Janet Carter

I just discovered via Spintcom, the SPGB discussion list, the incredibly sad news that Janet Carter has passed away. 

Janet originally joined the Socialist Party in the 1960s, and was an active party member during all her years of membership. I originally met Janet in the late 1980s when she was the secretary of Central Branch and, as a young Central Branch member, I remember her kindness and encouragement. She later served as the General Secretary of the Party for a number of years and, to the very end, Janet was an regular participant in the Socialist Party Friday night zoom meetings. She was predeceased by her husband, Joe Carter, eight years ago, who was also a very active member of the SPGB.

I am sure an obituary for Janet will appear in a future Socialist Standard, but I just wanted to mark her passing on the blog. Socialists like Janet are the backbone of the SPGB, and she will be sorely missed by all who knew her.

On the thread on Spintcom, Mike Foster posted the text of an interview that Janet gave as part of the programme for the Socialist Party's 2019 Summer School. I think it's worthwhile reposting the text of that interview here:

Mike Foster wrote:

"In 2019, Janet kindly agreed to be interviewed for an article in that year's Summer School publication, which had the theme of 'being a socialist in a capitalist world'. Carla Dee put together some questions and wrote up Janet's replies about her life as a socialist and the people she met. Here's the text of the interview":

Carla: How did you first come across the Socialist Party?

Janet: I went up to Trafalgar Square during the Vietnam demonstrations in 1968 and I was wandering around collecting various leaflets from people and came across this older man looking rather dishevelled, standing in front of me holding a bundle of Socialist Standards; Jim Doherty, I think it was. There was one copy that took my eye with a cover slogan of ‘Who Needs Leaders?’ and that rang a bell with me so I bought it.

I had been investigating left wing politics and was starting to get political, but under my own instigation, for which I pride myself because there was no-one in my family or no-one that I knew who was political - no conversations at home or anything like that. I was going to the library and reading various left wing articles on Marxism and it all seemed to make sense, but there was no-one really to talk to, so I suppose I must have been a thinker. I’d already discarded religion in my teens.  

The Aberfan disaster in 1966 really affected me, and I saw how nothing had been done to avert a disaster in the name of profit and that propelled me towards the party too.

When did you join the SPGB and which branch?

I joined the party in 1969ish at the old Wood Green branch, which held meetings at a kind of evening class place in a community hall, I think. I remember the application interview as if it was yesterday. There was Jack Bradley, a leading member of that branch at the time; I was very fond of Jack though I didn’t know him very well then. John Lee, Ken Leggett and another chap whose name I can’t remember were there too. I can tell you I got a bit sweaty under the collar because it felt like a bit of an inquisition.

Were there any women in the branch?

No there wasn’t. It seemed like I was always the only woman in the branch.

How did your family react when you joined the party?

They would say “oh she’s getting on her soap box again”. I was getting the Standard delivered, reading it and giving it to everyone I knew, but there was no sympathy or interest, which I found frustrating but I was never a chatterer so I tended not to bring up the subject of socialism. I regret that, and I wish I had been more forthright, more combative.

How were you affected by the party case?

Absolutely delighted when the penny dropped! At last I thought I was sane and it was others that were mad, whereas it was the other way around before. I felt enlightened, if I hadn’t found the party I think I would have gone on thinking that I was a little bit mad. 

I was attending meetings and studying on my own. Well, I had the time as I didn’t have any children in my twenties, and I can’t imagine being able to be so active if I had children to attend to and clinics to go to.

When did you meet husband and fellow socialist Joe Carter?

I met Joe at Wood Green branch; he had been a member for about three years. He was very active and I had been to a couple of outdoor meetings where Joe was speaking and was quite impressed by him. We also shared a great enjoyment in long distance walking and wish we had done more of it.

You said there were no women in your branch but there were quite a few women in the party 

Yes. Though I can’t recall any women outdoor speakers there were some very impressive women like Eva Goodman and Florrie Evans - who was general secretary during the war - and Phyllis Lawrence and a woman called Helen whose surname I can’t remember. She was married to a bus driver; they were quite an impressive couple.

Funnily enough when we attended general meetings you would see a lot of the women knitting. I think it must have been a throwback from the days when women couldn’t be seen doing nothing. It was also considered to be saving money by making your own woollens. It was very fashionable, and I even started knitting myself.

Looking at the world now through ‘socialist eyes’ what are your thoughts?

I’m exasperated, sad and disappointed.  When I first joined the branch, Joe and I used to get the bus from Muswell Hill where we lived down the hill to Wood Green, and I would look around the bus with such optimism and think that very soon all the people on the bus would be socialists. Society is in such a mess and so many horrendous things are happening that it’s no wonder people are suffering from depression and anxiety. I don’t believe in hell of course but it seems that society is going to hell in a handcart.

Why do you think socialist ideas don’t seem to have been more popular?

The party has worked so hard. We must have tried everything to get our ideas across. But the party case is not easy, contrary to what some members say, especially the economics side: the explanation of surplus value for instance and the idea that the working class do not pay taxes. People have got distracted by single issues, charities and identity politics and blaming individuals for the mess. I don’t blame people for being exasperated with politicians.

But I have no regrets and cannot ever imagine not being a socialist - it’s who you are, isn’t it?

Brave new world (1989)

From the June 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 4 January 1941 Special Issue of Picture Post was devoted to A PLAN FOR BRITAIN, looking ahead to the post-war world. It was a wide-ranging review, covering work, social services, urban development, housing, farming, education, health and leisure. Forty-eight years on it is interesting to compare what was envisaged with reality.

The introduction is a letter written to Picture Post by a Welsh worker who had left the land to become a miner.

So, one day in late autumn, when the unwanted apples were killing the grass in the orchard, I went eighty miles away to work in the mines. That night, in my new home. I found that apples were dear and scarce. The people would hardly believe that I had seen them left to rot.

Equally he found that coal, which was scarce and expensive in the country, held no value where it was mined even though nearby out-of-work miners were picking over disused tips in the hope of finding bits of coal among the rubble. He ended his letter:

Between the dear coal and the cheap cutting. the scarce apples and those that rot. I think I can see the peace aim I would like to achieve. It is security — security against war and exploitation, by man or by country. And what I ask for ourselves should be granted to the whole world.

Amen to that; as good a definition of socialism as we have heard!

WORK FOR ALL lists a number of aims (including lower Income Tax, state control and state managed investments, and a job for every able-bodied man) and outlines a "national plan" related to an "international plan”. Thomas Baiogh calls for planning control and stimulated demand to ensure full employment (in spite of the role women played in industry in the First and Second World War, he specifies only jobs for men!). He warns against a post-war boom which would “create big profits for a few and high wages for a minority of workers”, saying that "there must be no return to what used to be called 'normal' — that is, complete freedom for the speculator to make high profits". Towards the end he says:

If we are to make a success of such a system it would have to be based on practical international understanding . . . It is obvious that such planning is not possible while maintaining the traditional concepts of sovereignty. They will have to go.

What Professor Baiogh failed to grasp is that while capitalism exists the need to generate profit and the ongoing fight for markets between competing factions, nationally and internationally, will prevent the achievement of even his limited aims. The situation has not changed from that outlined by the unemployed Welsh miner.

The next two articles dealt with social security and urban planning. Most of us at some time have experienced first hand the continuous honing down of the former, and we did not need the heir to the throne to point out the hideous character of much urban development and the inadequacies of high rise and other working class housing, which turns into slums a decade after it has been built. A warning against crystal-qazing is in the pictures of hospitals, factories and housing estates then held to be desirable, which few would not condemn today.

PLAN THE HOME. Here Elizabeth Denby, described as a "housing consultant whose chief interest is planning working class homes”, puts her view of the desirable future. The first thing which strikes you is that conditions shown in a miserable slum picture of 1941 can still be found in many parts of town and country, despite innumerable promises by Labour and Tory politicians to solve “The Housing Problem" during the intervening decades. The "planned kitchen" and “spacious, sunlit, cheery" living room pictured would today be described as hopelessly outmoded and spartan, but the aim that “hot water should be immediately available at any time of day or night, at every bath, sink and basin in the house" is still, in 1989, wishful thinking for many who cannot even boast a bath, never mind constant hot water.

A PLAN FOR EDUCATION has a topical ring. The aim set out by A.D. Lindsay is to give equal learning opportunities to all children and eliminate the elitist privileges of the rich; making education from primary school to university available to all on the basis of ability rather than cash. (Incidentally, here again the writer refers only to boys, which is strange because even though Balliol, at which he was Master, did not admit women, quite a few were nevertheless going to university and had been doing so for many years.) Mr. Baker's proposals show how far we have (not!) progressed towards achieving even the very limited aims of Professor Lindsay. The need is still to train the workforce for the tasks they will be required to perform; if there has been any change at all, it is that today’s Tory government is more open about that than was the wartime Coalition of 1941.

HEALTH FOR ALL and A REAL MEDICAL SERVICE. The picture of the crowded outpatients' waiting room in a hospital is familiar; only the clothes look a bit old- fashioned. Another showing a patient getting special preventative treatment is captioned “This is out of reach of most people, who must wait for serious illness to receive attention". Forecasts of immediate free explorative X-rays, dental treatment and chiropody are especially ironic today, when not only are waiting lists growing ever longer but both examination and treatment have again become fee-charging in the case of the latter two.

The final article, WHEN WORK IS OVER deals with how we shall be spending our leisure time. Compared to the "exotic” cruises, foreign and far-away places we want (and pay for) during our two or three weeks off the chain, their expectations were indeed modest. Would J. B. Priestley say today, as he did in Picture Post, “Nor can I agree with those theorists who believe that this . . . silly style of amusement is something deliberately imposed upon the masses by wicked capitalists". While we agree with him that creative activity is a satisfying use of leisure time, his view that woman needs more leisure time than a man to enable her to "cultivate all the small graces of living and making herself and her domestic surroundings look more attractive" is quaint, to say the least, on two counts. It is not only the idea of the “little home-maker", but the notion that housework is leisure!

At the end of the Special Issue, Picture Post asked readers for their views on the PLAN FOR BRITAIN. Although too late for publication (Picture Post was long ago laid to rest) we give them now. This is not with the benefit of hindsight, but in the certain knowledge that our comrades would have said the same thing in 1941.

However good the intention, while society is ruled by the profit motive, it cannot be made to run for the benefit of the majority, the workers. Capitalism cannot be reformed to any significant degree. The only alternative is to replace it with socialism. We will then achieve not just a Better Britain but a Better World.

Eva Goodman

Obituary: Friedrich Vogt (2010)

Obituary from the August 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

We were sad to learn of the sudden death, at the age of 88, of Comrade Frriedrich Vogt in Vienna.  He was one of a group of trade unionists and former members of the Austrian Social Democratic party that broke away in 1959 and eventually, in 1966, through contact with Comrade Rudolf Frank there, came to accept the object and declaration of principles of the World Socialist Movement.

As there was already a registered “Socialist Party” in Austria, the new group was named Bund Demokratischer Sozialisten (League of Democratic Socialists). Members addressed each other as “Genosse/Genossin” rather than as “Kamerad” as this was associated with the Austrian Communist Party.

Although they held informal discussion meetings, the members’ main activity was the production and distribution of their newspaper format journal Internationales Freie Wort (International Free Word). Although they had a list of subscribers, canvassing was by far the main method of sale. On my only visit I took part in this. Up and down the stairs of apartment blocks was certainly amongst the hardest work I have done for Socialism!

Unfortunately, as members aged and became physically less able they could not keep up with this strenuous work and publication of the IFW ceased.

During the war Friedrich was conscripted into the German Army to fight on the Russian Frant but was soon sent back as unsuitable because of his behaviour. He attended our Conference just once and told me how much he enjoyed meeting members here, some of whom kept in touch. We have lost a friend as well as a comrade and the companion parties a staunch and tireless worker for Socialism.

Eva Goodman

Observations: At the social (1987)

The Observations Column from the October 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the social

One place not to spend your holiday is your local office of the Department of Health and Social Security (for such is its full, resplendent name). That is where, every day, hordes of people wait, in states of varying panic or patience, to try to get a hand-out from the state which, if they are lucky or frugal — or preferably both — will keep them alive at the official poverty line.

Waiting at the DHSS office is usually one of the most depressing and undermining experiences of a worker's life. Very often a person who is in desperate straits will hang about there all day. having queued to get in in the morning, to be told at closing time that is has all been a waste of time - they don't qualify for benefit, or there hasn't been time to process their claim, or their file has been mislaid in the system . . .

A predictable reaction to this sort of frustration is violence — against the furniture, the fabric of the building, the staff themselves. In the cheerless waiting areas the well-nigh indestructible chairs are bolted to the floor, the staff protected by screens, the police make regular visits to throw out or arrest claimants whose protests have been too forceful.

The misery and frustration of the "clients" is mirrored in that of the people on the other side of the counter. Morale among the staff is depressingly low and absences for stress-related sickness alarmingly high. Turnover (a nice word to use about human beings) among DHSS employees is so swift that anyone who survives the job for a year may find that they are the most experienced officer in their section.

The DHSS machinery has been overloaded by conditions which the experts, the planners and the politicians said would never happen. The post-war Welfare State was supposed to take care of everyone's needs, from our birth to our death and then to see us comfortably into the grave. Of course there would be the few who would be embroiled in some unpredictable crisis and for them there would be the safety net of National Assistance - now renamed Supplementary Benefit, as if that made any difference. But the growth of unemployment and the tightening of the screw on working class conditions has changed the Supplementary Benefit claim from the exception to the rule. For millions of people and their families it is now not a safety net but their only life-line.

But the DHSS is no exception to the capitalist rule that everything must operate as cheaply as possible; the staff unions estimate that in London alone some 3000 more staff are needed to catch up with the backlog of claims.

Poverty and repression can be witnessed every day at the DHSS. on both sides of the counter. The claimants are often too bitter, the staff too harassed, to recognise it but they have a united interest in getting rid of a social system which must produce such miserable indignities.

Half way there

An article in the July 1987 issue of GDR Review — a glossy journal issued by the government of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) — surprises but disappoints. It is by Professor Adolf Kossakowski, Chairman of the GDR Society for Psychology and deals with an offshoot of the GDR Peace Council called "Psychologists for Peace".

Dr. Kossakowski claims that from the work done they can prove that children are not naturally aggressive and war-minded; indeed, they have a deep desire for peace and a fear of war. They conclude that this is true of all age groups and that it is their duty to "activate the masses".

However, in activating people it is extremely important to make clear to them the real causes of war. the true targets against which they should address their fight. In the past and also today those circles with an interest in the arms build-up have exploited and continue to gladly exploit some theories advanced by certain psychologists, ethnologists and biologists in order to mask the true causes of war and to paralyse the forces for peace . . .

The myth that war is instinctive and that mankind is evil by nature makes it easier for states to pursue a militaristic policy, because it can be suggested to their peoples that militarism is a natural phenomenon . . .

However, I also consider it equally important . . . to point to the real, the economic and political causes of the arms build-up and the war preparations by the forces of aggression. Many scientists . . . are still of the opinion that both sides are to blame for the arms race . . .

. . . as scientists we have a duty to discuss with our colleagues the economic and political background behind the policy of aggression pursued . . .

But that, unfortunately, is where he ends and his omissions are at least as important as what he says.

Wars are not fought for principles but, as Kossakowski does mention, economic advantage. Wars are fought either to increase or protect spheres of influence and markets — American action in the Middle East and the Gulf and Russian action in the latter just now make that abundantly clear. The dictatorship of South Korea, Chile, El Salvador and, until quite recently, the Philippines, are acceptable to the Western Allies. In western political circles the invasion of Grenada by the United States was "OK", that of Afghanistan by the Russians was not.

So the Psychologists of the Council for Peace are right in saying that wars are fought for profits. However the profits made by the armaments manufacturers are not the cause of war but are due to the need for maintaining and increasing the profits of the capitalist class as a whole.

Eva Goodman

SPGB Meetings (1991)

Party News from the August 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Land Fit for Heroes - 1999 (1999)

From the November 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Twenty-five percent of homeless men sleeping on the streets of London are ex-servicemen (Times, 3 August). The smelly, aggressive drunk on Hungerford Bridge was once a hero! A survey carried out in 1993 concluded that the main cause of homelessness and its consequences is the breakdown of relationships and alcoholism, and these develop during military service. So there it is—the even more important question is: “Are these heroes fit for the land?”, and the worrying answer is “apparently not”. It is not just the so-called positive side of the Armed Forces, teaching discipline and how to feel you’re doing a great job killing fellow workers you’ve never seen before and who’ve done you no harm, but the side-effects of living in these conditions. Only recently has there been an admission that life in the Forces can easily make you unfit for life outside.

Major Colin Crawford of Combat Stress, which provides counselling to 5,000 ex-service personnel (of whom five percent are women) says that military culture and rituals act as a support for members who’ve had traumatic experiences. When they return to civilian life that support is missing and relationships fall apart under the strain. The Forces concentrate on bonding among personnel and life is lived to a strict pattern of parades, drills and uniforms, but they receive no training or advice on how to cope with a return to civilian life. Officers are not taught that the Forces’ way is not acceptable in “Civvy Street” and that, for example, an order to an office junior to get them a cup of tea will receive a dusty answer, or even simple things like the meaning of “cash-back” in a supermarket. In the Forces you are taught to hide and discipline your feelings and traumas and stresses of what they may have seen or suffered cannot be discussed leading to further isolation or heavy drinking. The latter, the major leisure occupation in the Forces is, at worst, encouraged and at best ignored.

The problem is not confined to this country. In the USA twice as many ex-servicemen committed suicide after the Vietnam war than were killed during it. At last the problem has been recognised and self-help groups are being formed to assist in the transition back to civilian life. However, Soldiers to be (Part 1, BBC1, 10 August) showing the training and discipline expected before men and women are even accepted into the Forces, depressingly illustrates how much work needs to be done (and undone) to give ex-members a chance of successfully returning to civilian life. After “serving their country” they may have escaped death or physical mutilation but their experience has left them scarred for life. What made them part of an effective fighting machine has made them incapable of maintaining normal relationships within the family and friends or coping with the different stresses of working under capitalism.

Eva Goodman

Obituary: Melvin Tenner (2021)

Obituary  from the May 2021 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to report that Melvin Tenner died in April after failing to recover from a serious health incident in November. He was 74. He joined the old Paddington Branch in 1972 after meeting a member selling the Socialist Standard outside a tube station in West London. He had previously been associated with various left-wing groups. He had been at art college but at the time was working at a university bookshop. Subsequently he set up his own mail order bookselling business, the Academic Book Club. He used to recount how on one occasion after innocently selling a collection of difficult-to-get technical books to an Iraqi he was interviewed by MI6. Maybe they mistakenly thought that his politics inclined him to support Saddam Hussein. Whatever, the Iraqis weren’t pleased either as the books were old and they thought Melvin had diddled them when they compared the old pounds shillings and pence on the cover with his standard finder’s fee.

In the Party he was one of the editors of the Socialist Standard in the 1980s both as a writer of carefully crafted articles and as designer. We reproduce one of the covers he designed.

Somewhat lugubrious but with a dry wit that reflected his dexterity and intelligence, Melvin was a dedicated socialist and involved in a range of other Party activities too. These included more recently being a member of the Executive Committee, and, at the time of his death, a Party Trustee and Secretary of West London branch.

Outside the Party he was a lifelong Fulham FC supporter and previously Chair of the Fulham Supporters’ Club, leading a successful campaign to raise money from fans to keep the club going. Our condolences go to his family.

Blogger's Note:

A non-political obituary for Melvin was posted on the website of the Fulham Supporters' Trust.

It's a shame that the obituary didn't mention that Melvin was the partner of the late comrade, Eva Goodman, another stalwart member of the SPGB.

Rest in Peace, comrade. 

Socialists overseas (1964)

From the September 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have always maintained that the spread of Socialist ideas does not depend upon the existence of the S.P.G.B. or its Companion Parties, but that they arise from the system under which we have to live. It is therefore encouraging to know in how widely separated parts of the world these ideas are held and discussed; not only in Europe where perhaps it might be less surprising, but in various parts of Africa, the West Indies and Asia.

Anniversaries are, by custom, times when one looks around; remembers the past, takes stock of the present and looks forward to the future. Therefore in this issue celebrating the 60th anniversary of the appearance of the first issue of the Socialist Standard our readers may like to learn a little more about our friends and comrades overseas.

Contacts are made in various ways. Among our friends overseas are members of the SPGB who have emigrated, visitors who were in touch with us while over here working or on holiday, and friends made by our members while on holiday abroad. Replies are received to advertisements in overseas editions of English papers and in foreign journals. It is sometimes a little puzzling (though, of course, most encouraging) how some of our contacts overseas come to know us. For instance, recently we received two enquiries from Swaziland and four from Tanganyika within one month!

In the West Indies we are in correspondence with friends in British Guiana, Grenada and Trinidad, as well as in Jamaica. In Jamaica there is a small group of Socialists who are working hard to make their fellow workers see that the much sought after “Independence” has achieved a change in the colour of the skin of their exploiters, but nothing more. Regular readers who will remember that on two previous occasions we published “Letters from Jamaica" will be interested to know that we have just had advance copies of A Socialist View, a pamphlet produced by this group. This covers, briefly, the main points of the Socialist case, in particular as applicable in Jamaica. They also hold discussion meetings whenever they can and members have taken part in debates with other organisations. They arc looking forward to next winter, when one of our comrades hopes to spend a month in Jamaica to help and advise them in their activities.

Although this is the only active Socialist Group outside our Companion Parties, we are in correspondence with friends in many other parts of the world. We have just heard, for instance, that in Denmark two of them have been holding discussion meetings on current affairs, and in Vienna we have a staunch Socialist who, in spite of advancing years, continues to take on all and sundry to convince them—against any preconceived ideas they may have—of the true meaning of the word Socialism. He is at present holding discussions with a young student group.

Among the letters we receive one particularly remains clearly in mind. Having applied for literature in response to one of our advertisements, the enquirier—in Ibadan, Nigeria—not only told us that he has held our views for a number of years but asked why, in view of the advanced stage which capitalism has reached in this country, the majority of the working class in England are not Socialists. Here indeed was the 64,000 dollar question!

Month after month, year after year, our fellow workers appear to be too satisfied with the capitalist system—or too apathetic —to want to put an end to it. They seem to look with an almost fatalistic resignation on the possibility of another world war; this time probably, in view of the terrible weapons which have been developed by the opposing sides, truly “the war to end all wars"—and perhaps the human race. We. too, hope that the day will soon come when they will realise that whether at the forthcoming Election they vote Labour or Tory politicians into power; that if they could have a Liberal or even a “Communist" majority in Parliament—they will still continue to live under capitalism and will have to suffer the worries and indignities of that system. When that day comes—and it cannot come too soon for us—they will decide to abolish capitalism and establish Socialism. To try and bring that day nearer is the aim and work of members of the SPGB, its Companion Parties and friends and sympathisers in England and the rest of the world.

Eva Goodman

With god on their side (2000)

From the September 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

William Hague has called in the religious advisers – we explain how leaders use religious ideas to oil the wheels of exploitation

In spite of the fact that, unlike Tony Blair, William Hague is not a regular church-goer, he is fully aware of the benefits of religion. He has called in Marvin Orlasky, religious adviser to George Bush Jnr., to guide him in the special religion-based “welfare” programme he proposes to put forward at the General Election (Times, 21 June). Hague and several members of his Shadow Cabinet are convinced that, by so doing, they will win votes from the apolitical “religiously inclined”, whatever their actual denomination.

In an article in the Times the same day, Hague speaks highly of the pioneering social work of churches and other faith communities. Marvin Orlasky is the spiritual guide for the Bush campaign. He has been accused of being a religious zealot who, in spite of his Jewish roots, has managed to offend both Jews and feminists. In his column in the Texas Observer, he has declared that welfare is bad, abortion evil, and the Bible is the final moral authority. In a journal called Biblical Manhood and Womanhood he has stated:

  “God does not forbid women to be leaders in society, generally speaking; but when that occurs, it’s usually because of the abdication of men . . . I would vote for a woman for the presidency in some situations, but, again, there is a certain shame attached. Why don’t you have a man who’s able to step forward?”

How well that goes down with Hague’s mentor, Margaret Thatcher or, for that matter, Ann Widdecombe, is not known!

God’s on their side

It is possible for the strategy to misfire as, in spite of having an “official” Church, most people are suspicious when politicians bring in religion to further their ends. An exception to this is, of course, when opposing workers going out to kill and be killed by other workers, are blessed by their religious leaders and told “we have God on our side”.

The Socialist Party has been castigated for insisting that socialism and religion are incompatible. To us it is obvious that “render to God what is God’s and Caesar what is Caesar’s”; “servants be subject to your masters”, together with focus on the “better life hereafter” are totally at odds with the emancipation of the exploited.

Religion has always been used as an excuse for leaders’ excesses. Everyone knows about the Inquisition and the selling of “Indulgences” and, after all these hundreds of years, it is admitted that the Crusades were not about the freeing of the Holy City of Jerusalem but rather the pillage, subjugation and rape not only of the Infidel but also Christians who stood in the way. The religious intolerance in Northern Ireland is given as the reason for the conflict there and for the pig-headed marchers celebrating victories of hundreds of years ago. So much easier than looking for the deprivation and unemployment caused by the real culprit, the capitalist system, they blame fellow workers who appear to have marginal advantages. Religious beliefs are, at least, a hindrance to the acceptance of socialist ideas; at worst, they actually oil the wheels of exploitation. That is why, when it suits them, politicians like Bush Jnr. and Hague will actively embrace them while socialists oppose them.

Eva Goodman

Letters: Will capitalism collapse? (1989)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Will capitalism collapse?

Dear Editors.

The sense of the last paragraph of my letter (March Socialist Standard) was completely lost because of your typographical error. I repeat the question I asked you which I notice you did not answer. How can capitalist production which only operates through the prospect of profit, continue to operate prior to the political capture of power when the socialist aim to abolish the profit system becomes itself a serious prospect once the socialist movement reaches a significant size? I think it is important that your readers should have an explanation so that they may judge for themselves the feasibility of obtaining an entirely new economic system more or less overnight without some change in economic relationships having occurred prior to this apocalyptic event.

Louise Cox

Haslemere

Reply:

Sorry about the error that made the last sentence of your letter incomprehensible. As to the point you wanted to raise, you appear to be saying that the growth of the socialist movement will bring about the economic collapse of capitalism before a socialist majority has come into being.

We have heard this sort of argument before. but we don't see why the socialist movement merely growing to a “significant size" should make profit prospects disappear. An analysis of the way capitalism works discloses, perhaps unfortunately, that the capitalist system will be able to stagger on, even if this involves increasing government intervention, until it is abolished by the conscious political action of the working class.

In any event, the socialist mode of production and distribution, i.e. production geared exclusively to meeting human needs and free access for all to goods and services according to their self-defined needs, cannot gradually evolve within capitalism. Whatever may be the political, economic and social effects within capitalism of the growth of the socialist movement, production for use — and the consequent disappearance of money/commodity relations and wage labour — cannot begin until after the socialist movement has democratically won control of political power and established the common ownership of the means of production by the whole community.

Editors.

Independence and Culture

Dear Comrades,

The brutal history of capitalism has often involved invasions from abroad as part of the process of its local development. Cromwell's occupation of Ireland, with all its savagery, was an early instance. In Marx's day, when capitalism was still young and insufficiently widespread in its establishment, it might have been valid to argue (and he did) that its further extension was a progressive necessity. Indeed at the time of the Crimean War Marx regarded the possibility of a Tsarist victory as such a retarding factor in historical development that he felt able to look favourably upon the opposing Anglo-French and Ottoman Turkish forces. By the twentieth century the world dominance of the capitalist system was no longer in the balance even if to this day large areas of the under-developed world have yet to undergo their own thoroughgoing changeover to commodity production and wage- slavery.

This means that the world-wide establishment of socialism no longer hinges upon the yet further spread of the iron heel of capital. But the state-capitalist bureaucrats of Moscow and Peking have not let this inhibit them where the extension of their control over Afghanistan or Tibet has been concerned. It is true that as the harbingers of industrial society the Russian imposed regime in Kabul and the Chinese colonial administration in Lhassa represent modernising trends as did British and French imperialism in their day. But in recognising this and in our repugnance for the superstitious, women-oppressive and backward-looking old orders we must not ignore, as I feel the article "Independence no benefit" in the April issue did, the harshness of imposed foreign ways and language by the latest conquerers. So whilst the notion of “national independence" is rightly shown as being, from the working-class point of view, merely a change of rulers imagine how any of us would feel if the purchase of a postage-stamp, the reading of a "news" paper or our kids' schooling required the use of Chinese! Our rejection of nationalist delusions ought never to show insensitivity to the valid concerns of oppressed people. Moreover. it strengthens the appeal of Socialism to show that in contrast to the imposed uniformity and centralisation of commodity production we aim for a way of life which, of its nature, fosters cultural freedom and diversity.

Yours for the revolution 

Eddie Grant 

London NW4

They were so kind . . . (1976)

A Short Story from the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Monday morning coffee break and we’re swapping notes on how we spent the week-end. For two of us it had been the same as usual. As ‘working girls’ trying to keep some sort of comfortable home, the best part of the two days had been spent doing the chores which inevitably pile up during the working week; leaving us little time to relax and enjoy visiting or being visited for the afternoon.

However, for once Jenny had left the chores to deal with as and when possible and, making the most of the glorious weather, had had a lovely day out. Her husband’s boss had invited his staff and their wives down to his home on Saturday; even the return train tickets were provided.

It was no wonder they enjoyed their day out. A beautiful country mansion near one of the Southern Cathedral Cities of England, with efficient rail service to London. The spacious grounds contained, apart from formal, herbaceous and vegetable gardens, a croquet lawn, tennis court and swimming pool. The thoughtful hosts had even provided costumes for those who wanted a swim. A delicious lunch was served on the terrace, charmingly presided over by the lady of the house who, together with her husband, showed an interest in, and concern for, the welfare of every one of her guests. In fact, as Jenny said, they did everything to make this a perfect day for their guests — they were so kind!

That the guests had been invited to enjoy for one day what their labour had provided permanently for their employers did not occur to any of them. However, knowing very well what is provided, I think the employers would have found it easy to be kind!

Eva Goodman

Name and number (1978)

From the April 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

We all have a National Insurance Benefit number (as distinct from a National Health Registration number!). In prisons, as in the Armed Forces, you become a number; the Nazis tattooed numbers on their prisoners’ hands or forearms. Science fiction tells of horrible regimented ways of life in the not so distant future when we have all become digits in the ordering of things; no name—just a number. The intention in each case is to regiment, sort, file (and, in the process, dehumanise) human beings into so many units in the system.

It is with amused puzzlement therefore that one read an item in the Daily Telegraph of 15th February 1978. It appears that, in reverse to the majority of us, Michael Herbert Dengler of Minneapolis, Minnesota, wants to be known as a number—1069. He feels so strongly about it that he is fighting his case through the Courts. To date he has been refused permission because, as the Judge said “It would be an offence to basic human dignity”, although the North Dakota Supreme Court did give him permission to call himself “One Zero Six Nine” (a fine distinction!). Mr. Dengler on the other hand argues that his Social Security card shows him as “1069” and the Bank accepts cheques signed in this way.

Obviously this man feels he has to fight the system, although from the newspaper item we cannot tell what his purpose is and what winning his case would indicate to him. The personnel officer of one Corporation told him “you come here with a name and we’ll give you a number”. From this it is obvious that, like the majority of us, Mr. Dengler is a member of the working class. Whether or not, in the end, the Minnesota Supreme Court allows him to call himself “1069” will make no difference to his position as a member of that class. In ruling against him Judge Barbeau said: “I cannot in good conscience add to to-day’s inhumanity by giving you the stamp of judicial approval.” The Judge objects to the “inhumanity” of Michael Dengler changing his name for a number. However, he actively upholds a system based on the exploitation of the vast majority, including Mr. Dengler, to produce profits for the few, “entitled” to reap the benefits of their labour by virtue only of their ownership of the means of wealth production. While Michael Dengler continues to work for it, and Judge Barbeau helps to administer it, the inhuman system of capitalism will continue for all of us—whatever our name or number.

Eva Goodman

Poverty and hunger (1966)

Book Review from the December 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

As I Recall by Lord Boyd Orr (Macgibbon & Kee)

This is a fascinating, but also an infuriating, book.

In the introduction, Ritchie Calder speaks of the author’s frustration and anger when, time and again, he was foiled by the profit motive in his efforts to improve the diet of the poorest. He speaks bitterly of his frustrated attempt to get free milk into schools to supplement the children’s impoverished diet, at a time when there was a glut of milk because people could not afford it and skimmed milk was being poured down the drain. He quotes from one of Lord Boyd Orr’s speeches: “half the population of the world suffers from lack of sufficient food; farmers suffer ruin if they produce ‘too much food’. Adjust our economic and political systems to let these two evils cancel each other out.’’

This is why this is an infuriating book. Lord Boyd Orr shows many times that he recognises the responsibility for malnutrition and hunger lies in the capitalist system and yet, even recognising this, throughout his long life and even now, he has sought the remedy within that system.

In the section dealing with his research work, Lord Boyd Orr speaks of the brushes he has had at various times with the Ministry of Agriculture. At one time the Ministry was creating Boards to fix prices of home produced bacon, etc., and to restrict imports. He was opposed to these “because . . . this meant dearer food for the poorer half of the population who were already unable to purchase sufficient for health . . . The Pig and Bacon Marketing Board would mean that there would be less bacon imported from Denmark, and in return we would send them less coal, with the resulting increased unemployment in both countries.” This is a point which still eludes our successive Governments, who preach the gospel that “we” must import less and export more!

In his criticisms of the Agricultural Marketing Board, Lord Boyd Orr advocated a comprehensive food and agricultural policy based on human needs. He pointed out that while the poorest people spent more than 75 per cent of their income on food, the wealthy spend less than 10 per cent. Therefore rises in prices obviously affect the poor much more than the wealthy. In reply he was informed that, as the Rowell Institute (his research institute) was maintained by government grant, the Director should not be allowed to engage in propaganda against his government.

In the chapter dealing with his dietary surveys and wartime food policy, the author speaks of an interview he had with Kingsley Wood, then Minister of Health, who asked him why he was making such a fuss about poverty when, with old age pensions and unemployment insurance, there was no poverty in the country. The extraordinary thing was that Kingsley Wood genuinely believed that if people are not actually dying of starvation, there could be no food deficiency. Naturally he had never put this theory to the test at first hand!

There are many other instances of ignorance or deliberate obstruction and manipulation of facts on the part of “our” politicians. Nevertheless, Lord Boyd Orr can speak with admiration of General Smuts and say superstitiously that “God frowned on our work in Kenya” because two of his friends died there, one through cancer and the other through a motor accident.

When speaking of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, the author mentions the interest shown by American businessmen in schemes for world distribution of food “from a financial point of view.” However, due to the frequent opposition of the British team who, obviously, could see none of these advantages in view of the preferential tariff and price arrangements of this country with its “ex Empire”, many of these schemes failed.

The Atlantic Charter of 1941 stated as its aim “freedom from want for all men in all lands.” The author speaks bitterly of the fact that, already by May, 1943, at the Hot Springs Conference in America on world food problems, this had , been forgotten. ‘The old men had crept back into power, determined to resist any economic change which threatened their financial interests.” When addressing the delegates at the Quebec Conference he felt that, although the delegates themselves were in favour of his suggestions they, “like the delegates at the Hot Springs conference had been told what to say by politicians who had little interest in alleviating poverty, even in their own countries, and even less in eliminating hunger and poverty in the world.”

In spite of his experiences with succeeding British Governments, Lord Boyd Orr can say “my attempt to persuade Mr. Attlee to become interested in this project was rather foolish. He was doing a magnificent job . . . with many inexperienced ministers to reorganise Britain after the war . . . that he could not be expected to be well informed on what must have considered a side issue of the foreign policy.” Side issue indeed!

The role taken by the British Government at least appears to have been consistent. On one occasion the FAO, having sent a group of agricultural experts to Greece, reported that a grant or loan of 200 million dollars would be sufficient to finance the development plans agreed, to bring about a rapid increase in food production. Instead of the grant. Britain sent troops to support the government and Royal Family. 

In summing up, Lord Boyd Orr chafes against the division of the world into opposing camps and sees in World Government. the promotion of which now takes up much of his time, the solution to these problems. His references to “Socialism” and “Capitalism” show why Lord Boyd Orr still places hopes in such an organisation.

Eva Goodman

Lessons for teachers (1988)

Book Review from the July 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why don't teachers teach like they used to? by Rachel Pinder. (Hilary Shipman. 1987. paperback £6.95)

I hear and I forget
I see and I remember
I do and I understand

This old Chinese proverb forms the opening lines of Rachel Pinder s informative, sometimes amusing and always very readable book. Having spent her working life in teaching and the last ten years before retirement as headteacher in Inner London, she relates the history of teaching by both "progressive'' and ' traditional" methods over many centuries up to the present. In the process she exposes confusion, if not total ignorance, as what constitutes "traditional" methods; what has. and has not. been tried; and the results achieved by the different methods.

In 1510. Dean Colet. founder of St Paul's School, criticised "traditional teaching by rule and formal methods". Richard Mulcaster. High Master of St Paul's in Tudor times, complained about teachers who "think it the best that boys should fruitlessly run through all the rules learned by heart but not understand." Elizabeth Lawrence in The Origins and Growth of Modern Education goes even further back, quoting Plato: "Enforced learning will not stay in the mind. So avoid compulsion and led your child's lessons take the form of play". It appears therefore that "progressive" methods have been advocated and used for 2.000 years. Does that make them "traditional"?

Professor Jean Piaget, an eminent Swiss psychologist, refers thus to John Amos Comenius (1592-1670): "Comenius may undoubtedly be considered as the founder of a system of progressive instruction adjusted to the stage of development the pupil has reached." Comenius said that learning should be in four stages: examine; question; investigate; determine. In 1641 he was invited by Members of Parliament to visit England and set up a school system based on his principles; unfortunately the Civil War intervened.

Although the beginnings of "progressive" education are often credited to Rousseau, it is obviously much older than that. In a review it is neither possible nor desirable to quote every example but the following extract from Richard Edgworth's (1744-1817) Essays on Professional Education perhaps gives a key to Mrs Thatcher's obsession with "returning to basics"

  The first object should not be to teach them reading or grammer. or Latin or arithmetic . . but gradually to give them the desire to learn and the power to attend . . . they must be taught to think (our italics)

Politicians' exhortations since 1976 that schools should "get back to basics" shows an alarming degree of ignorance and apparent unawareness of school inspectors' reports over the past 100 years. The latest of these, in 1981. bears great similarity to one within over a hundred years ago:

 There is no evidence that a narrow curriculum, concentrating only on the basic skills, enables children to do better in these skills: HM Inspectors' surveys suggest that competence in reading, writing and mathematics may be improved where pupils are involved in a wider programme of work and if their skills in language and mathematics are applied in a variety of contexts.

In 1858 the Newcastle Commission was appointed to investigate education and make proposals. One of these was that children should be examined annually by an inspector and schools paid "by results". This was introduced in 1862 and Robert Lowe. Vice President of the Privy Council for Education said in the House of Commons:

  I cannot promise the House that this system will be an economical one and I cannot promise that it will be an efficient one. but I can promise that it shall be one or the other. It it is not cheap, it shall be efficient; if it is not efficient, it shall be cheap.

Examinations were based on a centrally controlled curriculum and although teachers were not forbidden to teach other subjects, there was great pressure to ensure that children would pass the examination rather than that they should learn anything worthwhile. The system worked as far as government expenditure was concerned; this dropped from £813,441 in 1861 to £636,806 in 1865. In Curriculum Change in the 19th and 20*h Century Gordon & Lawton quote from the 1871 school log-book of a Welsh headmaster:

  Believing that one-fourth of the school time that was devoted to subjects not recognised by the government and consequently not paid for by grants, had the effect of keeping a well-informed school but causing the percentage results to be lower than those of schools that are mechanical in their working and unintelligible in their tone. I have been compelled against my inclination to arrange that less time be devoted to them in future and more time to those that pay best.

However this teaching by rote did not produce workers adequately fitted for their role and the system was gradually eroded, being finally eradicated in 1890. How long will it take this century for realisation to dawn that "traditional' teaching, according to official definitions, not only stunts the mind but will produce a generation ill-equipped to provide adequately the labour required by modern capitalism?

Towards the end of the book Rachel Pinder talks of education which is not based only on lessons but also on the involvement of parents, family and friends in widening children's experience and therefore knowledge. This is a concept with which socialists would not disagree.

Eva Goodman

The Advantages of Religion . . . Or, she was talking to me so I said . . . (1975)

From the January 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Being an incorrigible listener to other people’s conversations, it is often both intriguing and frustrating wondering how a particular conversation ended. Also, sometimes it leads my own train of thoughts in a direction probably not otherwise followed.

Recently there was such an occasion. A couple of girls at my table were discussing what they were doing that evening and one of them said she was going to a talk on “The Advantages of Religion”. Now, apart from freak appearances like Billy Graham’s circus and the Festival of Light, Scientologists, the Pope’s refusal to accept that most of his world-wide flock are practising birth control, or the controversy as to whether it is right that Archbishops should be appointed by politicians, religion is not a subject to-day to which much thought is given by the majority of us; therefore this snippet set off my train of thought.

“The Advantages of Religion” — to whom?

To most Christians the church is the place to go to be baptized (i.e. accepted into the fold) married and buried. Jews regard their religion as something not only related to their “spiritual” life but also as actions and personal relations are governed by their part of their “race” and tradition. Their everyday religious teachings. To practising Mohammedans, Muslims and Buddhists, religion governs all their actions and forms the basis of their daily lives.

However, despite the differences in their teaching, attitudes and practices, the adherence to any of these religions is founded on two basic factors. The first is the unwillingness to admit that the life we have is the only one we are going to get; that there is no life after death, reincarnation or other “hereafter”, except in the redistribution of our organic matter and in the thoughts of those who knew us or to whom we have passed on our ideas. It is not difficult to understand why, living under the constant threat of war, insecurity and, in many cases, very real hardship and deprivation, people are looking for “pie in the sky when they die”. They feel that there must be something better to follow what they are experiencing now.

The second common factor is that, when faced with apparently insoluble problems or sorrow, it is of course comforting, and easier, to invoke the intervention of an all-powerful Being Above than to acknowledge that one has to rely on one’s own resources.

To sum up then; to the individual, religion is a palliative, an opiate, an apparent safety line or lifebelt thrown out on the stormy sea of life under capitalism.

The advantages to the system — the politician and capitalist, are more obvious. One thing which all religions practised in the so-called “civilized” world have in common is the teaching of humility and due respect to our “betters”, the endurance of suffering and hardship patiently in this world in the hope of better things to come. Obey your boss; work harder, listen to and follow your leaders, draw in your belts; fight for “your” country (they never do tell you which bit is yours though !). Obey your pastor, priest etc. and support your Church. The incongruity of churches preaching “thou shalt not kill” blessing men going to war and doing just that, does not seem to strike any of them. Of course. ‘your’ side is always right and on the side of God — fighting a just war — it is the ones whom you are going out to kill who are the villains. The fact that leaders of religion actively interfere with civil administration (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, Spain and Italy, the Religious Party in Israel) is accepted. So is the enormous wealth accumulated by Churches, often in the midst of appalling squalor and poverty.

At the end of my train of thought, I came to this conclusion: —

The advantages of religion to the capitalists are pretty obvious but, so far as I can see, there are no advantages in it for us — the workers. Reliance on “Someone up there” to solve our problems, and believing that the degree of our suffering and deprivation in this world will determine our reward in the next, only keeps us from doing something here and now — not to alleviate our problems, but to eliminate them — working for the abolishment of capitalism and the introduction of Socialism.

Eva Goodman

Winstanley – A Man Before His Time (1968)

From the October 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

Gerrard Winstanley was born at Wigan in 1609. Little is known of his life. After school he went to London to work in the cloth business. Like many others he was ruined in the Civil War and withdrew to the country. Somewhere in the Thames Valley friends gave him a home in return for which he acted as their cattleman.

In 1648 his interest turned to politics and he wrote The New Law of Righteousness, a sort of Communist Manifesto of his day. In 1649-50 he worked and wrote for the Diggers. In 1652 he published The Law of Freedom in a Platform, a call to Cromwell to lay the foundations of a ‘communist commonwealth’. In this he sketched a classless society, a blend of the radical democracy of the Levellers, the ‘communism’ of More’s Utopia and his own secularism. Like More he advocated an economy without money, organised around public storehouses to which each would bring the product of his labour and from which each should satisfy his needs.

Although his book lacked More’s literary imagination, in the history of the development of socialist thought it was more significant, since not only did it spring out of a ‘workers’ movement, but actually proposed a workable plan. More clearly than any who preceded him, he saw that the source of all exploitation was private property. He said “labour is the source of all wealth and no man ever grew rich save by appropriating the fruits of others’ work”. He also saw that this exploitation was the source of all oppression and war. Economic inequality degrades those who must submit to it and infests them with a consciousness of their ‘predestined’ inferiority. “The enslaved worker looks upon himself as imperfect and so is dejected in his spirit.”

Although Winstanley was sympathetic to the Levellers, he was not one of them. He did not want peasant ownership but ‘community life’, by which he meant both team work and ‘eating at a common table’.

Although he never quite abandoned the idea of a God, this God bore no resemblance to that of any religion; he described God as follows:

  "God is reason. Neither are you to look for God in a place of glory beyond the sun, but within yourself and in every man. He that looks for a God outside himself and worships a God at a distance, worships he knows not what".

He knew organised religion as the instrument of the owning class. In his The Law of Freedom he stated

  “this doctrine (religion) is made a cloak of policy by the subtle elder brother to cheat his simple younger brother of the freedoms of the earth. For saith the elder brother “The earth is mine, and not yours, brother. You must therefore not work upon it unless you will hire it from me and you must not take the fruits of it unless you will buy them from me by that which I pay for your labour; for if you should do otherwise, God will not love you and you shall not go to heaven when you die but the devil will have you and you must be damned in hell. You must believe what is written and what is told you and if you will not believe, your damnation will be greater.” The younger brother, being weak in spirit and having not a grounded knowledge of creation nor of himself is terrified and lets go his hold in the earth and submits himself to be a slave to his brother for fear of damnation in hell after death and in hopes to get heaven thereby—so his eyes are put out and his reason is blinded.
   “So that this divining spiritual doctrine is a cheat, for while men are gazing up to heaven, imagining after a happiness or fearing a hell after they are dead, their eyes are put out that they see not what is their birthright and what is to be done by them here on earth while they are living.”

Thus, two centuries before Marx, Winstanley said in plain English “religion is the opium of the people”.

Eva Goodman

Why Waldheim? (1988)

From the April 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

So, according to available evidence, Kurt Waldheim did not actually commit any atrocities, but he lied. He tried to hide the fact that he knew about them, and the witch-hunters who had wanted a burning are having to concentrate their energies on trying to get at least a banishment.

It is perhaps little known that a higher percentage of the Austrian population voluntarily joined the Nazi Party than even in Germany and it is not surprising therefore that an attack on Waldheim's Nazi past is considered by many there to be an attack on themselves. A result, which could easily therefore be foreseen of this belated attempt to bring him to "justice", is that latent anti-Semitism has been aroused and is making itself heard and felt to the discomfiture of Jews who either survived in, or have since returned to, Austria.

The question which no-one seems to ask is "Why Waldheim?" The Allies reinstated many in the German judiciary and civil service into jobs held during the Nazi regime; indeed evidence has been forthcoming from time to time that even some who had participated in concentration camp atrocities are holding responsible positions in Germany and are generally held in high esteem. It is safe to assume that, as so well expressed recently by one of Britiain's eminent public persons, they too are "economical with the truth” about their past.

The western powers who are aiding and abetting Wiesenthal's Nazi hunting are obviously also suffering a loss of memory. Perhaps they should be reminded of Tom Power's The Paperclip Conspiracy (Michael Joseph. £14.95), published as recently as 1987. This well documented book, the contents of which no-one has refuted, tell how all the Allies, shortly after the end of the second World War. went through the files of Nazi doctors and scientists. Those considered useful, however notorious their past, were marked with a paperclip. New personalities, even new nationalities, and false papers were prepared to enable them to start serving their new masters. Ardent Nazis were denazified — on paper — and given American citizenship. Among these was a doctor who had experimented on inmates in Dachau concentration camp. Their findings shaped American Air-Sea rescue operations and helped to put American men into space. Among the many pictures in the book is one of these doctors in laughing conversation with John Glenn, America's first space hero. The Nazi team who pioneered the fastest submarines were taken, en bloc, to Barrow-in-Furness by the British Admiralty; Nazi aviation experts similarly went to Farnborough. They, and those who brought them to their new homes, may safely be assumed to be hiding their past and identity.

So the question remains "Why Waldheim?" Was it a trade-off to ensure Wiesenthal's silence about others more useful, or embarrassing, to western leaders; the head on a platter of a prominent public person who, however, is easily expendable to those who are doing the backdoor bargaining? If so, the foreseeable consequences for Jews living in Austria and possibly elsewhere have been completely disregarded not only by those who offered up Waldheim as sacrifice but even more so by the self-appointed avenger. That depth of cynicism would be difficult to equal, even by the double standards of so-called morality we have become used to under capitalism.

Eva Goodman

Pie in the sky (1979)

From the June 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Faith is the supernatural gift of God, which enables you to believe without doubting whatever the Church has decreed.” This is the answer to the first question in the Catholic catechism. Adam’s sin was that he ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. He “became like God” and therefore didn’t need him any more.

Since the beginning of history man has invented supernatural beings to explain things he did not understand. This was logical when knowledge did not extend beyond the immediate concern with keeping alive. Today’s religion is a survival from the time when we still had tails. So although the various gods of fire, water and so on ‘made sense’ to primitive people who could not understand or control their environment, the person who today contends that storms happen because the thunder god is angry would be assigned a place on the ladder of commonsense somewhere below the flat earthers. Feeling themselves at the mercy of the elements, primitive peoples, not knowing how they could help themselves, called upon superior beings to come to their aid. This aspect of primitive religion has survived to the present day. Together with a refusal to accept that human life is as finite as of all other forms of life, it is the basis of most religions today. A better life hereafter is promised to the oppressed and the sick of mind and body under capitalism, as it has been throughout the ages. The exploited have ever been encouraged to follow a leader—temporal as well as spiritual—to the nirvana of a better life. The servant should follow the master, the plebian his lord, the ordinary person the politician, the laity the priests and officials of their religion, who would lead them according to the wishes of the ‘highest commander’—the god or gods of their particular brand of superstition.

There are many religions, but the basic story is the same: the gift of life, the sacrifice of a saviour, the ‘superior being’, the life hereafter. The message is the same, placatory obedience, suffering, penance and self-sacrifice on earth for the sake of rewards hereafter. The priest or mediator interprets the message and dispenses rewards and punishments in the name of his particular deity. Each religion, in its own way, requires to dominate its followers.

Christian and Jewish religions are not alone in putting women in an inferior position and excluding them from all but menial responsibilities. Their pre-ordained place in life is as homemakers and child-bearers. In the Christian church the Virgin Mary is only another in the long line of fertility goddesses. The male ideal of womanhood — as mate, comforter and homemaker in return for protection and provision — is still prevalent in society.

In the Christian churches the deviations are many and varied, but there is irrefutable evidence that not only Western civilisation has been imbued and brainwashed into the moralities of the Christian tradition.

The Gospels

Opinions vary widely as to when the gospels were written, but it is now generally thought that the four used today first appeared between 65 and 100AD. From these, the New Testament evolved between 150 and 350AD. Many other gospels were written by the early Christians, and Luke, one of the 'official' quartet, said that his gospel was only the latest of many.

Several of the gospel stories are lifted directly from the Old Testament. For example, the story of the feeding of the five thousand is first told in the Book of Kings about the prophet Elisha. The birthplace of Jesus, the virgin birth, the visit of the three kings, the flight into Egypt; sometimes even the wording is almost identical.

  “The boy Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favour with the Lord and with men” (1 Samuel 2:26) becomes “and Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and men” (Luke 2:52).

The story of the nativity — “The ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master’s crib”, the stilling of the storm, walking on water, the bodily ascension into heaven (Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire) — in fact nearly all the ‘supernatural’ aspects of the gospels are paralleled in the Old Testament. Galileans were considered credulous and superstitious and it is interesting to note that nearly all the miracles are supposed to have happened there.

There are serious discrepancies between the gospels. There is a world of difference, for example between “blessed are the poor” (Luke) and ‘blessed are the poor in spirit ’ (Matthew). Mark speaks of the Son of God — a title applied to Israelite kings in the Old Testament. “You are my son, today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:7) or “The King is God’s first born (Psalm 89:27). John says “The Son of God” — implying a ‘divine being’.

The earliest gospel (Mark, 65AD) was written thirty-two years after the commonly accepted date of Jesus’ death in 33AD. (There is disagreement between the gospels even on this. John implies that he lived nearly fifty years, Luke says a little over thirty.) It has recently been argued that many of the gospel stories are not reported fact but owe much to the Jewish technique of embellishment. The Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer do not go back to Jesus himself but are creations of the early church. It is almost impossible to say how much of the gospels is fact and how much modification, interpretation and embellishment in the twenty to sixty years between the events and their writing down This explains the differences between and downright contradictions in the four gospels.

Whereas Islam and Buddhism grew directly out of their founder’s message, the Christian religion altered in some cases almost beyond recognition what was taught by and happened to the historical Jesus. An interesting point here is that Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God on earth. and the Church has turned this upside down and has always taught: 'Be good and suffer here in order to come to the Kingdom of God in heaven — after death'. The itinerant preacher is portrayed in Christian art as a Roman emperor type of god in heaven, even the halo around his head is that of an emperor.

Who was Jesus?

The early church had two images of Jesus: the radiant, noble, idealised one in his transfigured state, and frail and ugly in his human state. Eventually only the former was recognised, and Christian art and images for hundreds of years have portrayed only this aspect. Yet historical writings are quite clear. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215AD) says his face was ugly. The pagan Celsus (c.178) asked, “How can the Son of God have been such an ugly little man?’’. The Latin Father Tertullian (c. 160-220) likened him to a ‘puerulus’ — a wretched little boy. Robert Eisler put together the various descriptions by Josephus: “three ambits tall, crooked or stooping, long-faced, long-nosed with continuous eyebrows, scanty hair, dark-skinned, looking older than his years”. No connection with the aesthetically beautiful, pale-skinned, luxuriously curly-haired Jesus portrayed in Christian churches and religious art for hundreds of years.

In history Jesus was a man who lived and died about two thousand years ago, a practising Jew of Jewish parents. He was one of several children of Joseph and Mary. James, his elder brother, is mentioned in Paul’s message to the Galatians, and there were also Joseph, Judah and Simon, as well as at least two sisters. His family were respectable, and not as poor as the Christian religion would have us believe. They worried about the effect of his activities and tried to stop him, he disowned them (Mark 3:21, 31-35). He was executed on an unknown site by the roadside north or west of Jerusalem. According to Mark (the earliest gospel) no disciples were present and his reputed last words are therefore hearsay and their accuracy as reported in later gospels must be in doubt.

The way we see the world arises out of the structure of our society. Seen in retrospect, the myths and miracles of religion are as understandable in the societies in which they arose as primitive beliefs in gods of fire, water and fertility. In the light of modern knowledge there is no excuse for the continued blind belief in and reliance on a supreme being who determines the course of events.

Eva Goodman