Luncheon Vouchers (1960)

From the August 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

L.V.—this is the symbol which can be seen in the windows of many cafes, tea shops, snack bars and restaurants. It indicates that luncheon vouchers are accepted. The symbol has also cropped up in a recent advertisement, which shows a man sitting at a meal with, on his back, the words, “To work well he must eat well . . . regularly at lunch-time with L.V.” The advertisement also tells us that thousands of employers have arranged this nation-wide welfare service for the benefit of their workers. But is this all there is to say on the matter?

Many employers, when advertising vacancies, include the vouchers in the list of advantages extended to the lucky applicant. And workers fall for it: many of them, when bragging about having “an easy job,” remark that, along with the five day week, holidays with pay and sickness on full pay, they also receive luncheon vouchers. How nice, to think that employers are taking such an interest in the health and strength of their workers and are not leaving this vital matter to look after itself! Just fancy, instead of having to last the day on a ham sandwich or a bun and cuppa, our worker has his luncheon voucher and a whole hour in which he can eat to his heart's content. Every day, from Monday to Friday, our lucky working lads and lasses can wine and dine at the . . . at the . . . well, wherever they can get something for a two or three shilling voucher. We can be certain that, however they may “eat well,” the nurtured workers will not return to the job so full of lunch-time fare that they are too burdened to “work well.” Neverthelesss, these “better-off” workers are always grateful for small mercies, free meal tickets and all, and so skipping back to work, merrily they go.

Of course, Socialists will spoil it all by pointing out that the employer, instead of including the value of a week’s luncheon vouchers in his worker’s pay packets, merely gives out the same amount in the form of food tokens. And often uses this as an argument when resisting wage increases. The worker thinks he is being treated to lunch, instead of looking upon it as part of “the treatment.”

The question is why does the lunch on voucher amount to about three shillings instead of say, twenty-three? Simply because a worker's lunch can be bought for just about three shillings. In the same way, the total sum of all the purchases and expenses which a worker must make in order to live determines the total amount of his wages. He does not receive an unregulated sum which the employer hands out as a reward for being honest or hardworking or responsible. He gets roughly what it costs to maintain himself and his dependents.

But to return to our advertisement. We notice that its appeal is only to the employer and that it does not say “you (employer) must” but that “he (worker) must.” Is, then, both the eating and the working of the working class at the mercy of their masters? For example, if the workers cannot find an employer to buy their energies, there can be no work and very little eating. Our advertisement would not apply. Even to be allowed to work means that, to hold down their jobs, the workers must work well, try as some of them might to dodge it when the manager is out of sight. In fact, how well they work can be realised by a glance at any City Editor’s column. See there the facts and figures of the company reports, of the amazing profits which are made by the workers. Read, at the end of each chairman's chronicle, the compliments to the staff for working so well throughout the year.

And why only eat and work well? If, besides that, we were all to house and clothe well and to have everything else which we need, then all would be well, except for profits which would be so ill that they would die. It is inherent in the system of commodity production that the worker’s wages never tally with what he produces. The capitalist class, who own the factories, machinery and their produce, employ workers at the price of their wage. Workers are taken on to produce both enough to cover their wage and a surplus, which the capitalist commandeers. If the worker received as much as he produced, then his employer would not be able to dictate whether he should eat well or not; that would be his own responsibility.

To get rid of this exploitation, we must have a world in which food and all other wealth is produced simply to be used. A world in which all mankind has complete freedom of access to the world’s wealth, to satisfy its needs. It is the system of working for wages— whether or not they come partly as luncheon vouchers—which prevents the mass of people enjoying the full freedom and happiness which modern productive techniques can command. We need a world which works well for itself, to eat well—to live well

Joe McGuinness

A Vision of the Post-War World (1941)

From the May 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard 

And Some Good News for Vegetarians 

During the course of the “war to end war” (World War No. 1), the promise was frequently held out to the people that after the war there would be a land “fit for heroes to live in.” We do not know what sort of a land the coiner of this phrase, Lloyd George, had in mind, nor what sort of a land was thereby conjured up in the minds of his hearers. The interested enquirer, however, who remembers this England of before the last war, if he cares to take a walk round some of the suburbs of London or any other “great” city, will notice that there is no essential difference in the appearance of these quarters—there are the same long rows of dingy-looking streets—the same dingy-looking inhabitants living on the same low-protein diet. At first sight, the only noticeable difference is that the area covered by the dwellings of the workers has become vaster in extent. Huge new estates of semi-detached houses have covered the outskirts of the big towns like a flood ; in them the hire-purchase occupiers, in the delusion that they are “buying their own homes,” are constantly harassed by the too-frequent repair bills caused by jerry-building workmanship, the necessity of keeping up the payments to the building society converts the spectre of unemployment into a nightmare; while in the majority of cases, these “family homes” become converted—in an effort to meet the recurring costs—into two-storey flats—but flats much smaller than those of pre-1914 flats, in fact, so microscopic that the phrase “no room to swing a cat” has completely passed out of the lingo.

But stay, as one looks around, and ponders, a new, castle-like building suddenly strikes the eye—it is a police station. Obviously a first-class architect must have designed the magnificent proportions of this mosque-like structure; of harmonious forms, it towers over the landscape like the feudal castle in some mediaeval city. Looking around again, one notices that other buildings have also imposed themselves upon the landscape. Here is a magnificent new employment exchange; there a block of luxury flats at rents equal or superior to the entire contents of the average worker’s wage packet. No jerry-building here, my friends, of ferro-concrete construction and parquet floors, it will stand foursquare to the winds of time when the jerry-built homes of England have long-since been condemned by the “enlightened” local authority. We mentioned diet. Those who are familiar with workmen’s eating-houses and wayside cafes—not to mention the imitation-marble teashops where so many town dwellers take their mid-day meal, will have been struck by the extent to which during the last twenty years the roast beef of old England has been replaced by dishes in which baked beans are the staple food; so that to fill the void, one’s first thought is not “roast beef and two veg.,” but baked beans on toast, baked beans and sausages, or baked beans and chips. In public-houses “roast beef and two veg.” has been replaced by “roast beef and three veg.,” but the portion of roast beef has grown smaller and is made up by the third veg. —baked beans ! Since the time of the “war to end war,” the roast-beef eating Englishman has been transmogrified into the baked-bean eating Englishman! This, then, is the “land fit for heroes to live in“—a land of police stations, labour exchanges, luxury flats, slum dwellings and bean eaters.

But now another conflict is afoot, and the powers that be need the support of the workers in order that it may be waged to a successful issue. For the first twelve months of the war, the promises were few and far between; but now they are becoming a deluge, and Church dignitaries, Labour leaders and company directors vie with one another in their promises to the electorate. Mr. Hugh Dalton, the Minister for Economic Warfare, says :

“We must build a new economics of plenty, founded on a rational plan. In face of our immense productive powers, there should be no poverty nor hunger any more. Nor workers by the million standing idle against their will.”—(Sunday Times, December 1st, 1940.)

While Mr. Arthur Greenwood, the Minister without Portfolio, and Labour leader, says: —

“After the war, Britain will not tolerate in her midst the tragic spectacle of abject poverty and unemployment … It will, I believe, be the pride of the nation to succour its citizens who during the war, or afterwards, fall on evil days, through bereavement, disability, disease or old age. We shall look forward to developing our educational system and social services. We are planning to get rid of ugliness in our towns, to build a fairer Britain, and to replace hovels by worthy homes.”—(News-Chronicle, January 14th, 1941.)

Notice the implication that these things were still in existence twenty years after the promise of a “land fit for heroes to live in.”

Herbert Morrison adds his little mite with, “I want change so big that I do not like to tell you you about it” (Evening Standard, December 12th, 1940). We would add—”so vague, that nothing can be made of it.”

The Church, not to be outdone, adds its voice to the crescendo of promises. Signifying their approval of the Pope’s five points, including the “development of universal love,” four prelates of the Churches—Dr. Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury; Dr. Temple, the Archbishop of York; the Rev. Walter Armstrong, Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council; and Cardinal Hinsley, Catholic Archbishop of Westminster—-have agreed on five additional peace aim points, to wit—

“1. Extreme inequalities in wealth and possessions should be abolished.

“2. All children should have equal opportunities of education.

“3. The family as a social unit must be safeguarded.

“4. The sense of a Divine vocation must be restored to man’s daily work.

“5. Earth’s resources should be used as God’s gifts to the whole human race.”

(News Chronicle, December 23rd, 1940.)

No. 5 sounds very much like Socialism, but is obviously inconsistent with No. 1, which assume the continuance of inequalities in wealth.

The scientific impossibility of putting into effect the many promises which have been and are being made while capitalism rules, has been examined in previous issues of the Socialist Standard. Here we are concerned to know what this post-war world will be like. As a result of this little survey, we can safely say that if the carrying-out of the last lot of promises is anything to go by, this world of “changes too big to mention,” will consist of bigger labour exchanges, bigger police station: super-de-luxe flats of even greater luxuriousness, and greater slums inhabited by a race of complete vegetarian Englishmen.

A famous statesman used to say : ”You can deceive some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you can’t deceive all the people all the time.” If he were alive to-day however, he would appreciate that times have changed, and all you have to do to-day is to deceive most of the people most of the time—the minority simply doesn’t count !

In conclusion, it may not be inappropriate to re-quote Liebknecht’s words: —

“Every power outside ourselves on which we seek to lean is for us only weakness.”

Milbourne

The Ire Of The Irate Itinerant (2010)

From the March 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

We Want Real Food (2006)

Book Review from the June 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘We Want Real Food’. By Graham Harvey, (Constable £9.99)

Criticisms of food production usually concentrate on the supermarkets: with their emphasis on selling homogeneous produce and driving down the prices they pay to the producers, they play a major role in depriving consumers of healthy and tasty food. The fast-food industry is also attacked for its bland tasteless pap. In this book, though, Graham Harvey points the finger of blame at the companies that produce artificial fertilisers.

It is true that life expectancy is far greater than it used to be and that diseases like TB and cholera are almost things of the past in Britain. But degenerative diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and arthritis are reaching epidemic proportions. Harvey ascribes this to a change in the make-up of the soil, owing to the increased use of nitrogen compounds in fertiliser, which itself has been pushed by the companies who make big profits from selling the stuff.

Traditional farming exploited the minerals in the soil that contributed to a healthy lifestyle, but modern methods have relied more and more on chemical fertilisers that destroy these nutrients. According to one study, for instance, carrots lost 75 percent of their magnesium and copper between 1941 and 1990.

Minerals have various roles in protecting and promoting human health: copper, for instance, is important for the functioning of the liver, brain and muscles, while selenium protects against the onset of a number of kinds of cancer.

Harvey’s solution is a programme to reintroduce these crucial minerals to the soil. But this will face a problem: “For the best part of half a century, the chemical industry has effectively vetoed every attempt to remineralize over-worked soils and restore the health benefits to everyday foods.” So “What’s needed is leadership – from farmers, retailers or politicians.” Effective government legislation could supposedly promote sensible agriculture and hence healthier and tastier food. But food production would still be at the mercy of the profit motive rather than be aimed at satisfying human need.

Assuming that Harvey’s science is on the right lines, he makes a convincing case for changing the way in which agriculture is organised, but the problem is that this cannot be divorced from how society as a whole is run. His website at http://www.wewantrealfood.co.uk/ is also of interest, though we wouldn’t recommend bothering to write to supermarkets asking them to change their ways.

Paul Bennett

Rising prices and the EEC (1978)

From the April 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Before January 1973, when Britain joined the European Economic Community, and again in 1975 at the time of the Referendum, the interests in favour of joining and those opposed to it marshalled ail the arguments they could think of to influence the electorate one way or the other. Many were so flimsy that it is surprising anyone troubled to make them. Like the argument that entry into the EEC would mean more exports for British companies and more jobs for workers because it opened up a big new market: simultaneously people already in the EEC were being told that they should welcome British entry because it would open up the big British market to their exporters. It was obvious that while some British companies might hope to gain others were as certain to lose by the change.

There was, however, one consideration that appeared to have more substance. It was that entry into the EEC would push up prices in this country, especially food prices.

Opponents said that Britain would no longer be able to import food from non-member countries at the lower, world market price levels. The New Statesman's “Case Against Entry” used an estimate that this would raise British food prices by between 18 per cent and 26 per cent, this being the gap between world food prices and EEC prices.

The supporters of joining the EEC met this with two arguments. One was that British wages would rise to the higher levels of some EEC countries, notably Germany, and that workers would then be able to pay the higher prices. Whatever force there may be in such a trend towards common European wage levels, the onset of the depression and the Labour Government’s policy of checking wage increases put paid to it for the time being.

The second argument was put by the Conservative Party in their Guide for the 1975 Referendum Campaign. It was that as this country has to import half its food as well as much fertilisers and fuel it was important to have the dependable source of food represented by the EEC.

  It may not always provide us with the very cheap food available at any given time, but recent experience has shown how dramatically world food prices can fluctuate above and below Community levels, and how reliance on world supplies can leave us with shortages in time of need. It is therefore far better for us to rely on secure food supplies from our Community partners than to gamble on insecure supplies from the volatile world market.

The reason entry into the EEC was said to raise food prices was the changeover from the former British policy for keeping farming profitable to the different system used in the EEC.

The British system had been to fix guaranteed prices for lots of farm produce, and if farmers were forced to sell at lower prices because of cheap imports, the difference between actual and guaranteed prices was paid to farmers as subsidies. This kept food prices in Britain in line with world levels.

The system introduced in the EEC in 1962 was to set relatively high food prices for the whole EEC, reflecting costs of production, and to impose levies on imports from non-member countries. If actual prices fell below fixed “intervention” levels the Community bought the produce at the “intervention” prices, and stored it until prices rose, or sold it outside the Community, normally at a loss: or, as sometimes happened, destroyed it.

But this system had its problems. One was that costs of producing food are higher in some EEC countries than in others and a price level high enough to satisfy the least efficient farmers came up against the objections of factory owners and other employers who saw their costs being pushed up by wage demands to keep up with the high cost of living.

Another was that each EEC country controls its own currency. (It will be years before the aim is reached of one centrally controlled currency for the whole EEC.) So whenever one country, say Germany, up-valued its currency or another devalued its currency the whole European food market was disrupted, exports from low-currency countries capturing the market from high currency countries such as Germany.

To offset this and protect those farmers who would have been badly bit by it the system was devised of requiring the countries with depreciated currency to make compensatory payments on food imports and to levy charges on food exports; with the reverse arrangement for countries with up-valued currencies. But this would have called for drastic adjustments following the fairly frequent alterations of currency exchange rates. It was therefore modified and made less drastic by using, for converting Community payments into the currency of each country, not the actual currency exchange rates but agreed artificial rates which, for example, over-valued the pound but under-valued the German mark to the advantage of German farmers. These artificial rates are called green pounds, green marks, green liras, etc.

It is a complicated system but its practical effect can be seen in the recent 7½ per cent devaluation of the green pound forced by Parliament on the Government in place of the 5 per cent that it had proposed to ask for from the Community authorities.

This reduced by about 3p a lb. the subsidy received by Danish and Dutch exporters of bacon to Britain. The purpose of seeking the reduction was to help British pig farmers who had long complained that they were being ruined by cheap imports. If the Danes and Dutch actually raised their prices by the full 3p a lb. all bacon prices in the British market would go up by some such amount with a corresponding increase of the incomes of pig farmers. (Beef was also affected by the devaluation of the green pound).

It now remains to look at the original argument about British food prices being forced up by membership of the EEC.

In the first place it is questionable whether the New Statesman's forecast of an 18 per cent to 26 per cent rise actually took place. The Conservative Guide for the Referendum Campaign, quoted Shirley Williams the Labour prices minister as saying that “the overall level of food prices in the UK is not at present significantly affected one way or the other by our membership of the EEC”. She was not saying that food prices had not risen but that this reflected world price changes, not membership of the EEC.

But even if the New Statesman's forecast had proved correct what does it amount to? They had not risked claiming that if Britain remained outside the EEC no price rise would take place. They could hardly do so because between 1966 and 1972 (when Britain was outside the EEC) British food prices had risen by 47 per cent.

But those who still maintain that British food prices have risen because of membership of the EEC can point to the fact that between 1972 and 1976 British food prices rose by 100 per cent (up to date the rise is nearly 140 per cent). Does this not prove that membership of the EEC was responsible for the rise?

It is only necessary to look at the experience of other countries in the EEC to see that it cannot be the explanation. While British food prices rose between 1972 and 1976 by 100 per cent, the rise in Germany was only 27 per cent and in Denmark 53 per cent, both of them in the EEC. (For USA and Switzerland both outside the EEC, the percentage rise was 46 and 21.)

The major cause of the unduly big rise of British food prices, and British prices generally, is not membership of the EEC but the inflation policy operated by the Government (much speeded up after the Labour Government came into office in February 1974), in the mistaken belief that it would provide “full employment”.

Marx showed that an inflationary rise of prices inevitably follows from an excess issue of inconvertible paper currency. Though the level of production now is actually lower than it was in 1974, the amount of currency in circulation with the public has increased from £4,620 million to £7,830 million, a rise of 69 per cent.

If Britain had not joined the EEC the Labour Government would still have followed the same inflationary policy, with the consequent big rise of prices. (Under the guise of “reflation” they are likely to continue it.) Germany and Switzerland have resorted less to expansion of the note issue, hence their smaller price rises. (In the past two years Swiss prices have been rising at only about 1 per cent a year.)

It only remains to add that the solution of the workers’ problems is not to be found in membership or non-membership of the EEC, or in having inflation or not having inflation, but in getting rid of capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Coming in to the cold (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the environmentalist there are a number of environmental aspects within society today which give cause for concern, and the number is growing daily.

Everywhere he looks, some segment of the environment is under threat. For every one of these that the environmentalist attempts to influence, a number more erupt.

The environment has always been under attack during the development of the capitalist system of production and distribution. Today’s concerns are seemingly fraught with far more potential disasters than those of the past, but even then, threats (such as war and its associated weaponry) had seemed, at that time, potentially just as disastrous.

At the present time, two typical concerns are the danger of sub-clinical lead poisoning caused by inorganic lead being emitted from car exhausts and the possible Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor programme.

The Lead in Petrol Concern

Organic lead such as tetraethyl, itself a very dangerous substance, is added to all British petrol to increase the octane rating. In itself it is dangerous because it can easily be absorbed through the skin and can attack the nervous system with serious consequences, including possible brain damage. This fact was originally discovered the hard way, when workers working with the substance displayed behavioural changes and some even went mad.

The increase in octane rating of the petrol is achieved by adding tetraethyl or similar lead compound to the petrol to inhibit the violent explosion that would result in the cylinder chamber using lower octane fuel. This violent explosion, noticed as ‘pinking’ is thus reduced to the gradual burn necessary for smooth engine performance.

This means, as far as the petrol manufacturers are concerned, that a standard octane fuel (89.5) can be produced, the higher the octane rating needed, the greater the quantity of lead added.

Having done its job, the lead, now inorganic, would cause engine trouble if left in, so it has to be got rid of—emitted through the car’s exhaust. To increase the efficiency of lead emission, so called ‘lead Scavengers’ are also added to the fuel. ‘Scavengers’ such as Chlorine and Bromine keep the lead more volatile, easing emission. But chlorine, as most schoolchildren know, becomes hydrochloric acid during combustion which, obviously, does wonders for the car’s exhaust system!

The emitted lead enters humans via the lungs through the air they breath and via the gut through the food and drink they consume. Food, particularly large leafed plants like cabbages, have air-borne lead land on them as well as absorbing the lead that lands on the ground around them via their root system. Lead lying in roadside gutters etc. is washed into rivers where drinking water is taken from. Washing and purifying does not remove all the lead.

This form of petrol production is profitable. Selling car exhausts is profitable. Lead in petrol will remain a concern within capitalist society until it becomes unprofitable perhaps through human workloss due to sickness. This is unlikely—the British government at present does not accept sub-clinical lead poisoning. They believe that below a certain level (Threshold Limit Value, TLV) lead is inert and harmless. Also, the illness caused by this lead is subtle and not easily attributed to lead. Or there may be pressure from foreign competitors: already abroad, including within the EEC, TLVs are set far lower than in this country and this type of lead poisoning is causing serious concern. Meanwhile lead to the tune of some 11,000 tonnes is emitted from car exhausts in the United Kingdom each year and every individual continues to breath polluted air and eat polluted food.

The Fast Breeder Reactor Concern

Regarding the Fast Breeder (FB) Reactor programme, at the time of writing the result is awaited of a recent public enquiry held at Whitehaven into whether to build the first experimental FB reactor and whether to extend the reprocessing facilities at Windscale in Cumbria. The enquiry itself was called supposedly due to public concern and outcry over the possible consequences of such a venture (or could it possibly be a safety valve for the capitalist government, the programme going ahead anyway when the economy permits?).

The Fast Breeder Reactor as its name implies, ‘breeds’ more fuel as it reacts. The ‘Fast’ however does not mean that it quickly produces more fuel, it means it makes use of the fast neutrons emitted during reaction. This does however increase the efficiency of the reactor over its present day counterparts, the Thermal Reactors like the Magnox. However, there are disadvantages, the main one being the increased production of a bi-product known as Plutonium. Plutonium is a man-made element not found in nature that is highly poisonous and highly radioactive. It is this latter property as well as the fact that a small quantity plus some easily accessible knowledge and determination could be used to make a bomb, that is causing such concern, not only environmentally but militarily also.

Because the nuclear waste containing Plutonium has to be stored in cooled tanks in isolation for something like 25,000 years, this represents to our unstable society today a huge security risk and a future society, forced to maintain such tanks and security, does not represent a pleasant prospect. As well as this consideration, there is the prospect of more and more transport of waste from all quarters of the country and possibly of the world converging on the reprocessing plant at Windscale. The risks of accident, theft, hijacking or sabotage of such vehicles represents yet another security risk. Already armed guards are being used at Windscale and other establishments associated with the Nuclear Industries.

Other Concerns

There are just two of the numerous environmental concerns of today. In the seas, for instance, plankton, the basic start of the food chain through fish to our tables, is also giving cause for concern. This concern stems from the fact that the plankton can absorb low level nuclear waste (and for that matter other pollutants) which are then concentrated up the food chain to us humans. The whale, tiger and other creatures are being slaughtered out of existence mainly for the commercial produce that they represent. Valuable agricultural land is being swallowed up by the 1,000s of acres to build multi-lane motorways for larger and larger juggernaut lorries to use, these lorries travelling to and from such motorways having to use totally unsuitable roads, thundering perilously through villages and towns. Chemical waste is poured by the thousands of gallons into rivers daily, stretching to the limit the biosphere’s ability to cope with such problems. Raw and partially treated sewage is pumped into the seas while oil-based chemical fertilisers, with their own production pollution, are used in ever increasing quantities on the land which will result, some say, in the eventual breakdown of the delicate natural structure of arable land. More and more information is coming to light on such substances as asbestos and fibre-glass with workers in such industries being informed that their health, in some cases, is already beyond repair.

The more he looks into such problems the more the environmentalist is convinced of the inevitable long-term result of such seemingly careless attitudes throughout the modern world—disaster. So why, he asks himself, are such policies and production methods continued?

The Answer — come into the Cold

The answer to this environmentalist’s question and the root cause of all the above problems is the system which gives rise to such policies and production methods — capitalism. The unfortunate truth in the world today is that it is profitable to pollute.

The basic philosophy of the environmentalists is to slow down growth which, they claim, will lead to a stable society. But capitalism is fuelled by growth and must strive for larger and larger growth rates. Listen to the media’s concern, if growth is only being forecast as a small increase. We must have bigger growth rates say the Government, Trade Unions and the CBI — higher productivity. And as to a stable society — capitalism is far from stable, it fosters competition, waste, alienation, frustration and war.

So-called environmentalists (and for that matter all other workers) should study the Socialist’s case. Production for need not profit—and we certainly do not need pollution! A society not owned by a small minority who, supported by the working class, run a society geared to the buying and selling of commodities including our labour power. Until workers, including the environmentalists, use the vote to oust the capitalist system and install Socialism, the environmental movement is a lost cause, another blind alley for genuinely concerned individuals to travel up only to find at its end a blank wall to bash their heads against. At best the environmental movement can act as a brake, a brake easily released when economic constraints permit. At worst it engages enthusiastic, vigorous individuals in a futile struggle for reforms which even if ‘won’ only lead to further problems.

Environmentalists take note — come into the cold, the cold light of realization. Join Socialists the world over who are also trying to prevent the disastrous future that capitalism represents.

Mel St Pier

The Economics of "Oil." (1929)

From the June 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Winston was right after all when he stated recently that the workers have more “amenities” now than ever before. If any of our readers are still sceptical regarding this fact, the cutting below from the “Daily Herald” (May 11th), taken from the report of the Chairman at the Annual General Meeting of the Margarine Union, Ltd., will dissipate any doubts on the matter :—

  He mentioned that over £1,600,000 bad been spent on advertising during 1928 and had been fully charged to Profit and Loss. The consumption of margarine was continually increasing, no doubt due to the fact that it occupied a rather unique position, because whilst being one of the cheapest and best food commodities in existence, it was sold at the same price to the public as before the war.

And yet there are still workers who do not know on which side their bread is BUTTERED.

Sarcastigator.

Using the sea (1970)

Book Review from the December 1970 issue of the Socialist Standard

Harvest of the Sea, by John Bardach. Allen & Unwin. 55s.

The sea, covering seventy per cent of the earth's surface, was until recent times the last and largest unexplored region of the earth. However, the advance of scientific knowledge has brought into being new instruments and methods for learning about and exploring the oceans and has pushed back the boundaries so far that man is now within sight of opening up yet another field to satisfy his desires and needs.

This very good non-specialist book is an admirable introduction to the multi-scientific discipline of oceanology, which is that branch of learning which deals with the study of the seas, embracing a range of information from the physical characteristics of the ocean floor and its waters and marine life to speculation on the sea as a site for cities both on the surface and underneath. But it is the sea as a source of food and natural resources which is of the greatest importance to the human race.

The former subject is dealt with at considerable length. An essential requirement for maintaining the well being of the human body is protein of which fish is a very rich source. In fact for certain peoples like the Japanese virtually their main source of protein is fish. Of the twenty five thousand main species of fish now known to man only about two hundred are captured for food. Molluscs and crustaceans are used even less.

Fish also enter into peoples' diets in an indirect manner, inasmuch as certain small varieties of fish are rendered down into fish meal which is used in pig and poultry food.

Bardach points out that this not only lengthens the food chain but is also wasteful. A further point he makes is that the resources of the sea are not limitless, the greatest threat to them being pollution and overfishing.

The blue whale has already been hunted to the point of extinction, and other species of whale are in danger. The menace he indicts without actually mentioning it by name is capitalism. Norway. Russia, and Japan, the three principal whaling nations, have large amounts of capital invested in whaling vessels and factories and they are compelled to catch as many whales as possible to maintain profitability. This example alone demonstrates the futility of expecting capitalism to operate against its own economic laws, even its long term interest.

With regard to aquatic plantlife there is nothing at present acceptable as a foodstuff with the exception of a few seaweeds such as laver bread. Algae also enter into peoples' diets via certain products such as ice cream and beer.

If fossil fuels continue to be used up at the present rate, then alternative supplies will have to be found and the seas may come to the rescue in the following ways: Harnessing the tides (an installation has already been set up near to the mouth of the river Rance in France). This method of producing electricity is dependent upon the suitability of the coast line. Temperature differences between surface and deep tropical waters, atomic fusion by heavy water. Methane from fermented organic matter (already available from urban sewage systems but not utilised at present because of capitalism’s economic restrictions).

Bardach sees the oceans as a form of communal property and until recently this view could have been regarded as justifiable. with reservations; for the sea itself was not subject to international disputes and the territorial sovereignty of individual countries bounded by the sea was at one time recognised by common consent to extend no more than three miles from the shore line (although some countries have unilaterally extended their sovereignty beyond this). Fishing vessels of different countries share the same fishing grounds and pirate radio ships were recently broadcasting to Britain well outside this three mile limit without the government being able to take any other action than blocking transmission.

However, the discovery of oil and natural gas beneath the sea bed beyond the three mile limit has given rise to a new issue for international capitalism to quarrel about: how to divide up the oceans of the world for mutual exploitation. No doubt the experts on international and maritime law will have their work cut out for them as they try to devise some arrangement for achieving this to every interested party's satisfaction. One thing beyond dispute is that the working class of the world will not gain anything from any agreements made. In fact they will be subject to more intense exploitation, risks and pressures in the mad scramble to get at the wealth beneath the sea.

Only when we get a sane system of society where the welfare of all is the guiding principle and we are no longer subservient to the blind economic forces of capitalism can the wealth of the oceans be used solely for the benefit of mankind.

Unfortunately John Bardach throughout his book sees no further than capitalism and indulges in pious hopes that the oceans are not going to be abused too much in pursuit of profit, which is wishful thinking indeed.

L. B.

The Passing Show: From the top (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the top

Who is for democracy?

Not Lord Citrine, if we are to judge by his recent speech in the House of Lords. The Daily Herald (15/6/61) reported him as saying:

  The TUC leadership has been weakened at almost successive annual conferences in recent years.
  I have sat and writhed in the balconies time after time when I have seen a wise, constructive policy put from the platform and defeated by the delegates on the floor.
  This is lamentable, because 1 do not think that really broad-minded policy can ever come from the bottom.
  I believe it must come from the top, from people who are capable of viewing the whole field.

This is a strong argument for dictatorship, from the man who was for twenty years general secretary of the TUC. If his views are held by many others in the head offices of trade unions, it would partly account for the yawning gap which exists in many unions between the officials and the rank-and-file.

Lord Citrine had more to say. He delivered a swingeing attack on the workers for their ignorance of economics. He said:

  The average worker has not the least realisation of the dangers of inflation. He does not understand that the economy can get out of hand and that savings can disappear overnight.

Perhaps the workers would show more concern about the fate of savings if the system we live under allowed him to accumulate any savings worth mentioning. But since one of the basic laws of capitalism is that the workers are paid only enough to keep them able to do the work required of them and to bring up the next generation of wage-earners, the protection of savings is a purely academic point for them. Those who have savings, i.e., the capitalists, will do their level best to see that nothing happens to them even if sometimes, since capitalism is essentially an anarchic system, they are not altogether successful. This is a problem for the capitalists, and we can leave it to them.

Lord Citrine, however, had better be more careful about upbraiding the workers for their ignorance. If they take him at his word, and find out the real nature of the present system of society, their next step will be to end it and to introduce Socialism. And what would happen then to Citrine’s noble title, and to the House of Lords where he airs his views, and to the cult of leadership which he supports?


Nothing defensive

Socialists have pointed out many, many times the absurd misuse of words when a ruling class arms itself with weapon-like bombs and then claims that is simply taking “defensive” precautions. The odd thing is that any ruling class, and its tame propagandists, can see this perfectly well—when the actions of any other ruling class are being discussed.

One example was seen recently in the Times. The Times leader-writers have very often discussed Britain’s "defence" preparations, the “defence" estimates, the country’s “defence” forces, and so on. But all this was forgotten when the executive of the Indonesian ruling class. President Sukarno, got Russia to agree to supply him with modern military aircraft. The Indonesian claim that these were merely for “defensive” purposes was seen at once as a hollow pretence. What was obscure to the leader-writers when it happened under their noses in Britain became crystal clear in the distant lands of southeast Asia. The first leader (5/7/61) said smugly:

  Jet bombers that are as advanced as any in the world have nothing defensive about them and it is obvious enough that West New Guinea provides the motive.

This is quite right, of course: one of the main aims of the Indonesian ruling class is to extend its rule over West New Guinea, which is at present still ruled by the Dutch. Obviously, as the leader says, modern jet bombers have nothing defensive about them. But what a curious case of selective blindness that the writer could not see that this applies to British jet bombers as much as to jet bombers in Russia or Indonesia!


Over-salted

In a world where many millions go hungry, one would have thought that the rich would try to conceal their more extravagant excesses of over-eating. But not so. One American gourmet is on a round-the-world “tasting trip,” and the Observer (6/8/61) tells us that he arrived in Tokio bringing with him:

   . . .  an alarm wrist-watch to time the grilling of steaks, a golden ball which will not sink immediately into caviar if it is over-salted, a miniature pair of scales for weighing meat and a microscope for checking its grain. He also carries a fourteen-point grading chart for statistical purposes.

Perhaps the very insensitiveness the members of the upper class, their willingness to display publicly the great gulf between the rich and the poor, will contribute not a little to their eventual downfall.

Alwyn Edgar

Food and Work (1947)

From the June 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Writing in the Medical World (quoted in Burton Daily Mail, 6/5/47) Dr. Franklin Bicknell, physician and dietician, has things to say about our food. “ We are the worst-fed nation in Western Europe."

  “The forty-hour week, no Saturday work, shops closing for over an hour at mid-day, the lower output of work, are all the necessary though unconscious results of starvation, forcing the worker to conserve his energy."
  “The only way this vicious circle can be broken is by greatly increasing our food. Just yelping for the Dunkirk spirit shows a total lack of all knowledge of the country's starved condition. It is just foolishness."

Pathfinders: Missionary Positions (2019)

The Pathfinders Column from the January 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Lord, is this island Satan’s last stronghold where none have heard or even had the chance to hear your name?” So wrote John Allen Chau, the 26-year-old Christian missionary, just before his last visit to North Sentinel Island in the Andaman chain in November last year. His death at the hands of the Sentineli islanders made world headlines, largely because it was like something out of the eighteenth century. The pious missionary rows his canoe to the shore, brandishes a Bible and starts singing hymns, and the Stone Age natives shoot him full of arrows.

Interestingly, all the media blame for this fateful encounter fell on Chau himself, who was visiting illegally and in defiance of the island’s special protection status. The Sentineli have a history of killing intruders, and Chau himself had already been shot at with arrows on a previous visit, so he knew very well what might happen. The Indian police arrested seven fishermen who had helped Chau get to the island, though no arrests on the island itself were made or even mooted. Some blame should also fall on the organisation that sent him, the All Nations Church of St Louis, Missouri, whose stated mission ‘to do whatever it takes so as many people as possible can see Jesus’ is what got Chau killed. The fact that imported viral or bacterial diseases are the number one killer among newly-contacted tribes does not seem to have occurred to the moronic bible-bashers. What’s worrying is the thought that other church groups will now view the Sentineli as the ultimate challenge.

Billed as ‘the last uncontacted tribe on Earth’, the Sentineli have in fact been contacted off and on since 1867, and received tools and cooking implements as gifts, but encounters have frequently gone badly. Not much is known about them except that they use fire and know how to rework scavenged iron for arrowheads. What can be speculated is that, like most ‘isolated’ tribes the world over, they know far more about the outside world than the outside world suspects. Their hostility is almost certainly due to fear than to some supposed innate aggression.

Inverting the usual colonial assumptions about what such people could gain from the modern world, the BBC instead approached various anthropologists to ask what we might learn from the tribes (BBC Online, 24 November). Apart, that is, from stealing their local medicinal plants and patenting them for the pharmaceutical industry.

Thus we learn that the 14,000-strong Piaroa of Venezuela are egalitarians who practise individualistic autonomy without hierarchies or private ownership. They see competition as evil and don’t play any competitive sports, and anyone who gets above themselves is treated with pity as being immature. Wikipedia also attests to this ‘functioning anarchist society’ and notes that they are ‘opposed to the hoarding of resources, which they see as giving members the power to constrain their freedom.’

Well quite, and what we’ve been saying all along. Not that every remote tribe is so enlightened, of course, and the BBC article warns us not to ‘over-romanticise’ how they live. But socialists can easily relate to groups like the Piaroa, who seem to have hit on the principles of common ownership and equality as a successful survival strategy and would presumably look askance at modern capitalism and its habit of pursuing the exact opposite of a successful survival strategy. Maybe the Piaroa should send out missionaries to the capitalist world. But the world would probably tell them their society is logically impossible because of human nature. Or shoot them full of arrows.

What’s cooking?

‘When we’re confronted with abundance, we’re hardwired to take what we can, and it’s difficult to overcome that impulse’, says the founder of a UK food-waste reduction organisation in a recent article about how to reduce the approximately 30 percent of food that is wasted every year (New Scientist, 8 December). The blame for this apparently lies with supermarkets, which pile high and sell cheap, leading to runaway overconsumption and waste in fresh perishable goods. But this makes it sound as if consumers are mindlessly greedy, when the reality is they’re having to pay for all this waste and many are hard-pressed to afford it. The more likely explanation for such waste is that, despite endless food-porn TV shows, people are not very good at managing the business of domestic cooking. It’s not taught effectively in schools because they don’t have the time or the facilities to achieve more than a tokenistic effort. And parents who can’t cook are not going to pass the skills on either. No wonder poor people resort to expensive and environmentally wasteful takeaways and TV dinners.

The article discusses a new business model which aims to supply meal ‘kits’, comprising the exact proportions of ingredients in compostable packaging, however the take-up rate is slow and the value for money questionable. What has not occurred to anyone is the idea of socialising the process. In socialism it would be deemed sheer lunacy for each individual to do their own cooking in their own kitchen with their own larders and fridges full of their own food stores, when most people would be happy to share the job communally and thereby only need to help cook once a month or so. Think of the savings in space, storage, waste, time, effort, and indeed safety, given the huge potential for burns, cuts and fires. You might call that plain old common sense, but capitalism doesn’t have an abundance of that.

Brave New CRISPR World

In December a Chinese researcher achieved a historic landmark but earned general condemnation including from Chinese regulators by announcing the world’s first IVF twins born after modification with the CRISPR gene-editing process (New Scientist, 8 December). The researcher is widely considered a renegade for ignoring international ethical standards, employing an experimental technique for no valid medical reason, and including clauses in his test agreement that compelled participants to continue or else pay a large forfeiture. The targeted gene coded for HIV resistance, however it would only ever be partially effective at best. Meanwhile nobody can tell what side-effect damage may have been caused, and it will be years before this can be known. Ethical oversight aside, designer babies are where the smart capitalist money is. Huxley’s famous dystopia just came a step closer.

Paddy Shannon

Cheap soup suitable for a soup kitchen. (1956)

From the November 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

From Mrs. Beeton's All About Cookery 
(Current Edition)

Benevolent Soup 

Cheap soup suitable for a soup kitchen. 

Ingredients: ½ an ox-cheek, 4 celery tops, 2 large carrots, 4 large onions, 2 large turnips, 1 cabbage, salt and pepper, a bunch of herbs, 10 quarts of cold water, 1½ pints of dried peas or lentils.
Time: About 6 or 7 hours. Sufficient for 12 quarts of soup.

Confessions of a Labour Leader (1944)

From the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Tom Johnston, Labour M.P., says we are better fed during the war than ever before: —

  Nutritionally, we had never been better fed in our history than we were now, Mr. Tom Johnston, Secretary for Scotland, said at Dundee yesterday.
  Despite shortages, other difficulties and the rationing system, everyone for the first time was able to get three meals a day.
  It was tragic that it took the war to ensure that the most necessitous—children and infants—got priorities, fruit juices, and so on. (News Chronicle, August 19th, 1944.)

Mr. Johnston was a supporter of the Labour Government in 1924 and again in 1929-31, and held office under the latter as Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland and Lord Privy Seal. Will he explain why the Labour Governments did not tackle this elementary problem of nutrition?

The Passing Show: Hypocritical New Year! (1966)

The Passing Show Column from the January 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hypocritical New Year!

Humbugtime is over for another twelve months, thank goodness. It ended at around midnight on New Year’s Eve when everyone slapped everyone else on the back, wished him health, wealth and happiness, and then got back to the serious business of cutting the next man’s throat.

But what am I saying! Humbugtime is not over. Only a particularly cynical and obnoxious part of it called Christmas. Now will come the January “bargain” sales when well bred young ladies will scratch each other’s eyes out, and the retailers will release specially made stocks of rubbish under the heading of “genuine reductions”. About the only thing that is genuinely reduced is the quality of the goods.

By the time you read this, you might also have noticed the adverts creeping into the paper about this year's summer holidays. In fact I got a circular through the post at the beginning of December. All of them will promise you the best and cheapest of holidays (another piece of humbug—the two just don’t go together) and running through all of the literature will be the suggestion that the holiday firms are here with the intention of serving you purely for its own sake. But just try defaulting on payments, say, on a “hire purchase” holiday and watch them drop the mask of genial hand-rubbing servility.

So far we have looked at two or three examples of humbug that you will encounter in about the first six months of this or any other year. But there are others and no doubt you can add to the list, and make it as long as your arm. In this year of 1966, for example, you will again be told to work harder and produce more, but not to press for more wages. If only you will do this somehow (no one ever explains just how) your standard of living will rise. This will be the government’s bleat—ably supported by opposition and press alike, and they will pound your ears with this lie until they ring. But what will happen in practice? The trade unions will continue to struggle for better pay and conditions, just as they have always done.

The government will assure you, as ever, that it is working for peace while developing all sorts of deadly weapons and selling them abroad. The armed forces will be used—as they have always been—to bolster British capitalism’s interests and if that means bloodshed, then so be it. Of course, the British government is not alone in that particularly bloody type of humbug. Only a few months ago in this column I gave examples of some particularly peace-loving warmongers, but they were mainly small fry in the capitalist scheme of things. Such as Tito and Nkrumah.

For a really nice large chunk of humbug, President Johnson’s words of December 2nd take a bit of beating.

Talking about the Vietnam war to a conference of industrialists and financiers at Washington, he insisted that :

 “This nation is ready to talk, unconditionally, anywhere with peace as our agenda . . .  peace is our commitment. Peace is our goal. Peace will be the only victory we seek. And peace will come.” (Guardian—3.12.65.)

The Vietnam affair is one of the bloodiest “minor” wars which have been fought since Korea. It has been protracted and gruesome, with some really spine-chilling atrocities on both sides. And as everyone has talked more and more about “peace” so the killing has intensified—“escalated” is the word in current vogue, I believe.

But peace, however desirable, is something which must be subordinated to the interests of the various contestants and in leaving that out of his speech, the President was guilty of the biggest humbug of all. No talks will ever be "unconditional”. They will be held sooner or later because neither side can fight for ever, and you may rest assured that both sides will then drive as hard a bargain as they can to try and protect their interests.


Poor Little Rich Men 

One of the many hallmarks of working class existence in the 1930’s was poor nutrition. Marghanita Laski recalls this briefly in an article in the Observer colour supplement of December 5th. when she cites a 1938 study of Birmingham schoolchildren which “classified only 2.5 per cent as excellently nourished.”

There have been some changes since then, of course, but I never thought I’d see the day when it would be suggested that “the wealthy executive lunching on oysters, steak and brandy may not be as well fed as the workman with his humble stew”. Yet this is what Dr. J. G. Davis (past chairman of the Society of Chemical Industries Food Group) has said, and it was reported in The Daily Telegraph of November 18th last. Now I do not want to take the doctor’s words out of their context or misconstrue what he has said. He was, of course, pointing to the possible nutritional deficiencies in a business lunch compared to the workman’s dinner and taking the examples he gave, there is something to be said for his point of view. But does that mean that we should shed any tears for the poor under-nourished capitalist? Far from it.

The fact that a man may have the financial means to buy himself good food—the best from every point of view—but is perhaps foolish enough not to do it, is really beside the point. He is in the position to feed himself well and having ignored the doctor's advice, he can still get the best of medical attention. In other words, the richer he is, the better chance he stands of feeding, clothing and housing himself really well. And as a general rule, this is just what happens of course.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I haven’t noticed any capitalist making strenuous efforts to give up his riches and savour the qualities of working class food, clothing and shelter. It has been estimated that over one third of the world’s population are starving. I wonder how many of them are rich people.

Gaspers

“If they (the opposition) are not pleased about it, the country outside is, and nobody more than the business community.” (George Brown in a Commons speech 17/11/65, on the improved balance of payments position.)

“The only thing which bars one from going to a public school is lack of money”. (Lord Somers, House of Lords debate 16/11/65.)

“India might have to reconsider its position if China ever accumulated a stockpile of nuclear weapons and perfected a delivery system.” (Mr. Shastri—16/11 /65.)

 

"All in all, then Mr. Wilson and his Economics Ministers cannot take it for granted that things will move along predictable lines." (Guardian financial editor W. Davies—18/11/65.)

“By raising living standards you create demand for our goods, order books would be filled to overflowing . . .’’ (“War on Want" appeals advert in The Observer—14/11/65.)

“It is greed for financial profit and the enormous pressure of conflicting interests that are mainly responsible for this brutal destruction. (National Trust Secretary J. F. W. Rathbone, on the destruction of the English coastline—1/12/65.)

“A happy Christmas and a prosperous new year from Editor and Staff of your paper. (Pensioners’ Voice for December 1965.)

Eddie Critchfield

Asked and Answered (1951)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been asked by the writer of the following letter to reply to it in the Socialist Standard.

Maida Vale, W.9.

The Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,

I have heard it stated by socialists who are members and non-members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, that a person cannot be a socialist and a doctor at the same time.

Their reason is that the activities of doctors hinder in the efforts of obtaining Socialism.

By this they mean that drugs and other chemicals which doctors use have in the long run detrimental effects on the human body.

They continue by stating that the medical approach to disease by suppressive methods, such as drugs, lead to other dangerous diseases.

All this they claim has also a detrimental effect on the brain-functions.

I have always accepted the view that doctors were members of the working class and that their intentions, in the main, were the same as the rest of the working class, namely, because of their property-less position, they have to sell their abilities in order to live, hence their interests were in common. I would, therefore, like to frame my question as follows:—

1. Can a socialist become a doctor, and vice-versa?
2. Where do nature-cure socialists “draw the line”?
3. Do you think raw carrots, cabbages, wage-labour, and Capital à la Karl Marx a good combination.

Yours truly,

                           D. Brooks

Reply:

Our first thought on reading the letter was that our legs were being pulled. On the assumption, however, that the questions may be intended seriously we reply that membership of the S.P.G.B. is open to those who agree with the Declaration of Principles and act in accordance with the Party’s rules. The S.P.G.B. exists to secure the establishment of Socialism and not to control the kind of civilian employment its members are compelled by Capitalism to take, or with the views they hold on medical practice, nature cure, football, chess, music, beer-drinking, etc., etc.

Editorial Committee.

The World and the Vegans (1951)

From the May 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 1st of March in the Daily Mirror, appeared an article on the Vegan Society, a body of people described by the writer, Eric Wainwright, as a “red-hot splinter group” which spun away from the vegetarian movement in 1944. According to the article the main object of the Vegan Society is to live without exploitation, and a number of instances are given where this 600 strong group go without or find substitutes for some of life's necessities, on the ground that to be produced, somebody, human or animal, has had to be exploited. Eggs, milk, silk, wool, coal, rubber and leathers are some of the things deemed wrong to use by Vegans because in their production someone is being exploited. The thing which struck us as rather stranger was the fact that nowhere in the article do they tell us what exploitation is, or how it takes place.

Of course to take the argument literally would be impossible, because to avoid exploitation they could not stop at eggs, coal, rubber, etc., they would have to give up living in houses or wearing any clothes, stop sending or receiving letters, walking on roads or anything else produced by social labour. Even the plastic substitute for leather, although it may stop the slaughter of animals, would not stop the workers from being exploited in the production process. It must then be understood that these well-meaning people cannot stop exploitation just by seeing it as something undesirable in life and seeking to isolate themselves from it. Surely exploitation, in common with all other social problems such as poverty, hunger and war, can only be abolished when their cause is understood. It is of little use to tinker with effects whilst the cause remains untouched and unchanged due to the fact that those who tinker with the effects are ignorant of the cause. When, and only when, a majority of the world's workers understand that ownership by the world capitalist class of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth, means perpetual poverty, shortages and wars for those who have to humble themselves for wages, will they be able to replace class ownership with common ownership, produce goods for use instead of profit and see that people receive in accordance with their needs instead of the limited confines of their wages packets.

To turn our eyes away from a problem is no solution, for the problem still remains. A leader of the Vegan Society is quoted as saying they are “a group of persons who have come together in response to. an intuitive stimulus which has not yet crystallised into words." Well, when it does, we hope they will let us know because we socialists have the answer to man’s major social problems. Exploitation takes place whilst workers throughout the world are earning wages for themselves to exist on, and profits for their masters to live on, and unless they see that their interests can only be served by unity on a basis of understanding they cannot put the solution Socialism into practice.

Harry Baldwin 

Running Commentary: No Tragedy, Cambodia (1980)

The Running Commentary Column from the February 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

NO TRAGEDY, CAMBODIA

For years, Cambodia has been mauled over by the competing powers in South East Asia. Devastated by war, since 1975 four million people have died out of a population which was then eight million. Now tens of thousands make their desperate way along the refugee trail into Thailand.

Like ghosts they travel, limbs as thin as bamboo, ravaged by diseases of malnutrition - dysentery, tuberculosis, cholera. Skeleton-like mothers cradle children with swollen bellies, heads like skulls.

This is a situation beyond despair; it is estimated that, unless they get vast amounts of help, 2¼ million more Cambodians could die of starvation during the next few months.

There are many bitter ironies in this human hell. Cambodia was once a peaceful, fertile place. Infiltrated by the Victcong, it became the target of pitiless raids by the American bombers.

Then came the Khmer Rouge, with their policy of genocide. Now it agonises under invasion from Vietnam and an unrelenting guerilla war with what remains of the Khmer Rouge.

And this, for Cambodia is the grisly climax to the International Year of the Child, when capitalism vowed to pay special care to the wellbeing of children. And it came some time after Henry Kissinger had smugly accepted the Nobel Prize for supposedly bringing peace to the area.

Cambodia has been ravaged because it is in the middle of a typical power struggle of capitalism, involving some of the world’s great armed blocs. Capitalism habitually defiles, destroys, terrorises. Human beings are never of urgent account to capitalism and when the stakes in terms of material advantage are high enough they become worth little more than the mud they die in, among the refugee camps.

So Cambodia is not, as the media are so fond of calling it, a tragedy. A more correct description for it would be a symptom. In this case the disease is curable; only abolish capitalism and places like Cambodia will again be green and tranquil lands.

HOT AND COLD

Blood pressure in the best gentlemen’s clubs and the most refined drawing rooms must have been forced several notches upward by the recent debates on issues of poverty in, of all places, the letter columns of the Daily Telegraph.

There was a discussion about whether there actually was any suffering from hunger and other deprivation during the slumps of the Twenties and the Thirties. This is not, one might think, a matter over which anyone could dispute for long, unless history is rewritten to wipe out all those records of unemployment, ill fed and ragged children, mouldering slums.

Then there was a rather more refined debate, over the rights and wrongs—or rather the existence or non-existence—of hypothermia among the elderly. This was started by a letter from an orthopaedic surgeon in Glamorgan, calling workers who want to live in a warm home in the winter “softies” and advocating “ . . . more physical activity in the elderly . . .  a good breakfast of porridge . . . several layers of lightweight loose clothing . . ."

There are, of course, plenty of countries with a climate which normally provides living temperatures as comfortable as a properly heated English house. No surgeon suggests that people in those countries have gone soft or have lost the use of vital, heat generating organs.

In truth, the debate was about the living conditions, and the alleged extravagance, of only one social set. It is the working class, whose life depends upon their earning a wage, who suffer conditions like hypothermia. When a worker is too old to work there is only reliance on a pension, or on charity, which often means cutting back on essentials like heating.

It is old workers who die, in silent misery, from the cold of an English winter. After a lifetime of exploitation the indignity of that death is all that capitalism has to offer them. For an expensively trained surgeon to debate whether they need a warm home where they can stay alive is to add cold insult to sick injury.

PEP PILLS

As the proprietor of any Health Food Store will tell you, ginseng is the greatest thing since natural, hundred per cent stone ground, wholemeal, unsliced bread.

This product from the root of the ginseng plant is reputed to be both a tranquiliser and a stimulant (an aphrodisiac no less) which sounds rather like having your cake (or whatever) and eating (or whatever) it.

It is perhaps a measure of the desperation of what is left of the British car industry, that one of its firms is turning to the ancient Chinese medicament as a way of casing its problems.

This firm is about to launch a controlled medical experiment on the effects of ginseng upon production, feeding genuine doses of the stuff to one lot of workers and dummy tablets to another. Success or failure will be measured, need we add, not just by whether the subjects of the experiment are happier, healthier, have a more satisfactory sex life—but on whether production goes up or down.

This trial is not without precedent. Two Japanese car firms supply free ginseng to their workers, as does the great new Lada plant in Russia. This meeting of the minds, of the avowedly capitalist and the allegedly socialist, on the issue of the more profitable exploitation of workers, is instructive as to the common, capitalist, nature of society in both those countries.

But what happens, if all the car manufacturers throughout the world are feeding ginseng to their workers? Who then will be the unprofitable ones? Will British Leyland magically revive? Will capitalism suddenly stop being a society where wealth is turned out for sale and profit?

In fact, profitability does not in the last analysis depend on the state of mind of a workforce. Capitalism’s goods have to be sold in order to realise a profit, which means that its prosperity relies upon the market. Nobody has yet discovered a way to eliminate the anarchic nature of the market, which is why capitalism's booms and slumps are not susceptible to control or to forecast.

Workers in the productive process can have no effect on the market; under capitalism production takes place blind, in the hope that the goods can be sold profitably. If they can’t, then production shuts down. And for an unemployed worker, there is not likely to be even the consolation of tranquilising, stimulating ginseng; like most stuff sold in the Health Food stores, it is pretty expensive.

Snap, Crackle, Pop (1981)

From the August 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

A recent survey established that 61 per cent of all households in the UK serve ready-to-eat cereals at least twice a week, while for all families with children the figure is 82 per cent; annual consumption is 127 oz—or just under 8 lb. a head.

The Kellogg Company of Great Britain is the second largest in the world-wide American Kellogg organisation, who manufacture in 18 countries and distribute in 150. Its 16 varieties account for a cool £240 million sales and represent 55 per cent of the British market.

In 1866, the wife of a minister of religion in Battle Creek, Michigan, decided that a diet based on grains, nuts and vegetables was essential to “right living". The Seventh Day Adventists set up an institute, known as the Battle Creek Sanatorium, to implement her ideas. In 1876 Dr. John Harvey Kellogg was appointed its chief physician and became interested in the production of an easy to digest breakfast. With his brother, William Keith Kellogg, the Sanatorium’s business manager, he developed a thin, malt-flavoured toasted maize flake, the original “com flake". In 1906 William established the Battle Creek Toasted Cornflake Company and laid the foundations of the modern breakfast cereal empire. 

The British Kellogg Company was founded in 1924 and a factory was established at Stretford, Manchester, in 1938. This is now one of the largest food factories in the world, producing over a million packets of cereals each day. Another factory was opened in 1978, and the largest cornmill in Europe, at Seaford in Liverpool, processes 960 tons of grain a day. The central warehouse in Manchester can accommodate 400,000 cases of cereal and Kellogg operate 80 road vehicles a day. It is the only food company in Britain operating its own overnight rail service to London, with an average of 30 rail vans leaving from a private siding each night.

Whichever way you look at it, with religion you’re on to a good thing. The organised churches are among the richest property owners in the world, and by distancing themselves from capitalism's worries and problems, lead a protected existence. Seventh Day Adventists, from humble beginnings, founded a breakfast cereal empire and fortune and we workers, while ensuring the continuation of their good fortunes, are exhorted to take comfort in referring our problems to the non-existent deity which is the cornerstone of their profitable existence.

Eva Goodman

Sugar: Sweet for Some (2015)

From the April 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down’, sang the angelic Julie Andrews to a pair of wide-eyed children in the movie Mary Poppins. Julie’s advice must have enthralled the sugar industry, and set the hearts of marketers everywhere fluttering. Children as consumers represent a massive global market, and spearheading capitalism’s drive for the minds and money of children is the sugar and related sweeteners industry. At stake is an estimated global market projected for 2017 at $97.2 billion. A large slice of the forthcoming profits will be pocketed by the Fanjul Brothers, owners of Fanjul Corp, ‘which in 2010 comprised four raw sugar mills and 10 refineries in six countries, making them the world's largest refiner of cane sugar, producing 6 million tons of sugar annually' (en.wikipedia.org/).

Perhaps even Mary Poppins would have baulked at administering 20 spoonfuls of sugar in one go, but not Sainsburys. Their Orange Energy Drink has, ‘5.9g per 100 ml of sugar – which is the equivalent of 20 teaspoons for every 500ml’. As ever there are reformers demanding activity. In February, Action on Sugar, ‘has called for the sale of ‘energy’ and sports drinks to youngsters to be banned. They also ‘warned that children were being duped into thinking that the products would boost their performance on the sports field or at school’ and that, ‘The products served no purpose whatsoever except to make children addicted to caffeine and habituated to sugars, it claimed, while in the longer term they were fuelling the obesity epidemic’ (theguardian.com/26 February).

Even doting parent and thoughtful Prime Minister David Cameron disclosed to Parliament how he was ‘trying to stop 'excessive' amounts of Coca-Cola being consumed in the Cameron household’ (Daily Mail.co.uk, 16 January, 2013). This admission, albeit two years later, seemed to resonate with Tory MP Sarah Wollaston, chair of the Health Select Committee, when she confided to BuzzFeed News that she and her committee wanted to ask experts if it would, ‘work if we had a price differential between sugary carbonated drinks and unsugary ones, low sugar? So if you’re there at a supermarket shelf and one product is 10p cheaper than the other, would it help you to think – Well, I’ll go for the non-sugary one?’ Wollaston, a onetime GP, also posed an ideological question in a sugar-coated Mary Poppins-like way when she asked: ‘Are there ways we can take calories out of children’s diets in ways that doesn’t feel like a big nanny bossy state coming in with a big stick’ (3 February)? Something tells me that the naughty corporations aren’t going to have to take any nasty medicine, even from those who supposedly wield a big stick.

The Guardian reported that, ‘an investigation by the British Medical Journal revealed that health officials and ministers had 130 meetings with alcohol and supermarket lobbyists while they were considering imposing a minimum price per unit of alcohol. The proposal was dropped in July, allegedly because of a lack of concrete evidence’. Protecting corporate profits through political connections is nothing new. ‘In 1979, Margaret Thatcher set up the National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education, chaired by Professor Philip James, a powerhouse in the drive to improve diet. It produced a seminal report, suppressed until it was leaked in 1983, that warned the British diet was connected to the major diseases of our time. Its targets to reduce sugar, fat and salt were ignored’ (12 February, 2014).

And in the U.S Bloomberg’s reported that, ‘Hawaii lawmakers killed a proposed tax that would have added 17 cents to a single-serve bottle of soda. It was the second failed attempt, even though Governor Neil Abercrombie had pushed the proposed levy… PepsiCo Inc., Coca-Cola Co. and the American Beverage Association have spent as much as $70 million on lobbying and issuing ads… Efforts to enact such levies have foundered in 30 states’. Judith Phillips, a Mississippi State University research analyst who studied the issue for lawmakers,summed up how things generally work under capitalism: ‘Whoever is loudest tends to control the discussion and, generally speaking, you buy your microphone with money’ (13 March, 2012).

Addictive

Action on Sugar suggests that sugar could be addictive. Dr. David Reuben, author of Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Nutrition agrees: ‘White refined sugar is not a food. It is a pure chemical extracted from plant sources, purer in fact than cocaine, which it resembles in many ways. Its true name is sucrose and its chemical formula is C12H22O11... The chemical formula for cocaine is C17H21NO4... For all practical purposes, the difference is that sugar is missing the ‘N’, or nitrogen atom... Through heating and mechanical and chemical processing, all vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, enzymes and indeed every nutrient is removed until only the sugar remains... During the refining process, 64 food elements are destroyed. All the potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, manganese, phosphate, and sulfate are removed. The A, D, and B, vitamins are destroyed. Amino acids, vital enzymes, unsaturated fats, and all fiber are gone. To a lesser or greater degree, all refined sweeteners such as corn syrup, maple syrup, etc., undergo similar destructive processes... Studies show that ‘sugar’ is just as habit-forming as any narcotic; and its use, misuse, and abuse is our nation’s number one disaster’ (macrobiotics.co.uk/ 3 March).

So too thinks Robert Lustig, the University of California’s professor of paediatrics who is, ‘well-known for his research into the effects of dietary sugar. He believes that sugar is addictive. In a recent interview he said: ‘There are five tastes on your tongue: sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami. Sugar covers up the other four, so you can't taste the negative aspects of foods. You can make dog poop taste good with enough sugar’. Lustig goes on to reveal that, ‘table sugar known as sucrose, which is a made of two sugars (glucose and fructose) chemically bound to each other, is identical to high fructose corn syrup – which he describes as a chronic toxin’ (Independent, 4 October 2014).

Like the wolf eying the lambs, children are viewed as a primary target for the sugar industry. Spinning lies to them is accomplished by just a few multi-billion dollar advertising corporations. As Juliet Schor writes, ‘These corporations not only have enormous economic power, but their political influence has never been greater. They have funneled unprecedented sums of money to political parties and officials... The power wielded by these corporations is evident in many ways, from their ability to eliminate competitors to their ability to mobilize state power in their interest’. Straight from an arsehole’s mouth comes this truism: ‘No one’s really worrying about what it [advertising to children] is teaching impressionable youth. Hey, I’m in the business of convincing people to buy things they don’t need’  - an advertising executive, in Business Week, August 11, 1997, quoted by Richard Robbins’ (www.globalissues.org/article/237).

Enough is not enough

Advertisers are simply the unimaginative lackeys for an elite that includes people such as the Fanjul brothers. They’re fourth generation sugar capitalists. Their great grandfather was reportedly the wealthiest man in Cuba. Under Batista’s dictatorship life was uncomplicated for the family. The profits built off of the backs of their workers rolled in. Extravagant parties were thrown for other parasites like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, but in 1958 Castro overthrew Batista’s dictatorship under the guise of socialism. The Fanjul’s sugar empire was seized and Castro now luxuriates in one of the family’s palatial mansions in Havana. Under capitalism the narrative repeats ad nauseam: The old king’s dead - long live the new king.

Palm Beach, Florida, welcomed the Fanjuls and their money which was quickly re-invested in land, plant and labour enabling a speedy return to capital accumulation. Hungry labour usually returns fatter profits so the Fanjul brothers were quick to exploit the US governments H-2 foreign worker programme, enabling, ‘the Fanjuls to bring in thousands of migrant workers, mostly from Jamaica, to cut their cane... Only the desperately poor cut cane and, without the farmworkers program, the Fanjuls may not have been able to harvest their fields. In the Fanjul fields, workers who did not cut fast enough were labeled ‘Code One’, which means 'refused to work – do not rehire’. Code One workers were sent home’.

In 1974, sugar prices rocketed and, inevitably, overproduction resulted. But, help was at hand for the kings of sugar: ‘The government rushed to their aid, and the current sugar program of government subsidies and price supports took hold. The government guaranteed to sugar farmers a price double that of the world market and placed quotas on sugar imports. Such a policy produces a windfall for the Fanjuls at the expense of American taxpayers’(eyeonmiami.blogspot.co.uk, 29 May, 2010).

For capitalists ‘enough’ doesn’t exist in their vocabulary. ‘According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2010), sugar is produced with forced labor in Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Myanmar (Burma) and Pakistan and with child labor in Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Kenya, Mexico, Myanmar, Pakistan, Panama, the Philippines and Uganda’.

How much medicine you, your children and grandchildren have to swallow from the Fanjuls and their class is up to you. Life couldn’t be sweeter for them - and it’s at your expense.

Andy Matthews