Editorial: A Future Worth Living For (1960)

Editorial from the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

We live in a most paradoxical world. We live in an age of science, an age in which man has become more and more the master over nature. The spectres of disease, starvation, and death, beat a steady retreat before the onslaught of test tube and microscope. Fire, water and the atom are being steadily harnessed to the whims and will of man. The mysteries of the past have become the studies of the present. What man feared in his ignorance has been conquered by his understanding. And yet amidst this possible Eden of peace and plenty rears the ugly head of destruction and poverty.

Before us lies a world of highly developed national interests, stilled in a web of its own making. A society based upon production of commodities for profit continues as an economy which cannot adjust itself to the complications of the highly technical relationships of the 20th Century. Because of its inherent contradictions, Capitalism finds itself, constantly faced with war. It is not democracy or dictatorship but expansion or extinction of capitalist interests that are at stake. In new markets from which profits may be reaped, in new territories to exploit, lies the cause for which men die.

The new advances in the means and methods of production, which provide capitalism with its claim to greatness, have become a Frankenstein. Technological progress has outgrown and is being strangled by the restraints and limitations of our private-property society. The small production units of early capitalism have given way to a complicated, highly socialised organisation. Despite this, control still remains in private hands, typified by individual, corporate, or state ownership. It is this glaring contradiction that results in wars, crises and misery.

Poverty amidst plenty has no justification. Man can produce food, clothing and shelter, more than enough for all, and yet many go hungry, homeless and unclad. Within his power lies a world of peace and plenty. Yet Man appears reluctant to make it possible in his political ignorance.

It is a current prejudice that man’s inhumanity to man, his selfishness and greed, are the core of all social ills. The pious are devout in their claim that man’s difficulties are due to his lack of faith and ungodliness. The “intellectuals” are equally insistent in maintaining that the working class are not only incapable but also unwilling to lead a better life. The “practical” men insist that a rigid and authoritative leadership is necessary to control the ignorance and stupidity of the mob.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain opposes all these contentions. If we want to understand the human behaviour of the present-day, we must seek for an explanation in the organisation of society. We live in a commodity system in which everything has a price, including man. Goods are not produced primarily to satisfy the needs of people, but to be sold on the market for profit. The means of production are concentrated in the hands of a few who live by virtue of their ownership. On the other hand, we have the overwhelming majority of the world whose only means of livelihood is the selling of their energies, physical and mental, to those who own the machinery of wealth production. The few live in splendour and luxury; the many dwell precariously.

It is not a change of heart that is needed, but the establishment of Socialism, a social system that will be in harmony with man’s needs. There is but one way to speed the day: that is by banding together to destroy the barriers of national patriotism and race hatred;, to organise into a movement that stands for the establishment of a world in which war will give way to peace, scarcity to abundance, and nationalism to world cooperation. Only such a movement can be an inspiration and rallying point for the working class everywhere.

The common ownership and democratic control of the means of living, by and in the interest of society as a whole, is the only insurance of a future worth living for.

Right to Strike (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Arising from an article appearing in the Sunday Times headed “The Right to Strike" on the 14th February, 1960, there appeared in the correspondence column on the following Sunday a very interesting letter, also under the heading “The Right to Strike.” Amongst other things, the contributor made the following observations: “I personally believe that in a free society, the rights of an individual to apply or withhold his labour must be maintained in all but the most exceptional of circumstances, such as a major threat to the life of the community.” He also said: “Thus in a tightly integrated society, where interdependence characterises all major spheres of activity, any one of a large number of small groups could by the irresponsible use of rights, affect the very ability of the population to live.” He then went on to quote as examples, “The medical profession and workers in sewage disposal, water supply, power supply, and other vital services.” It would seem that although trade unionists should have the “right to strike,” under no circumstances should they use it.

His conclusion, however, deserves close examination: he said, “The only solution lies in a much greater attention by the management to all aspects of human relationships and—preferably at an early age—the inculcation into the minds of working people their duties and responsibilities as trade unionists and citizens living in the second half of the 20th century.” It reminds one of the Jesuit claim that a child of seven taken into the Roman Catholic Church remains a Catholic for life.

This argument of “responsibility” has been used in the past, for instance, in connection with the recent threatened railway strike. But throughout his letter the contributor, except for his reference to the management's greater attention to “all aspects of human relationships," puts no responsibility whatsoever on the capitalist class. This is understandable, for as a section of society who produce nothing, their responsibility is only to themselves. Their responsibility is to profits not to people. These profits can only be maintained at the expense of the working class, and when, because of the refusal of sections of the capitalist class to meet demands for increases in wages, trade unionists take action by using the strike weapon, the whole force of the capitalist class, through the medium of the Government, Press and sometimes trade union leaders, is used to prate about “responsibilities" to society. No-one, of course, talks about the responsibility of the capitalist class to workers trying to raise families on £7 to £8 per week (e.g., the railway workers). No, their plight is conveniently forgotten "in the interest of the country.” What humbug!

However, one thing should be clear to trade unionists on these issues. The capitalists cannot do without us, but we can dispense with their services, for they do not sow neither do they reap; they are, in fact, a useless, parasitical class who are a permanent brake on society.

Now, back to our contributor. One would think he was a pillar of capitalism—perhaps Mr. Macmillan, the Tory Prime Minister, or the Tory Minister of Labour. But anyone who thought this would be wrong. It was Mr. Carron, President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Trade unionists may be surprised at this—we are not.

We are very sceptical of the statements and attitudes of trade union leaders, for we can remember that many trade union leaders supported the capitalist Labour Government and their wage-freeze policy in the years 1947 to 1950, much to the detriment of the workers.

Johnny Edmonds

And Yet War Came (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

In vast numbers of people during the Twenties and Thirties there grew up a revulsion against war, a reaction against the senseless slaughter of World War One. Writers like Remarque (All Quiet on the Western Front) and H. G. Wells (The Shape of Things to Come) attempted to show the futility of war and the possible destruction of civilisation. On the political field, popularity and votes could be won by politicians claiming to be in favour of disarmament, and armament manufacturers were pilloried as the “merchants of death.” Basil Zaharoff was held up as an example, with his supplying of arms to both sides. Prominent politicians like George Lansbury and Stafford Cripps won fame by their opposition to war. There was the “Peace Letter” campaign, which held great sway among the opponents of war. Its aims were linked with the League of Nations, whose alleged purpose was to assemble all the nations for the settlement of differences by discussion and reason. And yet war came.

Those people who formerly opposed it changed to support on the grounds that it was the lesser of two evils. That the horrors of Nazism and Fascism were worse than the horror of war. Politicians whose popularity had rested on disarmament and appeasement were reviled and replaced by those more determined to prosecute the war. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo became the personifications of evil.

The Allies, in order to prosecute their war aims more successfully, drew up the Atlantic Charter and its declaration of human rights. The sweeping away of poverty and the degradation of the common man, was pronounced a major war aim. Despite Churchill’s popularity as a war leader, the desire for change at the end of the war resulted in the election of a Labour Government with an overwhelming majority. 1945 was thought to be the beginning of a new era. The “Welfare State” was ushered in with loud acclaim.

Yet for all the blood, toil, tears, and sweat, what has become of the hopes and ambitions of those years? Has the threat of war been abolished? Have the antagonisms and tensions between nations ended? Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo are gone; Khrushchev, Chou-En-Lai, and Nasser, are now the “villains of the peace.” Instead of Fascism, Communism is now held up as the barrier to the peace and stability of the world.

Politicians say that one of the causes of the last war was the weakness of the Allies in their policy of appeasement. It is claimed that this encouraged aggression by the Axis powers—therefore, we should be armed and ready to deter any potential aggressor even if it means going to the very brink of war itself, as advocated by the late American Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. Labour Party leaders now support nuclear weapons, for to argue from strength, they say, is the only way of maintaining Britain’s position in a world charged with aggressiveness. This is the ludicrous situation —all the nations are determined to have peace, even if they have to go to war to get it.

As much as people are opposed to war, history teaches us that mere opposition is not enough. Socialists are more than just opposed to war. We are opposed to a system that is the direct cause of war situations and finally of war itself. What is this system? It means private ownership, working for wages, the buying and selling of goods, and the acceptance of trade, both national and international, as the only way people can get the things they need. Armies, Navies, Air and Police forces exist and function for the sole purpose of maintaining and protecting property institutions. This is the main reason for the division of the world into national competitive groups.

Anyone who supports this system is an agent of that same process that produces a Hitler, Gas Chambers, a Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and all the other horrors of modern war. Here is the irony of it all. That in their daily lives the way in which people get their living produces a monstrous situation for which there is only a monstrous and yet temporary solution. Having defeated the supposed enemy, they then bring about the situation which nobody wanted in the first place. The Socialist solution runs counter to everything that supports existing property institutions.

Socialists want a world based upon voluntary co-operation, in order that the products of men’s efforts can be of free access—a world where money will not be necessary.

We want people to break out of this vicious circle that perpetuates the ideas of property society. We want their thinking to be Socialist thinking.

J.C. Gormley

A Message for Aldermaston Marchers. (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

When your house is on fire you drop everything until you have put out the flames: and if your neighbours come in to help, you are glad to see them, without asking whether they are vegetarians or teetotallers or anything else. So might the campaign for Nuclear Disarmament argue, to justify the political diversity of their membership, united as it is only in the desire to abolish nuclear weapons.

We can all agree that these weapons are monstrous. The two Japanese cities were terrible enough: since then, the bombs have been made many times more destructive. The Home Office publication Nuclear Weapons estimated that a bomb a little smaller than that exploded by the Americans at Bikini in 1954 would cause total or irreparable damage for a radius of six miles and would certainly kill everybody within half a mile, by burns if not from other causes. A Chief Inspector of Fire Brigades has said that a hydrogen bomb on London could cause 100,000 fires—and might temporarily alter the course of the Thames. These forebodings are several years old. Now we have even bigger bombs, and rockets which can deliver them over thousands of miles. Yes, nuclear weapons must be abolished. How can it be done?

What if the governments yielded to the pressure of the nuclear disarmers and agreed to scrap their bombs? This would be worth no more than all the other solemn vows to disarm, or to refrain from taking up arms, or to be non-aggressive, which governments, when it suited them, have broken in the past. The fact that Germany in 1919 signed an agreement not to arm did not prevent her becoming a powerful military nation a few years later. The non-aggression pact of 1939 between Germany and Russia did not prevent the conflict of 1941-45. But let us suppose that governments, strangely, kept the promise to forego their nuclear weapons. That would only take us back to 1945, when wars were fought with blockbusters and flame throwers and Napalm bombs. There is nothing desirable about that. Or we could make a really good job of it and go back to the weapons of 1914-18. Or 1870, or 1415 or 1066.

Of course, it is foolish to expect a modern government to run an army of longbowmen. It seems too obvious to say that as one country develops a weapon, so the others must find one similar or better. That is how the military aircraft and the nuclear bomb, for example, were born. Nowadays, no foreign minister has much of a say unless he has a fistful of H-bombs. In the last election campaign, Sir Winston Churchill said, ". . . you are more likely to obtain a hearing for your views if you have some substantial stake in the balance of world power. And these stakes . . . are still much measured in military terms." To win a stake in world power, the French and Chinese are working up their atom bombs—and the established nuclear powers, to keep their stake, have to make rockets and missiles with Hydrogen bomb war heads.

When the first French atom bomb was exploded a few weeks back. General de Gaulle exclaimed, “Hurrah for France! " He knew that he was really saying hurrah for destruction and death, because that is what military power means. But military power is only necessary to modern states because in peace and war, they are struggling for economic advantage. This is a world where everything is produced with the intention of selling it profitably, which means that sellers compete for markets, manufacturers for plentiful raw material sources and transporters for trading routes. These are the disputes which, when everything else fails, are settled by force—by war. So France hangs on to Algeria for, among other things, the oil that is there. So Britain fought for years in Cyprus, because it is a base near the strategically important Suez Canal and the vital Middle East oilfields. So the last two world wars were started—and so a third could start if, for example, Russian economic influence in the Middle East or the Caribbean became too great a threat to British and American interests.

In these conditions, national states are bound to maintain a military machine to fight for the interests of their ruling classes and to equip that machine with the most powerful—the most deadly— weapons possible. It is futile to expect them to do otherwise. In 1917, it would have been suicidal for them to have thrown away their tanks, or in 1944 their bombers. In 1960 they are similarly reluctant to give up their nuclear bombs. There is only one way to deal effectively with this problem. Go to the roots. The capitalist system is the cause, from beginning to end, of modern war and the horrifying methods of its prosecution.

Marching from Aldermaston, sitting in the mud at Swaffham, or lying in jail, the nuclear campaigners deserve our respect for their concern with one of the horrors of modern society. But we can only regret that so much energy is wasted in such a topsy-turvy movement. If it is desirable to abolish one weapon of war, how much more so is it to get rid of them all? Or to get rid of war itself? Our house is burning because it is made of inflammable materials—and people will keep dropping lighted matches. It is useless to tackle each fire as it breaks out. We must build ourselves a new house.

Ivan.

A Man or a Tool. (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Understand this clearly: You can teach a man to draw a straight line, and to cut one; to strike a curved line, and to carve it; and to copy and carve any number of given lines or forms, with admirable speed and perfect precision; and to find his work perfect of its kind: but if you ask him to think about any of those forms, to consider if he cannot find any better in his own head, he stops; his execution becomes hesitating; he thinks, and ten to one he thinks wrong; ten to one he makes a mistake in the first touch he gives to his work as a thinking being. But you have made a man of him for all that. He was only a machine before, an animated tool.

"And observe, you are put to stern choice in this matter. You must either make a tool of the creature, or a man of him. You cannot make both. Men were not intended to work with the accuracy of tools, to be precise and perfect in all their actions. If you will have that precision out of them, and make their fingers measure degrees like cogwheels, and their arms strike curves like compasses, you must unhumanize them. All the energy of their spirits must be given to make cogs and compasses of themselves. All their attention and strength must go to the accomplishment of the mean act. The eye of the soul must be bent upon the finger-point, and the soul's force must fill all the invisible nerves that guide it, ten hours a day, that it may not err from its steely precision, and so soul and sight be worn away, and the whole human being be lost at last—a heap of sawdust, so far as its intellectual work in this world is concerned; saved only by its Heart, which cannot go into the form of cogs and compasses, but expands, after the ten hours are over, into fireside humanity.

“On the other hand, if you make a man of the working creature, you cannot make a tool. Let him but begin to imagine, to think, to try to do anything worth dong; and the engine-turned precision is lost at once. Out come all his roughness, all his dullness, all his incapability; shame upon shame, failure upon failure, pause after pause: but out comes the whole majesty of him also; and we know the height of it only when we see the clouds settling upon him. And, whether the clouds be bright or dark, there will be transfiguration behind and within him.”

*  * *

“We have much studied and much perfected, of late, the great civilized invention of the division of labour; only we give it a false name. It is not, truly speaking, the labour that is divided; but the men—divided into mere segments of men—broken into small fragments and crumbs of life; so that all the little piece' of intelligence that is left in a man is not enough to make a pin, or a nail, but exhausts itself in making the point of a pin, or the head of a nail. Now it is a good and desirable thing, truly, to make many pins in a day; but if we could only see with what crystal sand their points were polished—sand of human soul, much to be magnified before it can be discerned for what it is—we should think there- might be some loss in it also.

"And the great cry that rises from all our manufacturing cities, louder than their furnace blast, is all in very deed for this—that we manufacture everything there except men; we blanch cotton, and strengthen steel, and refine sugar, and shape pottery; but to brighten, to strengthen, to refine, or to form a single living spirit, never enters into our estimate of advantages.” 

John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice.
 Extracted from Volume 2, The Nature of 
the Gothic.

Finance and Industry: Russian Gold Policy (1960)

The Finance and Industry Column from the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Russian Gold Policy.

From time to time writers in financial journals speculate about the amount of gold produced in Russian mines and stored away in their equivalent of the American Fort Knox. They also wonder why the Russian Government sometimes appears as seller of gold in world bullion markets but for the most part seems reluctant to let it go. One suggestion has been that Russian costs of producing gold are very high and that they are holding it back in the hope (shared also by South African gold producers) that some day the American Government will raise its buying price for gold from the present 35 Dollars an ounce to perhaps 50 Dollars.

Mr. Paul Einzig in a letter to The Times (7/7/59) asked for more evidence about Russian high costs of production of gold, and pointed out that in any event gold used by the Russian Government to buy goods abroad is being used more profitably than when it is hidden away in Russian bank vaults. His conclusion was that the Russian Government “is determined to hoard a large gold stock for the sake of the economic and political power the possession of such a reserve entails.”

It is certainly true that if the Russian authorities have hopes of building up the Rouble to be a world currency, as universally acceptable as the Dollar, they will need gold on a scale comparable to the reserves in U.S.A. Gold is still the indispensable basis of Capitalist international trade, universally acceptable and of great importance in war to obtain materials from abroad.

As to the amount of gold produced in Russia, it is generally accepted that Russia is second only to South Africa. As long ago as 1937 an official Russian government publication (U.S.S.R. in Construction) claimed that output had increased four and a half times in the previous six years. It was, they said, needed “ to build up Socialism.”

In 1934 Stalin told the Communist Party Congress:

We shall use money for a long time to come, right up to the time when the first stage of Communism, i.e., the Socialist stage of development, has been completed.

Much earlier still, Stalin’s predecessor, Lenin, had improved on Sir Thomas More’s 16th Century notion of using gold to pave the streets, by saying that when they conquered power on a world scale they would use gold “for making public lavatories in the streets of the great cities of the world.” Such statements must seem very remote today to Russia’s army of gold miners.

And Russian Diamonds.

Russia also has a prosperous and expanding diamond industry. Not so long ago the great South African diamond group, De Beers Diamond Corporation, was reported to be worried over the prospect “That the mounting Soviet production would be sold abroad cheaper than the De Beers gems and industrial stones.” (Daily Mail, 19/1/60.)

As the Soviet News Agency Tass had reported that Russian diamond production was being enormously increased this threat was not one to be treated lightly, but in January came the news that Russia had linked up with De Beers and in future “All Russia’s diamonds sold to the West will be marketed through the London offices of the Diamond Corporation.” (Daily Mail, 19/1/60.) This was indeed good news for South African and other diamond interests.

De Beer’s already controlled nine-tenths of world sales of diamonds and the link up with Russia had the effect of sending up De Beer’s shares on the Stock Exchange.

Diamonds were firm with De Beers sparkling on the news that it has signed a marketing agreement with Russia. (Evening Standard, 19/1/60.)

Making the Pound Honest.

While the Russian Government may be preparing to make the Rouble into a world currency one problem of British capitalism is to prevent the paper pound from slipping any further than it has already. In 1925 it was equivalent to 4.86 dollars. Since then it has declined first to 4 and then to 2.8 dollars, and the Dollar itself has had its gold content reduced to about half.

Probably nobody expects the pound to recover lost ground, but certainly the Government and the Opposition are now united in holding that it should not be allowed to drop further: which is quite a change from the Labour Party’s attitude in the nineteen thirties. Then they welcomed it as a supposed release from the tyranny of the bankers.

The last time there was a risk of further devaluation, in 1957, Mr. Richard Crossman, Labour M.P., wrote:

Mr. Gaitskell and his Shadow Chancellor, Mr. Harold Wilson, are just as determined as Mr. Thomeycroft to save the pound. (Daily Mirror, 24/9/57.)

It would be a pity to forget that the British Communist Party was also worried about British capitalism’s pound. In a Daily Worker article, “The only way to Make an Honest Pound,” J. R. Campbell urged expanded production and wrote of this country:

It is being left behind in the race to increase productive capacity—a fact that is more likely to undermine the pound than any other thing. (Daily Worker, 16/10/57.)

Traps for the Small Investor.

The passage of time brings strange reversals of attitude in political parties concerned with running capitalism. At one time, when the Labour Party was planning wholesale nationalisation, it would not have occurred to a Labour newspaper to advise its readers to buy ordinary shares in companies. They might have been advised to put their savings into a Savings Bank, or to buy some Government security. But since then many small investors who had the misfortune to put their savings into 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock when Dalton was Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer have seen the price fall from £100 to £45; and the Government has again declined to do anything about it.

So now the belief is spreading that small investors would do better to buy company shares, either directly or through Unit Trusts, and Reynolds News (6/3/60) suggests that co-operative societies and trade unions should form their own unit trusts for investment in ordinary shares.

The writer in Reynolds News (“Scorpio”) thinks this would enable workers to share in the rising profits of industry. If he thinks that profits only rise and never fall he had better think again, but even if it were true, how will this remedy the problem he sets out to solve, that in this country “one-third of the population has no measurable property; one person in every 100 owns nearly as much as the other 99 ”?

Another echo of far off days comes in an article by W. J. Brown, who years ago was a Labour M.P. always in a hurry to get the Party’s programme put into operation. Then the Labour Party believed in “soaking the rich ” and supported a steeply rising tax on incomes. Now Mr. Brown, who long ago left the Labour Party, is campaigning for the abolition of Surtax, or, failing abolition, at least the raising of the level of which it is payable, from £2,000 a year to £8,000.

Edgar Hardcastle

Racist Theories (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those individuals who put forward argued theories to justify racial discrimination, as distinct from the huge majority, whose prejudices are generally of the crudest and simplest kind, usually try to embroider their theories with a smattering of science. By this means, of course, they endeavour to lend an air of scientific truth to their doctrines. This “science” generally consists in little more than the use of high-sounding phrases cunningly and skilfully worked into their other main arguments. Others, with a considerable knowledge of science, by devious means try to make the facts fit the particular theory they wish to put forward. Some of the less fanatical, very few in number, carry on genuine research work, but go completely off the rails when it comes to interpreting the results of their research. Such a man was Broca, a French investigator, who adopted various new methods of investigation which were afterwards taken over and developed by others of a more impartial turn of mind. These investigations, however, did not prevent him from putting forward race-theories based on the flimsiest of evidence. Of what value as a scientific investigator is he when, to explain on a race basis the existence of classes, he uses an argument like this?:-

He measured 125 skulls found buried opposite the Palais de Justice in Paris. From their position below the surface he assigned them to the twelfth century, and from the aristocratic nature of the district in that century he believed them to belong to the upper classes. He compared them with 259 skulls originating from nineteenth century pauper's graves. He measured, multiplied, divided, grouped them, and then showed the difference between the wealthy classes of the Middle Ages and the modern proletarians. (Race: A Study in Modern Superstition. Barzun. p. 164.)

This sort of argument is used by a man who, in scientific circles, has a standing. In what light must it throw the theories of the others!

The Jewish “Race”

There is not the slightest scientific evidence to show that the Jews are a race. They were not a “pure race” when they left the desert over 3,000 years ago; they are even less of a “pure race” today. Despite their segregation, compulsory and voluntary, they have frequently mixed with other peoples. Huxley describes them as a “socio-religious” group, and there is little to quarrel with in this. Although some Jews have themselves become bitten with the “ racial bug,” they can no more justify their belief in a “Jewish race” than the Nazis could justify their “Aryan race.” In their efforts to defend themselves against the racialists, some Jews have become racialists themselves.

Blogger's Note:

These passages were excerpts from the SPGB pamphlet, 'The Racial Problem: a Socialist analysis'

The Iron Horse (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Transport and the Growth of Industry (4)

The railways of Britain are continually under review and observation. It may be modernisation, the closing down of branch lines, poor time-keeping, dirty trains, high fares, or vile concoctions conjured up in the dining cars. In a few years we in this country will see the end of steam traction, a change already effected in other countries. No more shall we or our children be thrilled by the fierce glow from the fire box, with pungent swirling smoke as an express thunders through a station at night. Ours is no sentimental journey, however, but a short trip into the history of this form of transport, now an accepted part of our daily lives.

During the 18th century, production of coal and minerals as well as manufactures rapidly increased. Ships sailed away to distant lands and returned with new and precious materials; new areas were being opened to trade and settlement. The peasants, driven from the land by enclosures and poverty, swarmed into the industrial towns. A new type was appearing in Europe and North America; men who had engineering and technical skill, architects, scientists and chemists. The birth and growing-space of our capitalist world gave rise to a spate of bridge building, tunnels, docks and port installations, lighthouses and large public buildings. All of these works were necessary to the industrial revolution of commodity production.

One most noticeable feature of this age was the change in transport. Stage coaches ran to time tables and canals criss-crossed Europe and the North Eastern States of America. The industrialists were faced with problems of which the foremost was to keep up the supply of raw materials to feed and maintain the constantly improving machines. Another factor was that the act of buying and selling was ceasing to be the leisurely affair of the country market. People engaged in business had to move around and visit other lands, and competition demanded speed and time-keeping.

Coal had been conveyed in trucks on rails for centuries, since it had been found that horses and men could haul heavier loads if the wheels ran on tracks. These early rails were made of wood, and they wore out fairly quickly. To overcome this, iron plates were laid over the wood (hence the term, platelayers). Another method was to lay the plates in troughs or ruts, the wheels fitting into the depression. The problem here was that the rut often became full of earth and coal. In 1788 William Jessop invented a flat rail with a flange, the basis of our modem permanent way.

First Public Railway

The first public railway ran from the Thames at Wandsworth to Croydon (Surrey Iron Railway, 1803). The rails were the older rut type, as there were not many flanged wheeled vehicles at that time in London. In 1805 a horse hauled 38¾  tons, a distance of six miles in I hour 41 minutes, on this railway. That overworked horse certainly showed the value of railways to our profit and cash-conscious forebears.

Steam was the motive power in the new factories and it slowly killed the older water wheel. Steam powered factories could be built away from streams, right in the towns, provided coal and coke was available. Cornwall was enjoying a tin and copper boom and such names as Newcomen and James Watt took the stage in steam development. During the 1770/80s Watt and Boulton's great beam pump engines enabled miners to burrow deeper and overcome the ever-present problem of water in the shafts. There were many others in numerous countries that played their part in the development of “Steam Heat." A most important study was made of the practical application of metal compounds, so essential to enable boilers to withstand increased pressure of steam.

It was inevitable that some clever engineers would try to convert these stationery steam engines to a mobile form of power, to replace the horse and the sail. In America a steamboat ran for a short period, and in 1819 a ship using steam crossed the Atlantic, but the white wings of sail held their own for many years. In the Cornish mines a young man, “Captain Dick” Trevithick made a small working model, steam driven, which ran around his room. By 1801 he had made his first steam carriage, which ran along the lanes at Camborne. Man had made his first Iron Horse. These steam coaches later ran in conjunction with the stage coaches and, from the prints of the period, strange-looking cumbersome vehicles they were. Trevithick later tried his hand at building a steam locomotive for the Penydaren Iron Works in South Wales. Financed by Homfray, the Merthyr Ironmaster, the Cornishman built a one cylinder locomotive. On the trial day, February 21st, 1804, Trevithick wrote: “We carried 10 tons of iron, 5 wagons and 70 men.” Alas, the weighty machine was too much for the primitive tracks and the iron plates broke under the pounding.

Trevithick, with his versatile restlessness, moved on from one project to another; in London in 1808 he ran a train around a circular track at Torrington Square (prophetically near to where Euston Station was to be built in 1837). Steel, one of his co-workers, built another heavyweight failure for Wylam Colliery, Northumberland: not important in itself, but Steel was a friend of an obscure working man, George Stephenson. Between them the findings and failings of steam locomotives were discussed at great length. Others went on building failures —and improvements. Monsters were even conceived which, their inventors fondly thought, would prance along on legs like a cast-iron Arab charger.

One cannot discuss railways without acknowledging George Stephenson and his son Robert. The elder man was born in 1781 at Wylam in poor conditions; he worked on farms, but by the age of 14 was assistant fireman at Dewley Colliery, earning one shilling a day. By 1812 he was colliery engine wright on the pumps at Killingworth High Pit, repairing clocks and boots at night to supplement his poor wage. His son Robert went to school in Newcastle, and George, helped by the lad and a young friend, overcame his illiteracy and managed to study some works on engineering.

Stephenson, cut off from great wealthy architects like Telford and Rennie, had to spend his time discussing problems and theories on pay nights with his workmen friends. In those times there was an extreme shortage of mechanics, and engineers had great difficulty in getting their machines made in a reasonable time.

The man who brought Stephenson into the light was Nicholas Wood, a distinguished mining engineer. He noted Stephenson's keenness on machines and his interest in haulage and locomotive design. When Killingworth went in for steam traction to the coal docks on the Tyne, Stephenson secured the financial support of Lord Ravensworth, and built his first locomotive. From then on he and his son moved into prominence in the new world of railways, for not only were they engineers, but also had a broad mastery over architectural and surveying problems.

Stockton and Darlington

The best remembered work executed by the Stephensons was the 1825 Stockton and Darlington Railway which carried coal from the new pits near Bishop Auckland to the docks on the River Tees. Horse-drawn trucks were still the principal motive power on this line. The owners of the newly-built railways were still uncertain as to the value of the locomotives, and some leaned towards cable haulage. However, the Rainhill trials on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1829 not only secured a victory for Stephenson with his Rocket, but showed that the technical infancy was past, and the Iron Horse had become a healthy adolescent.

The 1830/40s produced a crop of railway celebrities, such as Ericcson, Vignoles, Gooch and Locke. It was the Great Western, pushing out from Paddington to Bristol, that gave such a tremendous outlet for the versatile genius of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. The Hanwell viaduct in West London, built in 1837, remains untouched from Brunel's day, but the trains look down on a very different world, the world of  the internal combustion engine. Vast improvements in track laying took place, most noteworthy being the use of steel rails. Signalling evolved, as traffic increased, from the natural arm movement of the Railway Policeman, to the use of electricity and complex semaphores and coloured lights. In the 1840's the electric telegraph was being used lo a limited extent by the Great Western and Midland Railways. The foundation of modern control was laid by John Saxby's interlocking and block device in the 1850's.

Railways were a social product: Victorian capitalist society needed them, and railways needed this same capitalist expansion for their very existence and development. They were and are part of the arteries of our society. From Great Britain the technical knowledge soon spread over Europe and N. America, and the improvements in engines, rolling stock, tracks and signalling became universal, interchanging and adapting to suit requirements.

The early engineers had to face hostility from older entrenched groups. They also suffered from a lack of surveying instruments, and poor ordnance maps. The mass illiteracy of the times often delayed the use of improved signalling methods, a problem felt by all the early industrialists. The greatest evil has been the insatiable thirst for profit. Sound ideas have been modified or rejected in order to keep within a profitable margin or even solvency. As a result of this, hundreds of lives have been lost in dreadful accidents (although the casualties are small compared to our current road toll).

Towns were able to expand, as it was no longer necessary for employer or worker to live near the office or workshop. The steam train with its modern offspring—Underground Subway, Metro or Suburban, brings thousands each day into the centre of the cities, under tinned- sardine conditions.

George Stephenson once said: “The time is coming when it will be cheaper for a working man to travel on a railway than to walk on foot." We could hardly expect him to have looked forward to the day when transport would be regarded as necessary to the function of society, to be organised without the necessity for making a profit or hankering after subsidies. That will be the day when the men and women who work the railways will not have lo argue before tribunals for their livelihoods Railways, railwaymen—all the resources of society - will be devoted to the betterment of the whole of society.

Jack Law

Letter: Psychology and Socialism (1960)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Psychology and Socialism

I have read E.W.’s review of Professor Galbraith’s book in the Socialist Standard for December, 1959, with pleasure. But I want to take issue with the central argument underlying the review. E.W. writes: “What is wrong, according to Professor Galbraith, is not the social system but the system of ideas. . . . In that case, phrenology or psychology would appear to be more relevant to the studies of the problem of our times than economics." To lump together phrenology and psychology is tantamount to combining astrology with astronomy, and unworthy of a scientific Marxian. Moreover, such an argument may induce serious readers to reject the legitimate claims which can be made for a truly Socialist society.

I believe the contributions which psychology has to make in the fight for Socialism have not been sufficiently explored. If it is true that the main ills of the world spring from the economic system, this system has not developed independently of human minds. Nowhere outside the human mind can the decision be made that the system shall be changed. The ultimate justification for a Socialist society is not economic but rests on concepts which come within the province of psychology human dignity is the concept that springs to mind first. Scientific psychology has something to tell us about comfort, about equality, and about freedom; these are the three ends stressed at the end of the declaration of principles of the SPGB (These were also the ends upheld by the French revolution, before Marx, except that comfort has now been substituted for fraternity!)

Economists who work on behalf of capitalism have not been slow to utilize the fruits of psychology, usually to evil ends (“subliminal” advertising, “motivational" research into impulse-spending, etc.). Let Socialists also face the facts about the “sales resistance” they encounter when trying to educate people in their legitimate rights and interests, and let us study the problem scientifically.

M. G.

Edinburgh.

Reply

We agree that phrenology and psychology should not be confused: the former seems to contain a larger amount of quackery than the latter. E.W.'s review mentioned them in the same sentence only to show the absurdity of Professor Galbraith’s viewpoint that defects in our system of ideas, rather than in our economic system, are responsible for social problems.

It is true that man’s economic system has not developed independently of his ideas, or without men themselves working on it, through their ideas and actions. But these ideas and actions are themselves largely limited by the physical surroundings in which man finds himself and cannot operate outside those surroundings. Man's physical and economic conditions are, at any one time, developed from earlier conditions and his knowledge, built from earlier knowledge, is derived from those conditions. Thus, although the decision to change society into Socialism can only be made in human minds, that decision will not occur to the minds until the economic and social contradictions of capitalism have accumulated the evidence which makes that decision desirable. When that happens, men's conceptions of dignity, freedom and comfort will be different to those which are generally held today—and the material conditions of capitalism, not any brilliant, abstract ideas, will be responsible for the change.

The raw material with which Socialists must work is the social consciousness of men. But this consciousness can only be understood by reference to society’s economic organisation. The effects of this organisation also limit the success of the advertising men (psychological approach and all), for the most skilful advertising can do little to save an industry which becomes caught in a slump. Similarly, what M.G. calls “sales resistance” to Socialism is in fact working class acceptance of their material state under capitalism. To change this, Socialists employ all the persuasiveness they can muster. But our propaganda would fall without the supporting evidence which the material conditions of capitalism —its wars, poverty, insecurity — are constantly providing.

Editorial Committee.

We invite our readers to send letters of comment and criticism. Please keep your letters as short as possible.

Woman at Work (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Someone recently made the discovery that lots of married women now go to work—somewhere about one in three. Of course, everyone knew that many married women did this—it was merely the number, and the increase over pre-war days, that was surprising.

This fact alone provides an explanation of much of the working class's newfound prosperity. This is what pays the hire-purchase on the telly and maybe the mortgage repayments. In other words, the working-class family is buying its so- called prosperity at a high price.

It is difficult to guess whether the desire for the new shiny gadgets is the principal factor in this phenomenon, or whether it is merely the reflection of women's increased emancipation from male domination, so that she goes to work simply because it is better than being imprisoned within the four walls of the home, with the washing-up and un-hoovered carpet staring her in the face.

From a purely economic viewpoint, the increase in the number of women at work probably operates as a drag on the increase of wages of male workers, but in time of boom the effect is not too great. The trouble is that capitalism doesn't give endless full-employment, but operates in a cycle in which lack of jobs supplants an excess of jobs. When this time arrives, the working-class family will be in a doubly insecure position, because their family commitments and standard of living have become based on two or even more wage-earners in the family. In the same way, illness or the arrival of children can also have a disastrous effect on the family budget.

What then is wrong with this process? Surely one cannot object to working-class families enjoying more of the things that society can provide? The answer is that every new wage-earner brings added insecurity along with his or her additional income, a paradox that only an irrational social system such as ours could provide. In this situation the pregnancy of a working wife becomes a major problem rather than a source of joy. And what is to be said of a nice new home full of new furniture and gadgets when no-one is at home during the day to enjoy it, and where the working members of the family are too tired to enjoy it anyway when they return from work. Too tired to do anything, in fact, but to flop down in the G-plan armchair and watch the telly.

It is true that one cannot turn the clock back, and no-one wants to return to the times when the woman's place was in the home, and where the wage-earners' toil was matched by the home drudgery of the housewife. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to hope for a time when ordinary people, both men and women, will be able to enjoy both leisure and the comforts of life without the nagging worries of insecurity and the phony values of a glittering, but essentially dross, world.

H. W. C.

50 Years Ago: Railway Nationalisation (1960)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

The railways will be taken over. In the place of many railway systems and many competing companies with many staffs of workers, there will be the State railway run, and one efficient staff and worked in every way to yield the greatest amount of profit. The system may well be extended in certain other directions, where competition, overlapping and other forms of waste can be eliminated, and workers consequently displaced, pitched neck and crop into the flooded labour market, to beat wages lower.

*

Fellow workers, Capitalism and Socialism are as far as the poles asunder. Evolve it ever so long and through ever so many forms and stages, the former can never evolve into the latter. State Capitalism, as other forms of Capitalism, has its root in private property; Socialism must be rooted in common ownership. The change of the property condition from private to common is the one essential for the betterment of the workers.

From the Socialist Standard, April, 1910

From the Branches (1960)

Party News from the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Annual Conference Programme

Conference begins at 11 am on Friday, April 15th; 2.30 pm Saturday 16th and 11 am on Sunday, April 17th. The Agenda is a large one and Comrades are asked to get along promptly each day. On Friday evening at 8 pm a Social and “Get-together" has been arranged at Head Office, 52 Clapham High Street, SW4. This event is an excellent occasion for Comrades and friends to have a jolly evening; dancing, drinking, eating, talking, and in fact taking part in everything that is going on. On Saturday, 16th April, at Conway Hall (the Conference venue) the Party's Annual Social and Dance will be held from 7.30 pm. This is an evening to which Comrades particularly look forward. The hall is large and light, the band is always good and without doubt a good time will be had by all. On Sunday evening, at Conway Hall, the Annual Rally will be held at 7.30 pm. Full details on “Meetings” page. Make a note of these dates and times and ensure that this is the best Annual Conference for years.

Socialist Standard

The March issue had a special emphasis on Africa—did you double your order for Standards to help to pay the added cost of production? It may not be too late now to get some extra copies. Should they be all sold, make a note to do this for forthcoming issues—it needs only to sell a few hundred more copies to greatly reduce the cost. What better way of propagating the case for Socialism?

To Writers

The monthly meeting of writers will in future be held on the first Thursday of each month instead of on the last Monday as formerly. The next meeting will therefore be held on 5th May, at Head Office, beginning at 8 p.m.

We ask all writers to make a special effort to attend these meetings, which provide a regular opportunity to exchange ideas and opinions and are at the same time most useful to the S.S. Production Committee in planning the Standard.

Outdoor Propaganda

In London and the provinces, not forgetting Glasgow, outdoor propaganda will re-open with, we hope, the fine weather.

All meetings are well organised by Branches and the Propaganda Committee, but the success of them greatly depends on the support of Party members. With regular literature sellers and members to assist, meetings can be a very rewarding pleasure for all concerned, this apart from the important factor—spreading the Socialist message.

May Day 1960

May Day this year is on Sunday, the first day of May. Details are given on page 50, but this reminder is for everyone to make a special effort this year. Hyde Park in London on Sunday afternoon; Denison House, Vauxhall Bridge Road, for an indoor Rally in the evening; and in Glasgow, the highlight for City and Kelvingrove Branches—a meeting in the Cosmo Cinema. The branches have worked very hard for some while now to ensure the success of this meeting and urge that Comrades in Glasgow and the vicinity bring along as many friends as possible so that this, although the first of such ventures, will be the forerunner of many more.

Phyllis Howard

The Passing Show: No excuse for less work (1960)

The Passing Show Column from the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

No excuse for less work

Religion is one of the chief allies of the ruling class, but as capitalism develops some of the old religious observances become impediments. When that happens, of course, religion has to give way. Even the great usefulness of religion to the ruling class does not compensate for the loss of profits. One example is the Moslem ceremony of Ramadan, in which for thirty days Moslems may not eat or drink during daylight. This means that as soon as dusk falls there is a rush to eat and drink, which often develops into all-night parties. The result is that the workers output, and the employers’ surplus value, declines. As the News Chronicle (5/3/60) puts it:

Up to now, as in the rest of the Moslem world, Tunisia's life came almost to a standstill during Ramadan because of the dawn to dusk fast. In some cases production dropped 70 per cent.

President Bourguiba, who runs the state machine on behalf of the emerging Tunisian capitalist class, could not be expected to tolerate that. Capitalism demands hard, regular toil from its workers, whatever religion may say. So the President acted

Bourguiba has not banned the fast outright. But he has stated firmly that fasting will not be accepted as an excuse for less work.

And, apparently, this warning is having an effect. The article says, “Tunisians are now obeying his order to work as usual during Ramadan.” So Bourguiba justifies his position as Tunisian capitalism's chief executive.

His country

From Tunisian capitalism to the British variety. The status quo here can have few stauncher defenders than some of our trade union leaders. Ore of them is Sir Frederick Burrows, ex-president of the National Union of Railwaymen. Sir Frederick felt moved recently to let the public know his views on the planned railway strike. The paper he chose to write to was The Times (10/2/60). which can be read by only a minority of railwaymen (it costs fourpence a day for a start); its readership is mostly either ruling class or those who like to think that they arc ” top people.” Sir Frederick finished his letter as follows:

If the N.U.R. desire to perpetuate Tory rule for another decade, if they wish to make the very name of railwaymen a scoff and a by-word, then they will strike, but I, personally, have more faith in their judgment. I trust that they will reject the advice of the malcontents in their ranks and act once again the splendid role they played in the war, when one and all stood for England—My Country, right or wrong.

Surely even a member of the ruling class would hesitate these days before trotting out again such hackneyed cliches. Even G. K. Chesterton, who was very far from being a Socialist, said that to say, “My country, right or wrong,” was like saying “My mother, drunk or sober.” But Sir Frederick rushes in with his jingoistic farrago where others might fear to tread. No wonder he chose the ‘‘top people’s” paper to write to.

It’s those foreigners again

From the Guardian of 10/2/60, under a Pretoria date-line:

Police armed with Sten guns, rifles and revolvers stood by today at Mooiplats squatter camp about five miles south-west of here while a bulldozer flattened houses, shanties and hovels from which 300 African families with no other homes are being evicted. The camp has existed since 1926. As walls crashed in clouds of dust lorries piled high with African men. women and children and their possessions left the camp. Mooiplats has been declared an area for Indians. Pretoria City Council's policy is to clear squatter camps. It is stated that most of the evicted Africans arc foreign Africans and will not be given municipal accommodation.

‘‘Foreign Africans”! These people are Africans; they were born in Africa and have spent their lives there; they are earning their livings, such as they are, in Africa; but they are ‘‘foreigners,” because they come from the other side of one of the boundary lines drawn on the map by the European powers who carved Africa up among them. When we have a rational society we will be able to forget the crazy artificiality of the divisions imposed on us by the necessities of private property. Wc will discard the bogies of nationality and race, and remember what we really are—one race, the human.

Alwyn Edgar

News In Review: Martyrs Wanted (1960)

The News in Review column from the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Martyrs Wanted

The railways have been carrying a deficit for many years, although it is possible that at some time in the future they will again become a direct profit-making concern. In the meantime, the railways are vital to the smooth running of industry generally.

The railway deficit was a useful propaganda weapon which the Railway Commission wielded in an effort to stave off the railway men’s claim for higher wages last month, along with the well worn slogans like “the welfare of the rest of society,” and “the good of the country.” It is unrealistic for the Railway Commission to expect that one section of the community should martyr itself to ”the national interest,” that is to say, to the interest of the capitalist class as a whole, when workers generally are involved in a constant struggle to secure a living wage. The railwaymen should not be misled by these meaningless catch-phrases, or be swayed in their determination to increase their pitifully low wages. They would be enjoying a much higher standard of living if they had gone about achieving this in a more militant way, with unity and greater purpose.


Clause Four

The Labour Party’s present wrangle over the possible revision of its constitution is merely a further commentary on this party’s reformist character. Mr. Gaitskell has hit back at his critics who object to his plan to alter the clause which pledges the party to 100 per cent. nationalisation. The rank and file are now told that a revised constitution is essential to enable the party to win the next election—which is an interesting comment on the way the Labour Party leaders’ minds work. Gaitskell’s opponents have called his plans “a betrayal of Socialism.” But since nationalisation has got nothing to do with Socialism this criticism is very wide of the mark.

In an article entitled “ The Future of the Left” (Encounter, March, 1960). C. A. R. Crosland, M.P. explains that the Labour Party now accepts a “mixed economy” and is no longer committed to “complete public ownership of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” He goes on further to say “Mr. Gaitskell’s (Blackpool) speech came as a great surprise to many of the rank and file who have not grasped what the leadership have been saying for the past ten years." But what have the Labour Party leadership been saying for the last ten years? They have been very busy in offering suggestions and assisting the present Government to run capitalism or, as they would now have us believe, a “mixed economy.”

The battle over clause four has nothing to do with Socialism. Whether clause four is revised or not, capitalism, under Tory and Labour Governments, will continue to produce its nightmares of insecurity and threatened mass annihilation.


Mining Disaster

The beginning of 1960 has seen two major coalmine disasters, first in South Africa, and then in East Germany. In the South African case, the disaster was in the Clydesdale Colliery at Coalbrook, where 435 miners were entombed. It may be thought that disasters in South African mines of the magnitude of this one are isolated, but although not involving so many men at a time, there are many accidents each year, the 1959 figures showing non-white deaths in the mines as 733 (Johannesburg Star, 29/1/60). However embarrassing it may be for the South African Government with its policy of apartheid, five of the 435 men buried together in the mine were white. Separate religious services were held at the pithead at the time of the disaster, one for the five white men and one for the 430 Africans. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which covers African and white mine-workers, there is a grant of £40 for burial expenses for whites but only £15 for Africans. The compensation payable to widows and dependants of the dead men will also be reckoned with due regard to the colour of their skins. Widows of Europeans will be entitled to £13 4s. per month if childless, with an extra £6 12s. per month for each child, but a maximum of £33 per month, regardless of the number of children. African widows will be entitled to a lump sum, handled by a trust fund in Pretoria, which only produces between £3 and £4 a month (Johannesburg Star, 4/2/60). Apartheid still operates even after death.


Four Minutes

Some years ago the phrase "I’ve only got four minutes” was made popular as the opening gambit of a music-hall comedian. Little did he know that in a few short years his phrase would take on a new and terrible significance.

Four minutes, we are told, is all the time that we will have between the warning of an approaching enemy rocket and its arrival on target. For this purpose the Government is spending something in the region of fifty million pounds, so that we can be informed in advance of our impending demise.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this venture, it seems a pretty hopeless prospect to know that the possibility for destroying us all has now been reduced to a four-minute job. Man's destructive capacity is now such a fine art, with push-button rockets and hydrogen bombs that can devastate a whole country, that the mind boggles at this latest madness.

Thus it is not surprising that people feel totally inadequate to cope with this kind of insanity, and tend to rationalise these happenings by thinking that atom bombs would never be used anyway. In this situation, to be an optimist where such tremendous grounds for pessimism exist, becomes necessary for one’s own sanity. Socialists themselves are not free from this, but at least they are trying to do something about it. What about you?


Jackboot Revival

During the current period of boom and peace old enemies have been forgotten, but recently there has been a slight stir on the western front. Germany has revived, and with this revival have come insidious outbursts of anti-semitism, and more recently, negotiations between Adenauer and Franco with the aim of setting up military bases in Spain. Hands have gone up in horror, as one might expect, and although these negotiations have come as a surprise to ordinary people, it is clear that the British Government have known about this for quite a time.

“Why the secrecy?”, one may ask. Indeed, it is a puzzle which would to many people be too involved to fit together. However, the explanation is not too difficult to find. Britain and France are in a sticky position. The world situation is now one of “West” versus “East,” with Western Germany belonging to the West and East Germany belonging to the East. In these circumstances, Allied countries are prepared to forgive and forget old enemies, and recruit them against old friends. However, no-one has quite forgotten the last war and that Spain was the training-ground for the German soldiers used in World War II.

Herr Strauss, the German Minister of Defence, in charge of the army, discussing uniforms for the new West German Army, was reported to have said: “Jackboots will march for Democracy/' What a paradox! One can envisage the logical conclusion of this view and see racial extermination and the establishment of concentration camps carried out in the name of democracy as well. It is also well to note that Herr Strauss was one of the small minority in the West German Parliament that voted against reparations for Jews who suffered under the Nazi regime.

Where will it end? Our friends are our enemies and our enemies have become friends. It seems reasonable to suppose that these crazy paradoxical antics of the politicians will continue until the British working class abandons completely the pernicious nationalisms that are foisted on them by their leaders, and comes to recognise their identity of interests with the working people of all countries.

Spare a Penny

A cyclone in Mauritius kills thirty-nine, wrecks forty thousand buildings, makes a hundred thousand homeless, and destroys much of the sugar crop on which the economy of the island rests. An earthquake devastates the town of Agadir in Morocco, killing over twelve thousand people. Now appeals are launched on behalf of the disaster areas. This rattling of cans under the noses of the public is the way misfortunes are dealt with under capitalism. In a Socialist society the care of the injured, and the support of the dependants of the dead, would not be left to charity. They, like every other member of the human society, would participate freely in the goods produced by society.

Rubber Bullets (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

  Indian police are experimenting with rubber bullets instead of lead ones. These do far less damage and are just as effective in controlling crowds. The investigation was prompted by the large number of deaths through shooting by the police during agitations in various parts of the country, which it is understood has aroused some adverse comment.
  Ballistics experts are now working on the problem at the Ishapore Gun and Shell Factory near Calcutta.

Rubber Developments, Vol. 12, No. 4.

The Missing Link (1960)

Book Review from the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Adventures With the Missing Link By Raymond Dart (Hamish Hamilton)

This book can be confidently recommended to readers of the Socialist Standard and all those interested in human evolution. Couched in a readable narrative style, partly because the story is largely autobiographical, it recounts thirty years' research in South Africa.

It starts with the accidental discovery in 1924, of an ape-like skull, more human than any living ape or ape fossil known. Professor Dart considered his discovery fundamental—a real missing link between ape and man—and he named it Southern Ape. As is usual, this conflicted with established ideas, and twenty years elapsed before confirmation came from fresh finds in another South African mine.

Perhaps the most interesting parts of the book are Dart’s theoretical conclusions. Basing his views on knowledge of the terrain he has proved that Australopethecus killed his prey with bone weapons made into knives and clubs, antelope jaw bones, and giraffe leg bones. Skulls of powerful and large animals were smashed in by deadly blows, sometimes from the front, and no ape can do this. Also, quite unlike apes, on occasions they killed and ate each other.

He therefore presents a powerful case for the Bone culture age of Ape Man, thus filling in many of the gaps previously existing in known human history.

The story of human descent will probably never be really complete—certainly never complete enough to convince those who can’t do without a Creator—but Professor Dart’s contribution has permanently enriched it.

A powerful book.

Horatio.

Lib-Labs or Lab-Libs (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the “left” of the Labour Party are a bunch of wordy, windy warriors who claim to be “convinced and dedicated Socialists.” They are the “Tribune tribe.”

You would, of course, be justified if you thought that “convinced and dedicated Socialists" meant men and women concerned with explaining to their fellow workers their class position in society. That this system with its class robbery, exploitation of wage-labour, and all that goes with them, gives rise to the predominant problems of today; and that the only solution is a society based on the holding in common, of all the world's wealth, by all the people of the earth— that is social equality. In one word, Socialism.

But how wrong you would be. For nothing is further from the truth. These windy wights are concerned with everything, but Socialism. Although they claim to be Socialists, their very words and actions give the lie to their claim. Any issue of Tribune will bear this out, but the issue of February 26th is a case in point.

Apart from the current squabble on clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution—as if public ownership ever had anything to do with Socialism—one article in particular bears out the statements made above.

This article, by Mr. David Boulton, “who came into politics through the Liberal Party, but has since joined the Labour Party. . .” is in essence a plea for the two parties—Liberal and Labour —to get together. However, in the course of his article he makes some revealing statements which show how non-Socialist he and his party are. The following are two examples:

  The Liberal Party, like Labour, is less a compact body of like-minded political activists than a coalition of a number of different bodies of opinion with a startling deficiency of common denominators. Within its framework are the single-taxers, the extreme laissez-faire school, the unilateral free-traders, the incurable “lost causers” and "I’m-for-the-under- dog”-ers, “conservatism-without-tears,” preachers and the genuine radicals.
  The Labour and Liberal Parties each pay lip-service to the idea of redressing, in some way, the absurd ill-balance of national wealth in which the vast bulk of industrial property is held by a tiny proportion of the population.

There you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. Having delivered himself of these home truths, our ex-Liberal cum-Labourite then considers that “Liberal Socialism and social Liberalism”—read Labour and Liberal Parties —have much to learn from each other.

One would have doubted this as they have both been at the game for a long time, but Mr. Boulton is nothing if not naive. He goes on to make the most astonishing statement about the aforesaid parties. He says: “Both work toward a society in which wage slavery will be abolished. . . ."

Where and when Mr. Boulton? We have been in existence for 56 years just for this very purpose, and it is the first time that we have heard that this is what the Labour and Liberal parties stand for.

Jon Keys