People You Know: Ex-Flying Officer Bob (1963)

From the July 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

He likes to be known by the popular, friendly, the “good company” name of “ Bob.” The youngest and favourite son of respectable, godly parents, Bob, during his schooldays, was drawn into the boy scout movement. As a scout he learned how to tie a variety of knots, to fix up tents, to do wonders with a jack-knife, and to light fires without matches or lighters. He also learned the virtue of perpetual preparedness—of preparedness, in particular, for working hard and for defending one’s country in peril. For was not loyal and willing service, in peace or war, a right and bounden duty?

It cannot be said that there was much glory in the various occupations by which Bob sought a living in the years preceding the second World War. Each was marked by its particular brand of stultification— smelly, unhealthy surroundings; tedious mechanical operations; arduous back-aching toil. All were paid at the lowest possible rates. And, ironically enough, in all these loathsome occupations were ex-servicemen of World War One who, I no doubt, had grown tired of trying to reconcile their miserable conditions with the great “ fruits of victory ” that once they were promised.

Not that Bob saw anomalies in the scene—he had never dreamt of looking for them. Uppermost in his consciousness was a smugness that saw no need for questioning, for seeking to know things which in any case could not improve the serenity of outlook that already was his. Pleasing enough for him that he had once been a perfect “true blue” scout: that now, on the verge of manhood, he was helping in his own way to maintain the greatness of England.

The outbreak of war found Bob more than eager to give his services. Disdaining to wait for his calling-up papers, he hastened to enlist. He preferred, somehow, that his entry into the heroic arena should be through the Air Force—the Army and Navy, it was whispered, attracted the more common elements. And so Bob joined the R.A.F., to spend the following months learning to fly, to make parachute landings, and to drop bombs accurately on given targets. At last, fully trained, and raised to the rank of Flying Officer, he engaged in a number of ‘“ops” over Germany—most of them highly successful in the way of “enemy destruction.”

The war ended and he was demobilised. He had “done his bit.” Proud and self-assured, he came back to the daily hawking of his energies in order to live. But not for him now the grimy, sweating, low-paid toil of his pre-war years. The “la-de-dah” and practiced glibness of his fellow flying officers, the swanking discourse of the Officers’ Mess, the studied preservation of “superior” manners—these and other things had made of Bob an easy persuasive talker capable, in not too discerning company, of impressing and convincing. He became a commercial traveller with a salary of £1,000 a year.

He remains so today. But Bob is now a married man with three young children. His job demands that he should always be well-dressed and smart, that, he should have a handsome car and a reasonably “posh” residence. All this, and the hire-purchase payments by which he is still paying for his furniture, he finds just a little beyond the purchasing power of his present £1,500 per annum salary.

Bob has not completely severed his connection with the R.A.F. Besides regularly attending the annual Air Force reunion dinners, he is the commander in the local Air Training Corps. Through the latter he helps to make fliers, parachutists and air-bombers of the future.

This is the Bob of today. By nature he is, in his way, a man of integrity and goodwill. His trouble is that he has never looked into himself or into the world around him. He does not know, therefore, that despite his innate worthiness, his outlook and his conduct have made of him an anti-social being. He has never questioned, let alone discovered, the mockery of the “national glory” that had been part of his childhood teaching. Had he done so, he might have rejected the patriotic concepts that were later to lead him to a proud acceptance of atrocious working conditions.

He might also have suspected the capitalistic commercial nature of the war into which he eagerly rushed in the belief that, just as his masters said, here was a war of British right against German wrong; a war for “ our ” country’s survival; a war for the preservation of democracy. He may even have felt revulsion at the thought of teaching callow adolescents how best to engage in war from the air, how best to kill on a wholesale scale— and all on behalf of a privileged few whose competitive interests are war’s real cause.

One of the most deplorable features of Bob’s case is that he failed to learn from his own personal experience the fallacy of his national pride. There was nothing of which he could be proud in subservience, ill-pay, loathsome conditions, and a shackling to the treadmill by economic necessity. And even on his present £1,500 a year, Bob, were he logical, could feel no pride in the enforced daily pushing of travellers’ lines, the flowery representations, the “switched-on” charm and the many other humanly degrading devices of the commercial traveller. And this quite apart from the indignity and anxiety of a continued indebtedness to hire-purchase firms.

The tragedy of Bob is that he has allowed himself to be moulded exactly to the pattern desired by his capitalist masters, or, at least, by the various elements that represent capitalist interests. How thankful must be these people that the working class has so many like him!

Frank Hawkins

Blogger's Note:

Does this qualify as a short story? I'm not too sure, to be honest. Whatever the case, it's similar in tone and style to the 'People You Meet . . .' series of articles that 'Ronald' penned for the Socialist Standard in 1949/50.

Mankind under Capitalism (1961)

From the April 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The constant endeavour that has marked man's life since his biological emergence to human status should have created a world befitting the dignity of manhood. But man, sociologically, lags far behind his biological advance. He has learned to observe, and, to a large degree, understand surrounding phenomena; to connect causes and effect; to make and use tools; to harness natural forces to his own ends. But the latter part of humanity's history has seen the arrival of class-divided orders of society where those who rule seek to confine education to what will do no more than preserve the existing order of rulers and ruled. This obtains in the present day when we live in a capitalist society.

On the whole, therefore, man under capitalism has not learned to study the economic foundation of his world to probe into its shams and anomalies, to devote his mind to establishing a society no less advanced than his biological development. And so. with the acquiescence of nearly everyone, a social system which has long outlived its justification as a phase of social evolution, hangs on with its spoliation of personalities, its unnatural relationships and its sordid purpose.

Nothing so determines the character of man as his manner of securing his means of living. Of legitimate ways of securing these means under capitalism there are only two—the employment of each of which is dependant upon the social class to which each man belongs. If one belongs to the master class the obtaining of the means of life—not to mention, in many cases, the luxuries, the riches, and the accumulated wealth to be used for further investment—will be contrived by exploiting working-class labour power and by securing profit through the sale of the surplus values derived from it. This is the sole function of the capitalist—imposed on him by the circumstance that he is a capitalist.

By his very position in capitalist society, therefore, this person becomes a parasite, an exploiter. No matter if his inclination be one of kindliness, his survival as a capitalist entails expropriation from his fellows. More, to remain a contending factor in the competition for markets he must offer the commodities produced by his workers at competitive prices. Wages must be kept as low as possible; output pushed to the highest reachable peak. He becomes the hard business man, a fevered participant in the capitalist rat-race, the ruthless strikebreaker. And, although as a man he may have repugnance towards the thought of war, as a capitalist he may quite well find justification in a conflict which has for its aim the preservation of markets and market accessories from the hands of foreign rivals, or even the capturing of further markets etc., for himself and his fellow capitalists.

This is the way in which the existing order forces the capitalist to behave. But he gets off lightly compared with the men and women of the working class. These are the people, overwhelmingly exceeding in numbers the members of the capitalist class, who daily are compelled. by the necessity of getting a living. to sell their energies to the capitalists. They range from factory managers —though such may like to claim inclusion in a mythical “middle class"— to general labourers; from chief buyers in gigantic emporiums to borough council road-sweepers; from conductors in theatre orchestras to bus conductors. But. however “posh ”, "respectable", or “degrading" the means of their getting a living, each and every one of these workers cannot escape the brush with which capitalism tars them.

Nor is that all. The better-paid workers smug with a fancied superiority and an imagined exclusiveness from working-class dependence on wages, are nonetheless just as reliant as other workers on their salaries. Struggling to maintain the appearances expected of their "good position" they lead lives, very often, of gilded poverty. Their concept of their position in society is, in many cases, an empty delusion, for refuting the reality of their working-class status, they have embraced the fiction of their oneness with their masters.

And so it goes on. The foreman— once “one of the men", and perhaps happier as such—has accepted promotion because of his inability to manage on his former wages. Expected by his employers to prevent slacking and to raise or maintain output, he must now either boldly show himself as committed solely to the interests of production, the overseer with the whip, or, to preserve continued popularity among his former bench-fellows, he must resort to the under-handedness of maintaining a "still one of you" demeanour whilst carrying tales of non-co-operation to his masters. He becomes either the workshop tyrant, or the two-faced spying informer.

And what of the workers who are thus openly sweated or surreptitiously coerced? Is it their reluctance to work hard and continuously that makes foremen necessary? Possibly so, but can conscientiousness and industry be expected from those who, under nearly all circumstances, are compelled to work for wages that will buy very little more than the basic needs of life? Very often, for the sake of a "bigger shilling", they take a job that nauseates by its unhealthy conditions, its tediousness, or its lifeless repetition. And, although the cause may be unknown to the sufferers, it is frequently felt that for all the day-to-day striving they never reach a condition more comfortable than that of just getting by. Small wonder that conscientious work becomes a rarity, that spending the minimum of effort becomes the rule, that many workers arc clock-watchers looking forward only to knocking-off time.

Capitalism's destruction of ready endeavour is most widely observed among those who work closely and frequently in contact with the general public. Indifferent clerks behind post-office counters, curt or officially “nice" shop assistants, unashamed "behind time" bus drivers and conductors— these are but a few of the human products of capitalist society. And ever commenting on the faults of these are the critics—mostly members of the working class themselves, and in all cases the creatures of capitalism. Not recognising that here is behaviour engendered by capitalist environment, they condemn what they call the basic nature of the offenders. These people, they complain, are utterly selfish. Instead of being helpful and courteous to the public they are disinterested and curt. "And then they have the nerve to want more money—if I had my way, they’d be given less".

The prize taunt, however, is that these people “want the money, but don’t want to work”. Ironically, this is true when one considers the universal compulsion upon the working class to go to work and in many cases perform the most nauseating of tasks in order to get the necessary wages to exist upon.

Of course it is nice to think of men doing well-loved work with happy heart, and with no thought of repayment. But it is an idea unrealisable within the present order of society. Of course, there arc many of us who feel the revulsion against the indignities, the incongeniality and the oppressiveness of our occupations, and the reasons we keep at these occupations (and a proof of our wage-slavery) is because, to keep alive we must have, and subsequently want, the money.

The salesman in whom smooth falsification has become so much a part that he cannot eradicate it from his behaviour outside business. The soldier deceived into believing that the training he receives is not to make him a killer, but to make him a man. The youngster who, in a world that takes the carnage of war for granted and. in the name of ”defence", devises and uses the most diabolically destructive weapons, becomes somehow attracted to the violence of the age and experiences a thrill in embarking upon a little violence himself. All these are products of the capitalist world.

Sometimes the clash between the workings of capitalism and the ideals of mankind produces ideas which contrast with those promoted by ruling class propagandists. For instance the existence of oppression, anomalies, inequalities, cutthroat practices and preparation for wars that threaten to imperil the whole of mankind, brings into being the rebels against these ills. Most of those express themselves through political or humanitarian organisations which lack the sound sociological knowledge which alone can promote action that will eradicate the anti-socialist behaviour objected to. Thus these rebels remain, ardently protesting against the horror of nuclear war, pleading that votes for particular individuals might serve beneficent ends, but missing altogether and failing to deal with the real cause of the trouble.

But within the womb of capitalism, as of all social orders, is the seed of its own destruction. Not all rebels are Utopian idealists. There are some who have sought to understand the world around them, and to base upon scientific fact their efforts towards a social reconstruction. We maintain that a sane, classless, warless, povertyless social order—Socialism—will remove the causes of anti-social behaviour.

F. W. Hawkins

Harry Barber and the Fortunate Thieves (1948)

A Short Story from the April 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once upon a time there was a poor man named Harry Barber. Now although he could afford only the barest necessities of life Harry Barber could not understand the reason for his poverty. Men who were considered wise had told him that if he worked hard he would eventually scale the ladder of success and leave his poverty behind him.

But Harry Barber had worked hard for many years. Many things had he produced in that time— shoddy articles for the poor, specimens of exquisite workmanship for the rich. Yet, work as he may, he found that the money he received was hardly enough to buy his needs.

And looking around him he found that millions of others were in the same position as himself. With no earthly possessions these people could only sustain themselves by working for richer folk in return for sums of money just sufficient to provide food, clothing and shelter for them and their families.

And seeing these things Harry Barber was sorely troubled. Why was it that the people who produced the good things of life were the very people who could not afford to buy these things, whilst others who did no useful work lived in comfort and idleness? Why was it that although the poor produced things of great value they remained in poverty? Was it because they often experienced times in which their masters did not employ them, and during these times there was no payment for services rendered?

"No," thought Harry, "it cannot be that, for even when I am working regularly I am still poor."

Unable to find an answer to his questions Harry Barber determined to study the framework of his day- to-day existence. He listened to the words of those whom the world acclaimed as wise and knowledgable men. He read the works of economists who claimed a knowledge of the causes of poverty.

But, alas, much that he read and heard would not stand up to examination. Many of the wiseacres, for instance, told him that the workers brought poverty upon themselves by gambling, drinking, and refusing to work to their fullest Capacity. The hard-working Harry who neither drank nor gambled knew that this was not so. But from somewhere in the welter of information he discovered something that could not be dismissed from his mind as unsound—a small but insistent voice which told him of two classes in society, a master class and a wage-slave class; that the master class, although a mere handful compared with the slaves, bought the labour power of the other class; that this labour power produced a value far greater than the value and price of the labour power itself; that the master class appropriated this excess value and thus maintained for themselves a steady flow of profits.

And to Harry Barber came a glimmer of enlightenment “Now I see," he mused. “I have to sell my energy to my masters because they own the factories and workshops, and although my energy may produce mountains of wealth all that I will receive is the price of that energy—a wage. No wonder I am poor. I am robbed all the time I am producing.”

#    #    #    #

You, readers, are the Harry Barbers of the world. If you have never before read the literature of the Socialist Party of Great Britain you are now getting your first introduction to Socialist principles. Continue to read our literature and listen to our speakers. In time you will increase your Socialist knowledge, and when sufficient numbers of you can truthfully call yourselves “Socialists” there will he in your hands the power to overthrow the present social system and establish an order of society wherein the means of production and distribution are commonly owned and used in the production of everybody's requirements. When you have established this system which we know as “Socialism” there will be no unfortunate Harry Barbers on the one hand, and fortunate thieves on the other. Then, and not till then, will you be able to live happily ever after.

F. W. Hawkins

Roosevelt and the American Workers (1932)

From the December 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The faith which the American workers have in the new President, Mr. Roosevelt, shows that, like the workers of England, they cherish the belief that somebody, someday, will rescue them from their poverty.

They have been told that the Roosevelt Government will be a business Government. In other words, the Cabinet will not consist of politicians, but of business men—men who will have the trade of the country at heart—men who will understand what is needed to put the U.S.A. on a good business footing.

And, blinding their eyes to the fact that business Governments have held sway in the past without bettering their lot at all, the workers of America are congratulating themselves and expecting Roosevelt and his Cabinet to give them better conditions. The possible passing of Prohibition has played a great part in winning votes in this well-boosted Presidential Election. Superficialities have, as usual, drawn the attentions of the working class away from the things that matter. What should prohibition or its abolition matter to them, when, in many cases they find it difficult to secure the bare necessities of life?

What should it matter to them which set of individuals composes their Government? The means of production, and the wealth the workers produce with these means, will still be in the hands of the capitalist class, and the workers will consequently remain poor.

There will still be a Secretary of Finance to keep an eye on the property interests of the American master class, whilst a Secretary of the Navy will perform his function of maintaining a fleet to protect American territory against other sections of capitalists.

Moreover, there will still be a Secretary of War who will not hesitate to send the youth of America on a mission of killing and mutilating if this is necessary in securing new markets and territorial advantages. And both Army and Navy will be used against the workers when capitalist interests require this.

In short, working class conditions will not be altered in the least. Unemployment and poverty will still exist, and there will still be present the dread of a future war. There is only one remedy. The overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a new social system—a system with the common ownership of the means of production and distribution as its basis. That, and that alone, will bring about the emancipation of the working class, not only of America, but of all countries.

F. Hawkins

North Africa, Italy and Capitalism (1944)

From the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Because the Socialist Party of Great Britain is composed of members of the working class who, like most workers, are tied down to the place wherein they sell their labour power, we have not been able to do much to propagate Socialism directly to peoples of other lands. But although we have continually stressed the capitalist evils existing in this country, it does not follow that the S.P.G.B. is blind to the stultifying effects of capitalism in other countries. Indeed, those who have studied our case know that we have always stressed the universal nature of capitalism. Go wherever you will, you will find on one hand a privileged class that, without the necessity of working, can enjoy every luxury and comfort, and even dodge many of the worst effects of war, and, on the other hand, a far larger class composed of those who are forced to work to gain the bare necessities of life. Go where you will and, side by side with the wealth of those who produce nothing, you will see the poverty of those who produce all wealth—the workers.

With this fact in mind, the present writer would address those men and women who have been drawn into some branch of the Services and eventually sent abroad.

Possibly for the first time in your lives you have seen the sordid and nauseating effects of capitalism in countries other than England. You have, perhaps, been to North Africa and seen the dire poverty, squalor and hunger rampant in that vast terrain. You have seen disease-ridden Arabs dragging out an existence on tracts of land where the soil produces nothing that is edible. You have possibly wondered, with science at its present advanced state, why chemical fertilisation of the soil has not been undertaken. To the Socialist the answer is simple : Capitalism does not think such a step profitable.

Side by side with the poverty of the Arabs you have seen the wealth of Continental parasites, who can live in palatial, comparatively hygienic houses that are protection against the flies, mosquitoes, and stinks that beset the major part of North Africa’s population.

Possibly you have been to Italy and witnessed there the abject poverty and hunger of the many and the wealth and plenty of the few. You have seen the Naples slums—and maimed men and women begging in the dusty streets. you have learned, perhaps, that when Mussolini rose to power he ordered the patching up of these slums and the arrest of all beggars seen upon the streets. Thus to the tourist and casual observer slums and beggars did not exist in Italy. The grand facade of brightly coloured house exteriors and streets without beggars did its work in advertising what Fascism had done for the workers, yet merely hid the filth, insanitary conditions and destitution that actually existed.

By learning this, perhaps, you have realised that a Fascist administration, by a ruthless eradicating of visible signs of poverty and squalor, may give a grand exterior to capitalism, but can do nothing towards actually curing the evils inherent in the social order.

You have seen, perhaps, Italian workers too poor to buy the food that will give them proper nourishment. You have seen shops that, through the background operations of prospering, well-fed “black-marketeers” are able to sell, at prices beyond the reach of the. workers, a bountiful supply of food, clothing, and other necessities. You have seen the rich satisfy their wants by paying the prices asked. You have seen the poor, half-fed and in rags, because they are unable to buy.

Fellow workers, many of you have seen these things now. Is it not obvious that the poverty-stricken, stultifying, disease-breeding conditions of the workers are not confined to Britain, but exist in every capitalist country? Does not the magnitude and far-reaching nature of this outworn social order convince you of the importance of abolishing it, with all its contradictious, anomalies and insanities ? Are you not convinced that capitalism should be replaced by a social order wherein all co-operate in producing and distributing the needs of society—wherein there is no master class exploiting a slave class—wherein the whole of society has free access to the products of society ?

Workers! what are you going to do about it?

Frank Hawkins

Science, Capitalism and the New Order (1941)

From the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The British Association recently organised a meeting to “discuss plans for a new order in which science will play a leading part.”

Early in the conference Mr. Eden told the scientists that science had brought about inequalities, selfishness, and unfair division.

Here we have another instance of a professional champion of Capitalism selecting a scapegoat to bear the blame for the evils that Capitalism itself actully produces.

Unfortuntely, the view that science is wholly responsible for some of the grim and sordid features of modern life is held by many members of the working class.

How many workers, for instance, believe that science’s inventiveness has, without pressure from behind the scenes, created the ingenious machinery that has thrown many workers on the scrap heap ? How many believe that the inventing of planes and bombs, and the discovery of poison gases, are the things that actually create war ?

Let us see whether examination will throw light upon the question.

We live in a society wherein a comparatively small section, by virtue of its ownership of the mines, mills, factories, railways, warehouses, etc., is able to acquire a mass of commodities by exploiting the larger non-possessing section of society—i.e., the working class.

But unless each competing section of the Capitalist class can ensure a large and ready sale of their commodities by keeping down, and even lowering, their commodity prices, they will find themselves ousted by other competitors.

Capitalists, therefore, to keep up the sales that will ensure large profits, must undercut their rivals.

This can be done in two ways—by lowering wages, or by reducing the amount of labour spent on the production of their commodities.

The lowering of wages, however, has, from the Capitalist viewpoint, this disadvantage—wages cannot profitably be lowered below the level that will maintain a standard of satisfactory working fitness.

Therefore, in order to reduce the prices of their commodities, Capitalists find themselves mainly reliant upon reducing the amount of labour embodied in commodity production.

The only means of doing this is by displacing human labour by machinery.

Thus we find sections of the Capitalist class competing keenly against each other in the introduction of machinery, by which means alone they can appreciably lower their commodity prices and thus capture the trade of their rivals.

Only the introduction of such machinery will assist in retaining that essential in Capitalist competition—a rate of profit that will prevent being ousted from the competitive field.

Only such machinery, therefore, will be in great demand by the Capitalist class, and the competition to secure this machinery will send up its price and bring a rich reward to the owner of the invention. On the other hand, machinery that will bring benefits to mankind will not be in great demand unless it also aids the raising or maintaining of profits.

Inventors and scientists, therefore, faced by the fact that only the ideas that will fill a Capitalist need will bring ample payment, are, in the main, compelled to concentrate on such ideas. When the competition for trade, fields of exploitation, etc., can be divided by the border-lines of the competing countries, you will find the Capitalists of each country uniting against the menace of being ousted by a Capitalism from outside.

Diplomacy may for a time maintain a tolerating relationship between each country, but so urgent is the need for Capitalist countries to expand their markets, and secure new fields for trade that the strings of diplomacy are overstrained, and finally break, throwing the people of the opposing nations into the blood-drenched arenas of modern war.

When this happens the most urgent need of sectional Capitalism is for its own nationalistic entity to survive against the nations that threaten it. Thus the individualistic competition within the opposing countries is, temporarily, almost abandoned, and every muscle is strained to achieve a greater task for national Capitalism—i.e., winning the war.

In this manner the demand for labour-saving machinery is almost entirely displaced by the demand for machinery most effective in the prosecution of the war; machinery, in short, that would be most destructive against the opposing country.

Once more the demand for certain machinery sends up its price, and makes it the only mechanisation that will bring adequate recompence to its originators

Thus, although certain machinery will certainly throw many men out of work, or bring new horror into warfare, scientists, in order to live, are compelled by Capitalism to create such machinery. Not until Capitalism is ended and replaced by Socialism will there be a welcome for all mechanisation beneficial to society. Only then will inventors and scientists be unrestricted by the question, “Will it be profitable to the Capitalist class?”

Frank Hawkins

Under False Colours (1948)

From the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have recently seen a display of bitter antagonism between Soviet Russia and the Communist Party on one hand, and the Labour Party and the Government on the other.

Following Russia’s crystallization of Eastern European countries into a Soviet-controlled bloc the Communist Party has answered the Labour Party’s opposition with charges of misrepresenting Socialism, supporting American Imperialism, and opposing “the new democracies of Europe.”

The Labour Party claims, however, that it is the C.P. that is misrepresenting Socialism, and, further, attempting by underhand methods to gain a dominant influence in the trade unions. Moreover it charges the Russian Government with endangering world peace by bringing a large portion of Eastern Europe under the orbit of Communism. In this matter Mr. Attlee said the following: "We can and we wish to have the friendliest relations with the people of Russia, and we can have the friendliest relations with a Communist State, but we are not prepared to accept Communism. We are resolutely opposed to the Communist way of life and the Police State.” (Daily Herald, January 24th).

When one looks closely at this conflict one is at once struck by strange contradictions arising within it. We are told by the C.P. that the ultimate aim of Russia is Communism and that this objective is almost reached. The social system in Russia, says the C.P., is Socialism—the prelude to Communism.

Now if Socialism is a prelude to Communism why is a Socialist organisation opposed to a Communist one? How can Mr. Attlee, who claims to be a Socialist, say that he is opposed to "the Communist way of life” ? And why does the Labour Party, which does not hesitate to call itself a Socialist organisation, object to the growth of Communism in Eastern Europe?

Going a little deeper we may ask the question: “How can a Communist organisation explain the fact that, although it claims to be out for the emancipation of the working class, it does nothing toward the necessary preliminary explaining Socialism either from its platforms or through its daily organ The Daily Worker?

Much of this mystery can be cleared by recognising that Communism and Socialism are one and the same thing, and that Russia’s social system is not Socialism but State Capitalism. Moreover, the Labour Party and the Communist Party, by their very actions, show that they are working in the interests of Capitalism.

But, if these parties are both supporting Capitalist interests, why are they opposed to each other? The answer is clear. The feature that reveals Capitalism in Russia is the buying and selling of labour power. It is true that many features of Capitalism, as administered in other countries, are absent in Russia. Commodities are not dumped upon the market by individual firms, but are allocated according to a Government plan. Foreign trade, too, is planned by the Government—not left to private importers and exporters. Agriculture is not the work of independent farmers, but of Government-controlled collective farms.

Irrespective of this, however, one dominant feature remains. The vast majority of Russia’s people, because they do not own the means of production and distribution, are forced to sell their labour power for wages or salaries. In common with the wage slaves, of other countries they, as a class, can live no other way under Capitalism.

We find, then, that wage slavery, the very thing that proves the existence of Capitalism, is a characteristic of the Russian economy.

Now, wherever it operates, Capitalism cannot remain static. Competition between Capitalist groups accelerates the need for each group to produce huge masses of commodities that can be profitably sold at competitive prices. Having secured these commodities there comes to the capitalists of each country the need to sell them. Competition for markets, fields of exploitation, and trade routes is rife and the rival competitors find that friction between themselves becomes ever more serious.

It is in this framework of exploitation and competition that Russia, with her growing industrial and agricultural capacity, finds herself thrown into conflict with America—the country most likely to endanger her future Capitalist development.

America’s vast resources and advancement in war weapons, however, are sufficient, should war break out, to tax or even overcome the strength of Russia—if she were alone.

The motive behind Russia’s annexation of Eastern European countries now begins to show itself. She is gathering strength for a possible war not only against America, but any rival power.

The Labour Party is right, therefore, when it suggests that the C.P. is working against Socialism. This, however, does not show that the Labour Party, in contrast is working for Socialism.

It is an unfortunate fact that the majority of workers still believe that Capitalism can be run in the interests of the workers, and it was in the hope that this would be done that a Labour Government was voted to power.

Despite the efforts of the Government, however, we have in the last two years seen a gradual increase in the cost of living, a greater shortage of goods, attempts to “peg” wages, and an ever-increasing friction between nations. We have seen that, Labour Government or no Labour Government, Capitalism will go its own sweet way.

The nationalisation programme, heralded as "a Socialist measure,” has been carried out, but profits are still derived from the nationalised industries—and you cannot have profits or dividends without the exploitation of the workers. Thus the Labour Government is doing no more than administering Capitalism.

Working, as it is, for British Capitalism, it sees in Russia’s recent expansion the growing strength of a rival Capitalist power. It is this that has incurred the wrath of the Labour Government, and prompted Ernest Bevin’s plea for a union of the Western European nations.

A final note upon the Communist Party. The manner in which this organisation so glibly refers to the Soviet-dictated countries as ”new Democracies” shows the depth of deception to which the C.P. will sink in order to gain support for Russian Imperialism.

Socialist knowledge can fortify the workers against the propaganda of political fakers. Gain that knowledge and you can no longer be misled by supporters of Capitalism posing as Socialists. 

F. W. Hawkins

A Modern Fairy Tale: Palace in Blunderland (1944)

A Short Story from the February 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once upon a time there was. a strange world called Bluuderland. In this world there was a palace in which there lived Baron Butrich. He wore the most costly clothes, and adorned himself with bejewelled rings on his fat fingers, and a sparkling tie-pin in his expensive necktie. Neither by hand nor by brain did he toil, yet bags of gold he had in plenty. The choicest foods and rarest wines were served to him by an under-nourished man-servant. His pet dogs, too, were fed with the richest morsels.

Baron Butrich owned many large buildings in which were huge machines. He called these buildings his factories and boasted that he derived his many bags of gold from them.

But Baron Butrich told a lie when he said it was his factories and machines that brought his riches, for the machines were worked by hundreds of poor people who lived in small, old and crumbling houses, and it was really these people who made the Baron’s wealth.

These people had no bags of gold to buy the food they needed, and they would have starved, but Baron Butrich said to them:

"Come into my factory and work my machines, and make with them the costly clothes that my wife and I will wear. Make, too, the shoddy suits and dresses that will cover your thin bodies. Come and make the beautiful expensive toys that will amuse my children. Create, also, the cheap, trifling little gadgets with which your offspring will play. Come into my factory, and, from the pulp of rags, make the newspapers that will bear praise to me, and glorify the things that give me, Baron Butrich, my favoured place in this world. Do all this and 1 will give each.of you a piece of gold with which you will be able to buy bread to eat, clothes to wear, and will pay for the hire of a place to dwell in."

And to the poor there was nothing to do but go into Baron Butrich’s factory and make the many things that were needed by the Blunderian people. Only in that way could they get the money that would pay for their food, clothing and shelter.

So the poor went into the factory and worked the machines. Beautiful and costly raiment they created for the Baron and his wife; cheap and shoddy garments they made, too, and knew, as they were not rich enough to buy the sort of garb worn by the Butrich’s, that they were fated to wear these inferior clothes. Expensive and intricate toys they made for the Baron’s children; simple little gadgets for their own offspring.

Pulp was made into paper, which was turned into newspapers that told on their pages how rich and grand was this world of Blunderland.

For six days the poor worked in this way, and at the end of that time Baron Butrich said to them:

"You have worked for six days, and here are the pieces of gold I promised you—one piece for each person. Tomorrow you need not work m my factory, but the day after to-morrow come and work for me for another six days and I will give you another piece of gold.”

And the workers took home their pieces of gold and rejoiced that they could now buy food and clothing. But before they had bought all the things they needed they found that their money was spent. And so, to get the gold that buys these needs, the poor were forced to work in the factory for another six days.

So it went on, and priceless things were made for Baron Butrich, who called a small number of new workers to his side. And to these new workers he said:

“Sell these goods for me—sell them for as high a sum as you can get, and I will give each of you a piece of silver."

And the articles were sold, and Baron Butrich became richer and richer.

As for the workers, although they received their pieces of silver each week they did not get any richer, for the silver was gone by the time they had paid for their food, clothing and shelter. But these poor Blunderians were simple folk, and did not realise that nearly all of the great riches they made were being taken from them by the Baron.

Indeed, they praised and blessed Baron Butrich, who lay in his beautiful bed, and grew fatter and fatter.

And in the castle there were to be seen even richer carpets and costlier furniture, whilst an even greater number of jewels flashed upon the fingers of the Baron as he said to the Baroness:

“How lucky we are that the Blunderians are simple people. Let us reap a rich harvest from their toil, for one day they may discard their simplicity, and there will be nobody to make our wealth.”

F. Hawkins

Master and Worker (1961)

From the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

How often has it been proclaimed that the planning of constitutions and the founding of leagues of nations have been for the purpose of establishing equality among all men. Yet, as long as capitalism exists, the equality of men can be nothing more than a Utopia, or, at best, just a fancied reality. Laws may propose that employer and worker have equal rights; that just as employers have the right to employ or not to employ, so have the workers the right to work for whomsoever they please. But do these rights exist in fact?

On the employers' side, there exists not only the "right," but the power. This may not apply to those who, by their own desperate struggle and long hours of work, manage to run small businesses with a return hardly higher than the wages paid to an outside worker. These are not capitalists, but men forced to work, very often more arduously than most other workers. They may delude themselves that they are “ upper class," but actually they are of that vast army which must toil in order to live.

When Socialists speak of the employing or the capitalist class they refer to that small class in current society which, enabled to employ and to exploit the workers by its ownership of the land, factories, mines, railways, etc., is, if necessary, able to live without working upon the proceeds.

This, then, is the capitalist class: the class of employers, of masters. At the sweet will of this class men can be employed. exploited, dismissed. And in each of these eventualities the right and the power of the capitalist are plainly visible.

From the very first appearance of a working-class applicant for employment the whip-hand is held by the capitalist. He is seeking a worker whose energy, applied to the tools and material which he, the capitalist, has made available, will create a mass of commodity values and. in due course, blessed and well-loved PROFIT.

This is the sole purpose for which a capitalist employs workers. But, yearned for though they are, profits are not essential in the preservation of life. Their diminution or failure to rise above a certain level may mean for capitalists a check upon expansion, and a drop in interest, even a curb upon luxurious living. But that is all. Only profits are at stake—not the essentials of life itself.

For the working-class applicant for employment the case is very different. Dependent upon his success or failure is the problem of whether or not he will be able to provide for himself, his wife and family without recourse to assistance boards and the like. Should he fail, will the matter of the new clothes he had promised the children have to be forgotten? Will his wife have to go out to work? Will they have to cut down on the food bill—have marge instead of butter, buy cheaper milk? Must the washing be done by his wife instead of being sent to the laundry? Must he cut out his daily pint and smoke fewer cigarettes? Will he have to take the telly back?

Thus does the encounter between prospective employer and prospective employee show the inequality in the "master and man" relationship. It is further shown when the new worker is absorbed into industry. The “governor" himself is seldom seen in the factory for there is no real need for the presence of one who takes no part in production, and who possibly knows nothing of the working side of the industry. But ever present are the works manager, the supervisor, the foreman, the progress chaser those members of the working class who, for somewhat higher wages must see, on behalf of "the governor," that production is carried on speedily, conscientiously, and as profitably as possible. This overseership, whether tyrannous or not, reveals the existence of someone at the top; of an individual or group with something to gain from working-class exploitation.

And where is equality when capitalists, in depressed trade conditions, are unable to sell their commodities? Where is the evidence, then, that working men may work for whomsoever they please — that they need even be employed at all? Where is the “right” to work when the introduction of machinery renders certain workers redundant? Experience shows that wholesale sackings and dismissals are the accepted order of the day as soon as the employment of workers is not profitable enough. It matters not that these dismissals might mean for the workers involved long spells of unemployment, a depression of living standards already far from satisfying, and minor—or even major—domestic tragedies. For such is the accepted pattern of master-class behaviour in capitalist society. That it is accepted—and not least by those who suffer most therefrom —is the most pitiful feature of modern life.

F. W. Hawkins

A Lesson in Futility (1961)

From the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marches from Aldermaston and Wethersfield, treks from London to Holy Loch. Sit downs and arrests in Whitehall. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Direct Action Groups seem to be more intensely active as the days go by.

What is the Socialist attitude towards these demonstrations? No one can reasonably oppose a spirit of protest against intensifying hideousness in the instruments of war. But to treat the subject, as do the campaigners, in isolation from its causes is to make of C.N.D. an endeavour of impotence and futility. Here, on occasions like the Aldermaston and Wethersfield marches, were organised public protests against nuclear weapons. Yet throughout the whole proceedings there was no expression of antagonism towards the social system of capitalism which imposes upon each of its national capitalist groupings the need to have the most effective means of successfully waging war against their rivals. The leaders—supporters without exception of the existing social order—were cheered to the echo for their references to a capitalist world turning to nuclear disarmament for humanitarian reasons.

It is not inconceivable that governments will eventually give up the thought of waging nuclear war. The latest development in H-bombs has made these weapons so widely destructive that the use of them might well mean the destruction of the coveted markets and the extermination of the coveting capitalists themselves. Thus, to avoid the danger of destroying themselves and the very market expansion they are seeking, the various capitalist groupings, through their governments, may revert to “conventional” warfare.

This, however, is no solace. The colossal funds which governments have provided for the development of nuclear weapons reveals the financial lengths to which they will go to ensure the armament supremacy which, in the capitalist struggle for markets, alone offers a reasonable chance of triumph over rivals. And, now accustomed to greatly increased provisions for defence, they would be quite prepared to spend huge sums on “conventional” weapons.

Who can tell but that these weapons, if multiplied and further developed, would not be just as disastrous as H-bombs? We know, in any case, that with or without the bomb, war takes a sufficiently hideous toll in bloodshed and misery. And in a capitalist system which compels, from time to time, a resort to force, wars will inevitably arise. To denounce “the bomb” whilst acquiescing in the social set-up that brings it into being is contradictory and absurd.

It is for that and the added reason that it draws popular attention from the vital necessity of changing the social order that the Socialist Party of Great Britain opposes the C.N.D. The object of the working class should be the ending of a system which, at worst, offers universal annihilation through H-bombs and, at best, brings death to millions through other destructive alternative weapons.

F. W. Hawkins

Can the Scramble for Markets be Ended? (1942)

From the November 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dr. Lang, at a recent debate on world reconstruction in the House of Lords, made the statement "We must by international co-operation bring to an end the old accepted scramble for markets."

How, in this age of fierce competition, nations are to be made to co-operate Dr. Lang does not propose.

Having forsaken his position as Archbishop of Canterbury for a pension of a mere £1,500 per year, and sympathising with himself for having (in his own words) "to face the restraints and inconvenience of very slender means," it is most unlikely that Dr. Lang advocates the abolition of the social system that pays him this welcome, though allegedly meagre, pension. Thus Dr. Lang must be advocating international co-operation within the framework of capitalism.

Socialists know that such an achievement impossible.

'

The nationalistic capitalism of any particular country is composed of the capitalist activities of individual capitalists or groups of capitalists within that country.

The fierce competition between capitalists compels them to secure as great an amount as possible of commodities, and to find ever-increasing markets for the transforming of these commodities into cash. Without such markets the surplus value produced by the workers could not he converted into profits.

Within each capitalist country the sum total of this production and scrambling for markets is identified as the capitalism of the country from which it emanates.

The whole of the exploiting of labour power and the grabbing of markets by, for example, American, German, or British capitalists, is recognised as American, German, or British capitalism.

Thus we see that behind the separate entities of American, German, or British capitalism (or whatever nationalist capitalism it be) are individual capitalists who must ever maintain competitive equality or supremacy—or be ousted from their privileged positions as capitalists.

The expansion of individual capitalism within a country, therefore, brings an expansion of that particular country's capitalism.

This law prevails in all capitalist countries with the result that the capitalism of such nations finds itself in fierce competition with the capitalism of other nations.

As long as we live in a society wherein there exists commodity production, and the urgent capitalist need to sell widely the commodities produced, there can be no possibility of removing a world-wide scramble for markets.

Dr. Lang may be sincere in his seeking of a New Order that has no place for market-grabbing, but in his long life he has failed to learn that this can only be done by establishing a social system in which commodity production and commodity selling cannot exist.

F. Hawkins

The Real Army Game (1961)

From the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

So an Army commanding officer banned his troops from viewing the television programme, “The Army Game”, on the grounds that it “appears to portray little that bears any relation to the present-day Army.”

But would Major Bill Cook really approve a true depiction of the Army—whether of today or of earlier days of the present order? Would he like to see revealed, for instance, the purpose of armies in current society? If so, he can well be accommodated by socialists.

Society as today constituted is composed of two classes, the capitalist class and the working class. Although the [capitalists are] the dominating faction. This is due to workers, in numbers, overwhelmingly preponderate, it is the capitalists who are the circumstance that the capitalist class owns (in the form of the land, factories, machines etc.), the means of producing the means of life.

The workers, on the other hand, have no such means and implements of production, and to secure food, clothing and shelter and provision for their families. must offer for sale to the owning class their mental and physical energies. The price (or wages) paid for these energies are at a level that will roughly purchase the necessities of life. But those very energies (or labour power) are bought for working spells more than sufficient to produce the value of the wages paid for them. In a five-day working week this value may be produced by the end of the third day; the value produced on the fourth and fifth day. therefore, is a value in excess of the workers' labour-power value and thus the wages that represent that value in monetary terms of the food, clothing etc., required for the restoration of expended energies. This excess is thus a surplus value congealed, as it were, in the products (or commodities) the workers have produced for their masters. Surplus value, with the sale of the commodities incorporating it, is realised as profit; which, by continually flowing to the capitalist class enables them to further capitalise their businesses and live without the necessity of working.

Thus one sees the capitalist class as a relatively tiny section of the community, but a section which enjoys benefits denied to that much larger section, the working class. And added to the economic advantage of ownership of the productive means goes the political advantage of a State apparatus, the machinery of government, which since the birth of capitalism has carried out its appointed function of preserving the social set-up, and of conserving the masters' monopoly of the wealth produced by the working class. Included in this State apparatus are the coercive and armed forces which, possibly when all other official influences have failed, will be called upon to protect or restore “law and order” against any development likely to interrupt capitalism's normal productive and distributive processes or to subvert in any way the privileged position of the capitalists over the workers. And among the armed coercive forces, of course, is the Army.

As a force intended to be the last resort “persuaders” of large numbers of people—hungry and desperate strikers and unemployed demonstrators as in some cases—the Army is provided with weapons and taught how to use them. The result is that, in cases of threatened subversion etc., the Army is an efficient repressive force through its trained ability to maim or kill. Whether or not years elapse without such measures being applied, this remains one of the purposes behind the Army's existence.

There, then, lies the capitalist need for armies in the country of their being. But each national capitalist grouping also needs an armed force to defend or further its interests outside its homeland. Behind each of these national groupings, whatever the nation encompassing it, lies the pressure of competition. American capitalism contends with Russian, British with German, French with Japanese—indeed, each nation contends with all others in a quest for markets by which to sell its commodities, which have been produced by the workers of each competing country.

Hence between the national capitalist factions, there exists a struggle for markets, but for each competitive needs as cheaper fields of exploitation, economical trading routes, and all the other advantages that will enable their possessors to offer their commodities at competitive prices. Often the acquirement of these advantages can be effected only by filching them from rivals. From the diplomatic moves, the changing strategies, there come the international crises, the tensions, the cold wars—too often to end in a hot war.

If is then that the Army of each country concerned is ordered, with the other armed services, to carry out its function as the protector of the foreign interests of its native capitalist class. Not that the protection of capitalist interests will be the reason given for hurling masses of young men, mostly members of the working class, into bloody conflict against other masses of young men, similarly mainly workers. The various propaganda machines will manufacture high-sounding excuses. The war is a fight for “democracy over autocracy”, for “breathing-space”, to defend “the rights of small nations”. Augmented now by hosts of wartime conscripts the task for each army is to wreak what havoc, destruction and death it can upon the armies of the “enemy” countries. For no other reason than that they have been ordered to do so by their respective governments, man kills man so that his masters' trading interests are furthered or at least protected from damage.

One can scarcely expect a socially progressive and enlightened development among men trained to carry out the anti-social act of war. Certain it is that many of those whose military job is to make “good soldiers” are of necessity tyrannous and not far different to “The Army Game’s” Sergeant-Major Bullimore.

But perhaps this portrayal is too realistic for Major Cook. However, the Major need have no fear that “The Army Game” will in any way harm the Army. The Government, as the virtual executive committee of British capitalism, will see to that.

F. W. Hawkins

The Emancipation of Women (1951)

From the June 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

The radio often provides us with talks, arguments and debates which are alleged to be serious contributions on profound subjects. Actually they are often demonstrations of verbose futility which would be absurdly humorous if the social ignorance they reveal were not so tragic.

"Woman’s Hour,” for instance, recently featured an argument between four male speakers on the question of "woman’s emancipation.’’

Befuddled on the very definition of feminine emancipation, the speakers were nevertheless agreed that up to about forty years ago women were the virtual slaves of their men-folk. Forced to do their household chores uncomplainingly, tied unceasingly to the home, and browbeaten into subservient obedience by their male lords and masters, the women of the pre-emancipation era, according to the speakers, were indeed oppressed.

Agreement was also unanimous on the contention that women are now free of that oppression. They are now at liberty to complain of their household tasks, and they are no longer bound to obey their husbands. Moreover, careers outside of the home are no longer closed to women, and they can now, if they wish, go out to work in factory, office or warehouse, etc. This is the freedom now allegedly achieved by women.

We will credit the B.B.C. speakers with a sense of proportion and assume that when they speak of "men” and “women” they refer to the vast majority of men and women—i.e., the members of the working class. To us it is hard to imagine the average working-class husbands of forty or fifty years ago asserting any great authority over their spouses when the husbands themselves had expended most of their energy in an exhausting working day of twelve or thirteen hours.

The mass of women, like the mass of men, were certainly and completely enslaved, but by something more real, grim and ruthless than the dominance of the opposite sex.

Capitalism, the present social order, brings into being a working class, the members of which must sell their mental and physical energies to the class owning the land, factories and other means of wealth production. Their dependence upon the price (or wages) they receive for these energies (or labour power) places them in a position of continuous bondage to the capitalist class. This was the social system that made slaves of both men and women of the early twentieth century, and remains to enslave both the male and female workers of to-day.

The fact that many women to-day go out to work, though described by some as a sign of feminine freedom, is actually the reverse. The economic compulsion of women into the various spheres of capitalist production—the fact that they, in order to procure more of life’s necessities or, at most, a few extra comforts must augment their husband’s wages by selling their own labour-power to the capitalist class, is proof that working-class women, like their menfolk, are still enslaved.

Only when the establishment of Socialism rids the world of classes and the wages system will the economic and social emancipation of all become a reality.

F. W. Hawkins

A Party No Socialist Would Join (1947)

From the December 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Communist Party of Great Britain is carrying out a campaign to increase its numerical strength and is endeavouring to give the workers adequate reasons for enrolling as members.

One would assume that as this organisation claims to be a Communist one it would do its utmost to explain Communism to its prospective new members. One would think that the manner in which the Communist Party is making Communists would be made known, and that the revolutionary composition of the Party would be preserved by the exclusion of those who have no knowledge nor a desire for Communism or Socialism.

This is far from being the case. In an article entitled “ The Party You Can Be Proud To Join ” (Daily Worker, October 4th) Harry Pollitt writes, among other things, of the Communist Party’s loyalty to the working class movement; its policy “to solve the present crisis in the interests of the common people”; and its objective of “establishing close co-operation internationally with the Socialist Soviet Union; the new democracies in Europe, and the advancing colonial peoples.”

Harry Pollitt asserts that the alternative to taking these steps is to “sink to dependence on American monopolistic reaction, surrender to the monopolists at home, succumb to our own immediate economic crisis which will be intensified by a depression spreading from America, and become engulfed in war as the outpost and vulnerable advance base of American reaction against European democracy.”

It is to be noticed that Socialism, the one alternative to Capitalism and its crises, is not even mentioned by Pollitt As for solving this crisis “in the interests of the common people"—does not Harry Pollitt know that no step that intends to leave Capitalism standing can be, to any great degree, in working class interests? Does he not know that, whether or not Capitalism is in a state of crisis, there is always a crisis for the workers? Is he not aware that, whether or not British Capitalism sinks to dependence on American monopoly, the members of the working class spend their lives depending upon their masters for the necessities of life? Does he not realise that it is not only Capitalist Monopoly, but Capitalism at a whole that grinds the workers down to wage-slavery and poverty? Is he not aware that war is inevitable under Capitalism?

The only way to eliminate the evils of the present social order is to end that order in its entirety and establish a social system wherein the means of production and distribution are commonly owned. That is Socialism.

Such a social system can only be achieved by a majority of Socialists. The making of Socialists, therefore, is the only way to hasten the coming of Socialism.

Neither Harry Pollitt, nor The Daily Worker, nor the Communist Party does this. Instead we find them deeply concerned with the health of British Capitalism and its need for more workers. We see them helping to perpetuate nationalism by asserting their readiness to fight for “national independence and economic prosperity of Britain against the offensive of the dollar dictators and their supporters in Britain — the Churchills and the Right Wing Labour leaders.” (Harry Pollitt’s speech at Ilford, Daily Worker, October 8th.)

It is possible that this new recruiting drive will draw many new members into the Communist Party, and that organisation will hail them as Communists. Actually they will be nothing of the sort. They will be those who, in their lack of Socialist knowledge, have been led to believe that Capitalism can be run in the interests of the workers.

To those who are hovering upon the threshold of the Communist Party, Socialists would say this: Read the literature of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Study our declaration of principles. Listen to our speakers.; question and oppose them, and weigh up the soundness of their arguments. We know that once you gain Socialist knowledge you will know the Communist Party for what it is—a purely reformist organisation seeking to patch up Capitalism.

F. W. Hawkins

Film Review: Home Town Story (1951)

Film Review from the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Home Town Story' (Director: Arthur Pierson)

The editor of an American small town newspaper embarks upon a press campaign against the high profits made by various large factories. He eventually “treads on the corns” of MacFarland, the owner of a local surgical apparatus factory. MacFarland interviews the editor and explains that in capitalist production it is not only the capitalist class that reaps a profit. The consumer also gets an interest by getting from the commodity a utility value greater than the commodity’s price. All the modern advantages of scientific and mechanical progress, MacFarland further contends, are due to the expansion of capitalism.

The editor rejects this argument and proceeds with his campaign.

Eventually his school-girl sister, through a land slide, is trapped in a disused shaft. With the use of vast excavating machinery an entrance to the shaft is cleared. The child is rescued but so terribly injured that her life can only be saved by an operation within two hours. She is flown to hospital in MacFarland’s plane and is successfully operated upon. It transpires that the surgical apparatus used in the operation is one produced in MacFarland’s factory.

These events lead the editor to abandon his campaign and to boost henceforward the mechanical advancement and social advantages achieved by capitalist production.

All this may sound convincing to those lacking knowledge of capitalism’s processes. To the Socialist it is both hypocritical and fallacious.

In the economics of capitalism “profit” means only one thing—i.e., the interest or dividends arising from the workers’ mental and physical energy. The capitalist in real life is not concerned with the utility of his commodities as long as those commodities will sell and bring profit.

This quest for profits is the force which has hastened the expansion of capitalism and brought the mechanical and scientific advancement necessary for profitably expediting capitalist operations. Roads have been laid to facilitate the conveying of commodities; many and various means of transport have been manufactured to carry the workers to and from work, and commodities from sellers to buyers. It can even be said that the advancement in medicine and surgery is largely prompted by the capitalist desire to maintain greater physical fitness and productive capacity among the workers, and, in war, to patch up the wounded that they may fight once more.

And what of the mechanical and scientific instruments of destruction produced and brought into use when the seeking of markets, etc., eventually brings war? What of the submarines, the bombers, the guns, the poison gases, the atom and hydrogen bombs? Were these produced, and can they possibly be used, for the benefit of mankind?

The machinery which within Socialism would lighten the work of the community is, under capitalism, the means of throwing many wage slaves into the ranks of the unemployed. The planes which in a classless society would be for the convenience of all are, under capitalism, destroyers and mutilators of men, women, and children. The vast weapons of destruction which would be non-existent and unnecessary in a sane social order are, under capitalism, vital necessities for carrying on the wars of capitalism.

In isolated and individual cases highly developed machines of modem science and invention may be used solely for humanitarian reasons. As a general rule, however, modem machinery is used only for speeding up production or increasing the lethality of capitalist wars.

If the makers of “Home Town Story” had tried to give a true picture of capitalism they would have found nothing to vindicate it, but much to condemn.

F. W. Hawkins