.</div><div><br /></div><div>Three psychiatrists, two American Army officers and one British civilian, testified about the mental state of the prisoner.</div><div><br /></div><div>Questioned about Smith’s mental age being only nine, Dr. Alexander, Colonel in the American Army and chief neuro-psychiatrist for this part of Britain (Norfolk), replied to the question, “Does Smith know it is wrong to kill?“—”Yes, he does.”—(<i>Daily Express</i>, January 12th, 1945.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Poor George, if he could only have waited another month or two, till he got to the European mainland, he might have been given a medal. It’s the first time we’ve heard that it’s wrong for a soldier to kill; we thought it was his trade.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * *</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: red;">Fraternising with the ” Enemy “</span></b></div><div></div><blockquote><div>“U.S. Troops Seek Kin in Europe. </div></blockquote><blockquote><div>The American soldier, when not fighting, is anxious to find relatives who may be in Europe, reports Associated Press from Paris. At least 2,000 requests for help in tracing kith and kin have been received by the Red Cross in the last ten weeks. </div></blockquote><blockquote><div>Doughboys whose roots may be French, Dutch, Polish—and in many cases German—are getting every possible help in their quest”.—(<i>Evening Standard</i>, December 30th, 1944.)</div></blockquote><div></div><div>This sheds a little more light on the £15 fine on Allied troops for fraternising with Germans.</div><div><br /></div><div>It must be rather difficult to inspire hatred and ferocity for “the enemy” when they are not only “class-brothers,” but sometimes even blood-brothers, as with many German-Americans.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Horatio</b></div></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-63145068462145862372024-03-10T18:21:00.000-04:002024-03-10T18:21:05.948-04:00SPGB Meetings (1945)<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Party News from the March 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard</b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj32N3nO3JuvOKCucBjEVpsRuqEh98cq63Fg9KTCydJ_A3jAI63P4-WWnVNyHKtoBg0ULNlQeNRJAewaDkbxsBUYz3JLhjKqcT1d04PkWBrdO_1HpPTYyTYytMHMsi2q7015y_pfJFpVd9X9pg03qD5xgNBhfPLNCr7eTBfIgnymc6QOoTdNs2Ox79fIl25/s952/%22March%201945%22%20%22Socialist%20Standard%22%20%22Samuel%20Leight%22%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="518" data-original-width="952" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj32N3nO3JuvOKCucBjEVpsRuqEh98cq63Fg9KTCydJ_A3jAI63P4-WWnVNyHKtoBg0ULNlQeNRJAewaDkbxsBUYz3JLhjKqcT1d04PkWBrdO_1HpPTYyTYytMHMsi2q7015y_pfJFpVd9X9pg03qD5xgNBhfPLNCr7eTBfIgnymc6QOoTdNs2Ox79fIl25/w482-h261/%22March%201945%22%20%22Socialist%20Standard%22%20%22Samuel%20Leight%22%20copy.jpg" width="482" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0Ge7R2oTBCMzD_EyfOA3L8RiXmazrLGZfACtTYcW0k3Kv4Jdbt74utx3Hrq0WRD1FUDwZ_mI0CpXyOHQhbuzZbcxMhajf5mYKzxsiH9wjiH-EAa6iH-v1tvTVNunzqSNyeyIk6YXHsTARkqg0o6bAFXakNaTZ_xofDiCjvygHfs7_Cj_GHXU8SWL1a4UB/s1062/%22March%201945%22%20%22Socialist%20Standard%22%20%22SPGB%20Glasgow%20Branch%22%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1062" data-original-width="964" height="492" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0Ge7R2oTBCMzD_EyfOA3L8RiXmazrLGZfACtTYcW0k3Kv4Jdbt74utx3Hrq0WRD1FUDwZ_mI0CpXyOHQhbuzZbcxMhajf5mYKzxsiH9wjiH-EAa6iH-v1tvTVNunzqSNyeyIk6YXHsTARkqg0o6bAFXakNaTZ_xofDiCjvygHfs7_Cj_GHXU8SWL1a4UB/w447-h492/%22March%201945%22%20%22Socialist%20Standard%22%20%22SPGB%20Glasgow%20Branch%22%20copy.jpg" width="447" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgykw3YELis4yxKZYfOCy9sHX2NEbmjRNdB2739khTKr1F8GRPLUbPlUnRlFMTIJqQxwZnrk8e-4nuwCxK7UvfXG14gmia9Li-ZZ3yDVZCwrQ5N7ZwENgTiUdhV_paM5viwUo_S73AfFulJgEPUc-XoDLFembsAUXLpx9DhoeS7CndHev2ifp0kyenJVlnh/s942/SPGB%20Annual%20Conference%201945%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="378" data-original-width="942" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgykw3YELis4yxKZYfOCy9sHX2NEbmjRNdB2739khTKr1F8GRPLUbPlUnRlFMTIJqQxwZnrk8e-4nuwCxK7UvfXG14gmia9Li-ZZ3yDVZCwrQ5N7ZwENgTiUdhV_paM5viwUo_S73AfFulJgEPUc-XoDLFembsAUXLpx9DhoeS7CndHev2ifp0kyenJVlnh/w473-h189/SPGB%20Annual%20Conference%201945%20copy.jpg" width="473" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Blogger's Note:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With regards to the debate with the Labour Party in Manchester, I wonder if the Labour Party representative, 'C. Allaun', was any relation to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Allaun">Frank Allaun</a>? He was a longstanding Labour MP in Salford from the 1950s onwards and was a leading member of the Labour Left in the 60s and 70s? Who knows, maybe it was a typo in the <i>Standard</i> and it was in fact Frank Allaun debating the Party. Allaun is quite a unique surname.</div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903281042242791813.post-49409976616702615832024-03-08T14:34:00.003-05:002024-03-11T16:43:47.856-04:00New Blog Page: Pathfinders<div style="text-align: justify;">The more eagle-eyed amongst will have noticed that there are some new additions to the layout of the blog. If you cast your eye to the top of the homepage you will see new links to pages dedicated to three current <i>Socialist Standard</i> columns. (More to follow.)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It makes sense that, as there is now so much material on the blog, steps have to be taken to ensure that columns, writers and subjects don't get buried amongst what are now thousands and thousands of posts. Therefore, part of the new remit of the blog will be to create dedicated pages for the aforementioned columns, writers and subjects.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the first pages created for the blog is for the <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/p/pathfinders-column.html">Pathfinders column</a>, a regular feature in the <i>Socialist Standard</i> since 2005. As the page's intro states, the column:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><i>". . . broadly looks at aspects of science and technology in capitalism, with an eye on how they might look or be applied in a future world where money and profit are not the driving factors."</i></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As there are somewhere in the region of 200 plus Pathfinders columns listed on the page, I thought for this introductory post I'd give a rundown of the 20 most popular Pathfinders columns on the blog at the time of writing. Not saying they're the best columns, but they are ones with the most views. If nothing else, it gives some indication of what subjects garner the most interest.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>20. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/12/global-warning-fatigue-2017.html">Global Warning Fatigue (August 2017)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>19. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/10/subscription-based-capitalism-2017.html">Subscription-based Capitalism (October 2017)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>18. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/11/after-sugar-rush-2015.html">After the Sugar Rush (November 2015)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>17. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/07/war-enders-in-sight.html">War – the Enders in Sight (April 2012)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>16. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2009/05/socialism-on-drugs.html">Socialism on drugs (May 2009)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>15. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/12/a-seasoning-of-goodwill-2016.html">A Seasoning of Goodwill (December 2016)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>14. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/08/10-goto-20-20-goto-10-10-goto-20-2016.html">GOTO 20. 20: GOTO 10. 10: GOTO 20 . . . (August 2016)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>13. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2021/09/pathfinders-magic-bullets-2021.html">Magic bullets (January 2021)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>12. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/03/pathfinders-under-ground-and-over-moon.html">Under the Ground and Over the Moon (March 2014)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>11. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-biggest-question-dont-ask-2015.html">The Biggest Question? Don’t Ask... (September 2015)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>10. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-fall-and-rise-of-electric-car-2017.html">The Fall and Rise of the Electric Car (November 2017)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>9. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/11/scenes-deleted-from-jungle-book-2016.html">Scenes Deleted From The Jungle Book (November 2016)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>8. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/06/flogging-dead-horse-2013.html">Flogging a Dead Horse (March 2013)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>7. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/03/coprophilia-2017.html">Coprophilia (March 2017)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>6. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2013/10/smart-is-new-black.html">'Smart' is the New Black (October 2013)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>5. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-rattle-of-blockchains-2017.html">A Rattle of Blockchains (December 2017)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>4. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/05/capitalisms-war-on-war-on-drugs-2016.html">Capitalism's War On the War On Drugs (May 2016)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>3. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/03/space-oddity-2018.html">Space Oddity (March 2018)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>2. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2008/10/blog-post.html">S-C-A-ISM minus O-I-L? (October 2008)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>1. <a href="https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2013/11/digging-up-dirt.html">Digging up the Dirt (November 2013)</a></b></div>Imposs1904http://www.blogger.com/profile/04043116442576404667noreply@blogger.com0