News in Review: Collapse at The Summit (1960)

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

Collapse at The Summit

The assembling of the Big Four for the Summit meeting in Paris contained all the essentials for great tragi-comedy, except the happy ending. Summit meetings may yet replace the circus as “the greatest show on earth.” Publicity arrangements on a world scale preceded the actual meeting for some years. The “ Summit ” has dominated the headlines of the world’s press. Millions of words have poured out from lengthy articles under banner headlines, speculating on the date and interpreting the significance of statements made by politicians and Government officials. And so at last three thousand journalists congregated in Paris to report the discussions of four individuals who, it is said, between them can and will adjust the barometer of world tension. With the stage set and the audience breathless, the principal actors took the stage. The so-called “main problems” of disarmament, Berlin and the continued division of Germany were now, it was said, to be seriously tackled. But unfortunately the final curtain came down on the overture. By the old. process of mutual abuse, charge and counter-charge, the meeting quickly degenerated. Suddenly nothing had happened.

There will never be anything so futile in the tackling of social problems as the holding of summit meetings. Such meetings only serve to increase the personal prestige of the politicians who attend them and persuade ordinary working people that honest attempts are being made to stem the threat of war. From any government's point of view, there is nothing that a summit meeting could accomplish that the regularised channels of diplomacy could not accomplish equally as well. All such conferences, even where politicians do succeed in getting together, entirely by-pass the everyday problems of working people. Their whole scope and function is irrelevant to the real and pressing issues of modern society, issues that the working class itself must come to grips with.

Turkey

When Menderes, the Turkish Prime Minister, survived the air disaster at Gatwick, he was acclaimed by the faithful as a saint and a prophet. From the recent events in Turkey, it would appear that the legend is taking some hard knocks. For more than ten years this dictator has used every known method to maintain power. He is himself a big landowner in the west of Turkey — an area in which indescribable poverty is the lot of the Anatolian peasants. We can wonder how is it that the dictatorial regime has survived for ten years. Part of the answer is that the majority of Turks, who are still attached to the Muslim faith worshipped Menderes because of his religious fervour. One interpretation of the cause of the crisis was that it was the work of a small clique inflamed by grudges and ambition. Menderes himself blamed “a handful of youths exploited by certain groups for their selfish political aims.”

Crises are not caused by the evil machinations of individuals; they have their root cause in the way a society is organised. The importance of Turkey in world politics rests partly on the control of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. Astronomical amounts of American dollars have been spent in building up Turkey as another “Western bastion of democracy”! Half the Turkish budget is devoted to defence. These measures, coupled with large agricultural credits, have produced the inevitable economic crises which are part and parcel of the capitalist system everywhere. The new Head of State, General Gursel, is described as a Turkish Neguib in search of a Nasser. He has announced that it would be for the next Government to decide whether to put Menderes and his Cabinet on trial. Whatever the outcome, the Turkish working class can look forward to another round of capitalist intrigue and unfulfilled promises.

Eichmann

The news that Adolf Eichmann, a former Gestapo chief, has been captured by Israeli agents, was splashed across the front pages with all the gusto of editors recognizing the sales power of cheap sensationalism. A man-hunt successfully concluded after 15 years, with the quarry a miserable survivor of the Nazi regime, is the sort of titbit that the profit-seeking press can dress up to satisfy the appetites of those who seek cheap thrills in their reading.

To Socialists, the capture of Eichmann in itself is of no importance. The inhumanities which man indicts upon man are not the actions of people who were born monsters, but rather the consequence of inhuman policies and doctrines which a monstrous system conditions human beings into accepting as answers to its economic and political problems. Eichmann was a product of German capitalism which made a scapegoat of the Jews for the failure of Germany to win the 1914-18 war and for the mass unemployment which followed. The massacre of the six million attributed to him was not the work of one “evil genius.” History cannot be so simply explained. But there is significance in the fact that Eichmann is to be given a mockery of a “trial.” What a perversion of the name justice it is which allows the victors in the 1939-45 bloodbath, in which mass murder was committed by both sides, to condemn the leaders of the conquered for the same crimes they perpetrated themselves.

Red Blood

The South African Government has recently published regulations to come into force on 1st September under which “white” and “non-white” blood will be segregated to ensure that as far as possible whites and non-whites will receive blood from white and non-white donors respectively. This segregation of blood has in fact been in practice in South Africa for some years, although blood plasma imported from America was not segregated. The exponents of apartheid claim that the Africans are biologically different to the whites in being “ inherently backward ” and it seems that they think Africans’ blood is different too. Blood from human beings cannot, of course, be identified as to the colour of skin of its donor, but only by its various groupings, A, O, Rhesus, etc. Some biologists have even stated that the blood of some types of gorilla and human beings is interchangeable. This new regulation is another example of the blind prejudice of the South African Government in its policy of apartheid.

Misdirected Energy

On May 21st, sixteen cannibals were sentenced to death in Wewak, New Guinea, for killing, cooking and eating three men, and kidnapping eight women. After lecturing the men, who spent most of the time dozing on the courtroom floor, the judge said that because the raid was a “social and economic one with the dual purpose of providing wives and flesh,” he would make strong recommendations for mercy, and suggested a training programme for the convicted men. In prison they will no doubt be put through a rigorous rehabilitation programme. They will be lectured on the error of their ways and taught how to conform to the moral standards of modern civilisation. Perhaps they might even become so civilised they may be allowed to join the army and do the capitalists’ dirty work for them. Queens Regulations will not, of course, permit them to consume their victims, but they will be able to kill with the approval of the law, the blessing of the church, and if they do really well, they may even become national heroes.

Wyatt Sees the Light

Everything happens finally, if only one can wait long enough for it. This is one reflection that springs to mind after the attack made by Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, right-wing Labour M.P., on the big unions’ block vote as undemocratic. This has been obvious for years, of course — to all except Mr. Wyatt and his right- wing Labour friends. No complaint was ever heard from them about the block vote, so long as the big unions with doglike devotion regularly swung all their millions of votes behind the Labour leadership. But now that the man who wields the block vote of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, Mr. Frank Cousins, has clashed with Mr. Gaitskell over defence policy, a great light has broken in on Mr. Wyatt’s mind. With cries of astonishment, he announces as a new discovery what everyone else had been pointing out for years. Still, one must be grateful that Mr. Wyatt has seen the obvious, even at this late stage.

But Mr. Wyatt's revelations only extend so far as Mr. Cousins. Not a word has come from him about the second largest of the giant unions, whose leader, Sir Thomas Williamson, is a supporter of Mr. Gaitskell, and who recalled the annual conference of his union because they had voted the wrong way the first time. But we must wait. If Sir Thomas is replaced by a leader who disagrees with Mr. Gaitskell, Mr. Wyatt may discover another “arrogant bully with a block vote” (which is the way he now describes Mr. Cousins).

As for the left-wing of the Labour Party, who have been denouncing the block vote of the unions throughout the time it was automatically used against them, they have become strangely silent. The block vote used against them, and the block vote used by Mr. Cousins in their favour, are apparently two quite different things. How circumstances alter cases, even to the extent of turning democracy into bullying, or bullying into democracy!

The Rockefellers (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 11th of May there died in Tucson, Arizona, John D. Rockefeller, Jnr., son of that notable father, John D. Snr, a man well-known in the early American capitalist era as one of the Robber Barons, with a finger in many pies—coal, iron ore, but chiefly remembered for his control of Standard Oil (New Jersey). In fact, according to Victor Perle in his book American Imperialism, in 1949 Standard Oil handled one-fifth of the oil produced in the western hemisphere, and its marketing areas covered countries in which some 72 per cent. of the world’s population resided. The control of oil throughout the western world is in the hands of seven oil trusts, of which Rockefellers control three.

But the Rockefellers, according to the obituaries of “Junior,” were noted for their “beneficence." It is reputed that between them they gave away some £350 million, and were still able to leave, as reports have shown, £200 millions (senior) and £150 millions (junior). These are staggering sums of money. And “Junior’s” will make no mention of any settlement for his six children and their various offspring, so it must be presumed that they have been well provided for. Some readers may say, but at least they gave some away, for the Daily Telegraph, May 12th, reports that “He devoted himself to furthering the schemes for human betterment initiated by his father after establishing his fortune." What from our point of view is important, however, is to whom it was given and why. Part of the answer to the first point is contained in the Telegraph of the 12th. “Educational Organisations benefited the most.” It seems highly probable that Marxian economics and the Labour Theory of Value plays no significant part in these “Educational Organisations,” for remember, education as taught today is primarily to fit workers into the productive and administrative organisation of capitalism and not to teach them Socialism.

Next comes “Religion,” another barrier to working class emancipation. Then “Public Parks, Roads, and the restoration and historic structures and antiquities.” No doubt the workers of the slum dwellings of all the major cities in the U.S.A. will appreciate that they can walk in the parks and pray in a well-restored church. Lastly, “Great sums to youth.” How this was distributed was not mentioned, but it is unlikely that these funds were used to propagate Socialist ideas. They were obviously spent to eulogise and bolster the capitalist system.

So, as commendable as some people may think was his “beneficence,” it is interesting to note that the people from whom this wealth was expropriated, his own workers, received little or nothing of what was rightfully theirs. Why he gave away these vast sums of money is a matter of some conjecture. One reason surely was to avoid taxation, but possibly also to buy immortality.

Socialists hope that in the not too distant future, people will see these so-called philanthropists in their true light—of leeches who grow fat on the mental and physical energies of the working class. Although “Junior” is dead, the Rockefeller Empire will continue, for neither father, son nor children ever took part in the production of things for use. At least it will continue to flourish until workers decide to own and distribute the fruits of their labour themselves.

Johnny Edmonds

House Journals (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Newspapers and magazines, like every other commodity under capitalism, are produced primarily for profit. But there is one type of publication which capitalists are quite content to run at a loss. That is the house journal—a company’s own organ, specially designed for its workers and sometimes also for its trade customers. According to the current issue of the Newspaper Press Directory, there are today in Britain no fewer than 642, of which more than 250 were launched last year. And by the end of 1960, despite mounting production costs, the number is expected to top 800.

House journals demand heavy, continuous subsidies. That is why only the bigger capitalist organisations are prepared to publish them. For unlike the national and provincial press, they reap no large advertising revenues. Even those which. carry advertisements, at purely nominal rates, far from cover themselves. Unlike their big brothers in Fleet Street, their circulations can be counted in thousands. A few publish weekly, but the vast majority appear monthly or quarterly. Given away or sold for a penny or two, they are either distributed in the factory or mailed direct to the worker’s home so that Mum and the kids can read them as well.

Until recent years, most house journals were the work of enthusiastic amateurs—personnel officers, social and sports club secretaries, or sales promotion managers with a bent for journalism. Their pages were packed with a stream of sentimental slush about the boss and “puffs” about his products. Issue after issue, with nauseating regularity, carried pictures of a beaming chairman addressing the annual staff dinner (“We must all pull together, chaps”), or of a director’s wife, distributing Sports Day trophies to the “lower orders” or of Bill Bloggs receiving his reward for half a century of “loyal and faithful” service to capitalism—an oak-cased clock.

Now many firms have begun to realise that the house journal can be forged into a more effective propaganda weapon. To a nation fed on the slick, streamlined mass-circulation daily newspapers and television, the old, sycophantic “God Bless the Boss” approach is as out-dated as a belief in the divine right of kings. So the professional publicist, the Public Relations officer, with an “understanding” of the masses, is being brought in to give the house journal a new, dynamic personality. Imitating the giant national daily newspapers, he dispenses the propaganda in potent, but subtle, doses—through brightly-written news stories, eye-catching pictures, arresting headlines and attractive make-up.

Why does Big Business, notorious for its opposition to wage increases, lavish so much money on its own publications, sometimes to the tune of £20,000 a year or more? Socialists know full well that capitalists do not play Santa Claus; that there is a sound commercial reason for any philanthropic front. House journals are no exception.

Their rapid rise is due to two major factors:

First, a growing acceptance by business chiefs of the theory that a happy worker makes a more productive worker.

Second, a growing interest by workers in the activities of the organisation which employs them.

For years, industrial psychologists have, in the name of greater efficiency, called for better staff relations. “Give the workers a sense of belonging,” “Make the men feel the boss really cares” and other similar pleas have been dinned into the ears of top management. The house journal can help to create “a happy family atmosphere” in the factory, with its prospects of greater surplus value. This is particularly important where frequent labour disputes cause havoc with production, and where employers find it difficult to attract or retain workers.

Similarly, more and more firms are concerned to “sell” themselves to their workers and customers. Company affairs are coming under a stronger spotlight from the mass-communication media. The beam rarely reveals the nature of 'capitalist exploitation, but it is bright enough to illuminate many interesting aspects of management. As a result of this development, capitalists are being forced to pay increasing attention to public criticism. The house journal makes a useful platform for justifying attitudes and actions. For example, many of these journals carry from time to time charts and diagrams, seeking to prove that the shareholders, not the workers who produce all wealth, are the poor relations of industry. To study some of them, one would think that if dividends dropped any lower, the capitalists would be signing on at the Labour Exchanges.

But large or small, well or badly produced, free or sold cheaply, all house journals are alike in one essential respect—they are the voice of the boss. As one of Britain’s leading P.R.O.’s reminded the 1958 Conference of House Journal Editors: “Few house journals are ‘steeped in liberty.’ Yours, let us face it, is not a free press, but a controlled one, subject to the dictates of top management.” Workers should never forget that the basic purpose of the house journal is to strengthen support for an individual capitalist concern. And as such, it helps to project the capitalist rat-race as the best possible, indeed the only workable, social system.

P. R. O.

Hagerty in Tokio (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. James Hagerty, President Eisenhower’s press secretary, had to flee by helicopter from a crowd of six thousand Japanese students who mobbed his car and battered at the windows. Mr. Hagerty had landed at Tokio airport to arrange the details of President Eisenhower’s visit to Japan. The incident underlines the falsity of some of the propaganda that the ruling class serves out to us in time of war. In the last war all the American and British organs of propaganda repeated ad-nauseam that the Japanese were inherently militaristic: their very nature, we were told, made them warlike and aggressive. At the end of the war the Americans insisted that a clause be written into the new Japanese constitution renouncing for ever the right of the Japanese to establish again their armed forces. But soon the Americans decided that the real enemy in the Far East was not Japan, but Russia: and that Japan in fact would be a useful ally. So then the Americans insisted, against the opposition of many Japanese, that the “renunciation” clause in the Japanese constitution be scrapped, and that Japan should again set up her army, navy and air force. Now the Americans have pushed through a new military alliance with Japan. If the propaganda had been true, this would have suited the "inherently militaristic’’ Japanese down to the ground. But large numbers of Japanese are strenuously resisting the new alliance, even to the extent of rioting against Hagarty and threatening to riot against Eisenhower. Some of the opposition, no doubt, comes from those who would rather see Japan allied to China and Russia than to America; but many Japanese wish to avoid all militaristic alliances altogether, because they think they bring with them the risk of involvement in a new world war. We are not now concerned whether it is possible for Japan to stand apart from the two great camps in the world as it is today: the important point is that such a policy commands widespread support from the Japanese people. Clearly, the theory of the “inherent militarism" of the Japanese will have to be abandoned. Events have, in fact, revealed yet more of our rulers' propaganda as lies.

Alwyn Edgar

Civil Service Pay (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the course of years quite a number of Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry have made recommendations about civil service pay and the principles by which it should be fixed. The last was the Civil Service Royal Commission of 1953-1955, which laid down guidance for fixing the pay of Post Office workers and other civil servants on the basis of “fair comparison” with the pay of outside workers doing comparable work. Several civil service unions have already voiced disappointment with the results of “fair comparison." They were expecting more than they have got, probably because they were counting on rates of pay as high as the top rates in outside occupations. The Royal Commission quite definitely rejected that relationship: civil service pay, they said, should be neither the highest nor the lowest for a particular job, but should be somewhere round the middle level. No government or committee of inquiry has ever accepted the principle that the 'Government should pay more “to set an example.”

Simultaneously with arguments about civil service pay and the pay of workers on the railways and in other nationalised industries, the Labour Party is arguing with itself about nationalisation, but nobody now thinks of linking up the two questions of civil service pay and nationalisation, as was the practice when nationalisation was first being advocated as a principle by political parties. In those days it was common for the Fabians and others to claim for national and municipal undertakings that their workers would be better paid than workers in private industry. In the Fabian Essays (1889) two of the writers, Annie Besant and Bernard Shaw, proposed a minimum wage for workers in municipal undertakings, high enough to be attractive to workers elsewhere. Annie Besant thought it would be “higher than any wage which could be paid by the private employer. Hence competition to enter the communal service, and a constant pressure on the Communal Councils to enlarge their undertakings.’' (p. 165.) The view was held by the early Fabians and other supporters of government industries, that these industries would be more efficient and could therefore afford to pay higher wages than their less efficient competitors.

Emil Davies, chairman of the Railway Nationalisation Society, in his book The Case for Nationalisation (1920, page 176) instanced the higher pay some of the telephone staffs received when the Government took over the telephone service from the private company in 1912. And in another book The State in Business (1920 edition, page 192), he claimed as a general proposition that “the moment the State or Municipality takes over a service or undertaking the conditions of the workers are immediately improved."

He confessed that this was perhaps less true of this country than other countries and in fact there is little to support the belief that the Government and the local authorities in this country have ever worked on the principle of paying above the rate required to give them the numbers of recruits they wanted.

From lime to time civil service pay has got out of line and steps have been taken to correct this. In 1923, after a big fall of the cost of living and of wage rates in industry had left civil service pay rather higher than the authorities considered necessary, the Anderson Committee, recommended reductions in addition to the automatic fall of pay under a cost of living bonus scheme. The special reductions were not then made because a general election intervened and the first Labour government came into office.

In 1957 the opposite situation had developed and Mr. Marples, Conservative Postmaster-General, was able to announce big increases of postal, telegraph and telephone charges totalling £42 million a year under cover of having to bring Post Office wages up to the level of outside wages. Now that most Labour Party opinion seems lo have accepted that there will be little extension of nationalisation the prospect of civil servants ever getting a Labour Government to apply the principle of giving civil servants more than “fair comparison" with average pay outside can be put very low indeed. Imagine the Labour Party still further hampering itself in an election by pledging itself that civil servants would he paid more than other workers!

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

The following was in a separate box attached to the article:

“Only when industry and transport etc, are owned and democratically controlled by the whole community can service to the whole community be a reality. Nationalisation or State Capitalism is not the solution to the problem."

Socialism or Nationalisation (1/-)

Finance and Industry: Advice for Speculators (1960)

The Finance and Industry column from the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Economic Forecasting

In this and other countries the collection and analysis of industrial, trading and financial information has greatly increased since the war, and goes on increasing. Governments and private organisations are alike involved, but there is no likelihood at all that they are ever going to reach a degree of accuracy comparable with forecasts of tides, sunrise and eclipses.

The Observer (5-6-60) had a telling example of inability to agree, in Mr. Shonfield’s column. He reported that two organisations of economists had analysed the present economic situation and made a forecast for the rest of the year. The two organisations are the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and the London and Cambridge Economic Service. Mr. Shonfield writes:—

The whole National Institute argument turns out . . . . to be a statement of the reasons why the last six months or so have been a period of exceptional strain on the balance of payments, add why this is unlikely to continue. The other report, the London & Cambridge Economic Bulletin takes just the opposite point of view—that the strains are all to come.

Much of the difference in the conclusions arose from the two widely different estimates of the extent to which production this year will exceed last year's level, Mr. Shonfield, who leans to the first report thinks it may be about double the estimate made in the second report, of under 4 per cent. If estimating production levels is difficult, financial forecasting is doubly so, as can be seen from the day by day variations of city column opinions. The City Editor of the Evening Standard (23-4-60) opened his column with the following:—

“Business" Calvin Coolidge once said, “will be either better or worse.” That’s the kind of helpful advice you could have collected by the bagful in the City this week.

But as a stock exchange operator once remarked, the secret of success for speculators does not consist in knowing what investors ought to do tomorrow if they were wise, but in knowing what foolish things they are likely to do.

World Wheat Surplus

In an article ‘‘Problem of World Wheat Surplus Still Unsolved” The Times (25-5-60) summarises the first annual review by the International Wheat Council of the world wheat situation. It confirms the Socialist argument that capitalist and political interests which determine the policies of producers and governments make it impossible to achieve a world policy based on human need. Capitalism requires that products must be sold and can normally be sold only to those who can afford to pay. Even when governments, for internal reasons, would like to give away surpluses, this is strenuously opposed by other exporting countries which see their markets endangered and price levels forced down.

In brief, many governments after the war stimulated wheat production because of the then food shortage, with the result that “in North and Central America average yields per acre have more than doubled since before the war, in South America they have increased by over 70 per cent, and in Oceania by almost one-half.” The governments continued the policy after the commercial need had disappeared, because, for political reasons, they wanted to help the farmers, but in the meantime consumption of wheat has been declining in the advanced countries.

The comment is that is is “impossible to avoid the conclusion that the situation giving rise to the accumulation of heavy surplus must now be accepted as a ‘deep-seated and persistent problem '." Yet all the time there are millions of people who desperately need more food but cannot afford to pay for it. The Financial Times (25-5-60) discussing the problem concludes that there is no solution except that of restricting output, if and when the governments can bring themselves to that politically unwelcome course.

Russian Oil

Along with the enormous over-development of oil production and refining and the laying up of large numbers of tankers, the oil firms now face the problem of a Russian drive to sell their surplus oil—at prices well below world levels. The Financial Times (30-4-60):

Last year Russia accounted for one-third of the total increase in world oil production, with output of crude, according to the latest issue of Petroleum Press Service, rising by 45m. tons to 129m. tons. Efforts have been made to increase exports, and last year about three-quarters of the 17m. tons exported outside the Soviet bloc went to Europe. Since then the sales drive has been extended, and some successes have been achieved in Japan and in Egypt. So far imports of Russian oil into the U.K. have been small being virtually confined to lubricating oil, but her salesmen are active and it is likely that further contracts may be announced before the end of the year.

Discussions have been in progress for expanding trade between Britain and Russia and the Russians are reported to have made this dependent on the admission of large quantities of Russian oil into the British market.

Edgar Hardcastle

Big Ships v Big Jets (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

More and more of the big jets are coming into operation, whistling their pampered passengers across the world. Catch a Comet at London Airport on Sunday afternoon and you are in Sydney before lunch on Tuesday. The Boeing 707 gets you there even sooner. Against this, the fastest sea liner takes about a month for the same journey, charging a first class fare—between £240 and £385 —which is roughly the same as the airlines’ £371 to £381. The airlines are selling their speed very successfully; B.O.A.C.’s scheduled services, for example, carried over 20 per cent. more passengers in 1959 than in 1958.

For cargo, air carriage is not so attractive. Only for the small, expensive, urgently needed shipments are the airlines in their element, enabling cheaper packing and insurance. But the absence of competition from aircraft does not mean that the sea liners are having it so good on their freight shipments. Ten years ago, the lines running from the United Kingdom to Australia had a month long waiting list of cargo. Now, their ships often sail only part full. Sir William Currie, the retiring chairman of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, had this to say at the Company's recent Annual General Meeting:—

There are still many new ships coming forward, both in this country and abroad, but little sign that the owners are rushing to scrap their older ships. It is difficult to see, therefore, how the present surplus of tonnage, which is at the root of the depression, can come to a speedy end. For let us recognise that it is not shortage of cargoes that is bedevilling the freight market: fundamentally it is too many ships chasing too little cargo that keep rates where they are.

Have the steamship companies any answer to the double problem of a loss of passengers to the airlines on the one hand and a competitive scramble for freight on the other? Let us take a look at what the Peninsular and Oriental are doing about it.

The £40 million P. & O.—the largest shipping group, in Great Britain—was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1840. It now has a host of subsidiary companies, including such famous names as British India, General Steam, and the Orient Steam Navigation Companies. It also owns Silver City Airways Limited, several marine and general engineering companies and, through the Asiatic Steam Navigation Company—a British India satellite—it controls Delta Insurance. P. & 0. itself has 32 ships, totalling 431,360 tons gross: by its subsidiaries, it owns hundreds more. We could expect a group of this size to have a powerful reply to the challenge of the jetliners.

As a first step, P. & O. have taken over the outstanding minority of the ordinary shares of the Orient Line of which, since 1919, they have held a majority. This merger has set up Orient and Pacific Lines to maintain and develop the Pacific Ocean service which Orient Line have been operating since 1954. The new service will extend the Australia and New Zealand run to the West Coast of the U.S.A., calling at Fiji and Honolulu on the way. It will also push the service to Japan and Hongkong out to America's West Coast And it will operate a triangular service, from Australia to the U.S.A., to Japan and back to Australia.

At the moment, the Orient and Pacific can call on seven big ships for this service. These are of the Himalaya and Orcades class, about 22 to 29 thousand tons gross and capable of about 22 knots.

These boats were built in the ten years after the war, when they were comparatively cheap. At today’s prices, however, it would not be profitable to build such ships. Any new craft, to pay its way on the new, longer, Pacific route, must be two sizes larger and two sizes faster than before, which also means that it is two sizes more expensive. At the same time, it must not be so large that it cannot use the Suez Canal. It must be able to carry the highest possible number of passengers and be economical in operation and maintenance. In their two recently launched ships—Oriana (40,000 tons) and Canberra (45,000 tons) P. & O. think they have fulfilled exactly these calculated requirements.

Oriana was launched in November, 1959. Canberra, which went down the shipway at Harland and Wolffs yard in Belfast in March this year, is the largest ship to be built in the United Kingdom since the Queen Elizabeth. The design lakes full advantage of the fact that the speed which can be reached without using excessive amounts of fuel increases with the length of the ship. Canberra's superstructure is almost entirely of aluminium, which saves about 1,500 tons in weight and allows extra passenger accommodation. £500,000 worth of plastics have been used, reducing weight, smoothing the hull’s water resistance and almost eliminating the need for interior redecoration. 

Canberra will carry over 2,000 passengers and will cut the journey from Britain to Australia to 25 days.

P. & O. are not content to leave it to Oriana and Canberra merely to assert the graciousness of sea travel against the modern scramble of the jet liner. They are ready to turn these ships into passenger tramps, taking on their passengers wherever they can find them.

We can all admire the beauty of the new ships and the skill and patience which has gone into their making. But the fact is that, typical of the products of capitalist society, Oriana and Canberra have been built only because they have profitable prospects. True, the prospects are rather uncertain—together the ships cost £30 million—and to justify this they must have a profitable life into the 1980’s. If they don’t justify this investment, then probably no more ships like them will be built.

If P. & O. are taking a gamble, it is one which few other shipping companies are willing to take. As a result, the outlook for British ship-building is gloomy. On the day of Canberra’s launching, Lloyds List and Shipping Gazette carried this report from the shipyards at Belfast:—

. . . . the splendour of the occasion is diminished to the extent that there is no follow-on liner contract and that the builder’s order book is now running down at a rapid rate. Nor is there any early prospect of additional entries which will ensure that there is not a severe reduction in employment next year.

Perhaps there are so many ironies in capitalism that everyone is becoming inured to them. But surely somebody will notice it if, as Canberra and Oriana plough their fabulous way from one tropical playground to another, the men who built her in gloomy Belfast are begging for work at their local labour exchange.

Ivan

Television (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

The institutions and morality of Capitalism reflect the profit motive and thus the interests of the capitalist class. The means of mass propaganda, and thereby the power to put over their ideas are in the hands of the capitalist class (or their agent, the State) in each country.

Whole generations of workers come and go, blissfully unaware that anything is wrong with private property or with the system of working for wages. The real facts of life have to be learned, perhaps from experience outside the influence of the propaganda machine. The Press, Schools, Cinemas, Pulpit, Radio and T.V. do their job so well that most people never realise they are having an outlook foisted on them which is fundamentally opposite to their own class interest.

The structure of capitalism and its institutions rise from and are in harmony with its class-property basis. Land, oilfields, factories, mines, herds of cattle, are among the things which make up the means of production. While these belong to the capitalist class, the wealth producers will work for wages, the goods they produce will be for sale with a view to profit, and human relationship will be dominated by money. While capitalism lasts, so will the false social values it generates. The accumulation of personal wealth will remain the perverted criterion of worth. No wonder that a working class, as yet unaware of their social position as the all important producers, are often seen in large numbers gazing in awed reverence at some of the parasites who live off them. No wonder, in turn, that various forms of escapism and make-believe have become widely popular.

The cinemas, now showing signs of decline, only a few years ago had queues at almost every pay-box. Going to the pictures was the working-class pastime, just as watching “the telly” is today. The world of second-hand thrills and dreams has largely changed its medium.

The fictional cow-boy and detective heroes have different names now, but their function is unchanged. Catching offenders against property, and the idea that punishment is Justice, are as popular as ever.

The land-grabbers, the cattle-thieves, the con-man, and the bank-raider, are still brought to book by the goodies of the F.B.I., the C.I.D. or the Marshal’s Office. The stolen property is always returned to its ’’rightful owner,” with few people to ask how he came to own it.

We are told that it is a sign of prosperity if workers, after a day in the factory or office, can go home to watch television. In fact, this simply shows how dull and monotonous their lives really are. In a world based on production for sale there is so little spontaneous joy in living that the professional laughter man and entertainer are in great demand. Without the artificial stimulations of things like T.V. many people would be at a complete loss. Thus the artificial becomes the real and to escape is a substitute for living.

Some people, of course, only watch the more “sophisticated” programmes, such as plays, and take pride in confining their viewing to the B.B.C. Not having a Socialist outlook, they soak up the same debased set of virtues and vices as the rest. Even plays which mildly attempt to investigate some festering ill of capitalism, such as the plight of the old, housing, juvenile delinquency or war, are totally unable to offer any solution and never give away the correct cause of these things. Instead of blaming capitalism, the workers continue to blame bad leaders, governmental mistakes, dictatorship or human nature. So those who, by not watching commercials think they avoid the money-morality of capitalism, are mistaken.

The commercials, of course, demonstrate the sickening hypocrisy, the false values and phoney morality of capitalism most nakedly. 

In the average week's viewing it is scientifically “proven” and demonstrated that half a dozen different makes of soap powder and detergent wash clothes cleaner, lighter, brighter and whiter than each other. There are about as many brands of oil and petrol which perform great wonders for motorists, with each one said to be better than the rest. There are numerous brands of cigarettes which “everyone” is switching to. Then the “razor boys” have a go with half a dozen makes of safety and electric razors, all of which shave smoother, cleaner, faster, than the others. So the examples could be multiplied.

Of all the scores of different things advertised in commercials, either on T.V. or elsewhere, not once are any of the possible drawbacks or harmful effects mentioned. Exaggeration, half-truths and direct lying are commonplace in advertising. The fact that millions of people watch the same adverts every night (many of which are repeated several times in the same evening) and make so little protest about them, is an unhealthy indication of the general acceptance of capitalism’s low standards. Perhaps Sir Robert Fraser, Director-General of the Independent Television Authority, had this in mind when he said: “Every person of common sense knows that people of superior mental constitution are bound to find much of television intellectually beneath them. ’ (Daily Mirror, 18-5-60.) We do not accept the idea of “superior mental constitution,” but since Fraser spoke generally in high praise of television, one might ask where he fits in? The idea is deliberately planted that unless you wear a certain make of shirt, skirt or cosmetic and own a watch, carpet-cleaner or spin-drier made by a particular firm, you will fail to impress your friends. Your prestige will slip, you will fall behind in the rat-race.

All the* high-pressure sales drives and the subtle persuaders merely emphasise the constant need in capitalism to find markets. Although on the commercials they say that their commodities “are just the thing for you,” you cannot have them if you cannot afford them—or at any rate the instalments. The normal condition of a worker is to live within what his wages can buy or hire. Hire-purchase, or by saving up, are the ways open to him to get anything that costs more than he can spare out of one week's wages. For most workers T.V. means H.P. over a couple of years or a rental or relay. The best that capitalism can do with the immense possibilities of modern scientific techniques is to allow the working class, while living under the threat of a slump or a war,, to enjoy themselves on the never-never. Capitalism denies the working class access to the wide world of real things that make up living. Having to live within the limitations of the wages system, they get things out of perspective and T.V. becomes a substitute for things out of reach.

Production under the profit motive has reduced most work to drudgery. Having taken the joy out of our working life, capitalism would reduce us to passive viewers in our leisure time. Television is just one of many achievements abused by capitalism.

Harry Baldwin

New China (1960)

Book Review from the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

China—New Age and New Outlook, by Ping-Chia Kuo. Penguin Books. 3s. 6d.

In this eminently readable book the author discusses the great changes which are going on in China. He seeks to appraise and interpret current developments as a stage in the broad sweep of Chinese history and to search out the trends that have led to the triumph of the Communist Party, and to discuss the problems involved in this process. He takes in the pertinent points in China's past as well as what he can judge of its future. He says that with the collapse of the feudal system in 200 B.C., land was freely bought and sold and that this led to a concentration of ownership in the hands of the new privileged group and to the growing importance of the landlords as a social class. A great proportion of the peasantry continued to till the land, but did not own it, while the new class of owners exploited the peasantry.

In the course of the last twenty centuries the line of demarcation between the two segments of Chinese society became more steeply drawn. Economically, the landlords virtually controlled the tens of thousands of villages, and moreover, were the only group with the leisure to study and master politics. Thus the government had to fall back on them for the necessary personnel to operate the administrative machinery. This is why in every dynasty the Chinese government was virtually run by men of the landowning families. The tight grip on power by the landlord class was made more enduring by the adoption of Confucianism as the standard education for all officials. For twenty centuries Confucianism blocked progress and change, taught the oppressed to obey and impressed upon the minds of men the virtue of upholding the rule of the landlords. But, in recent times, the development of industry brought the seeds of change and made the collapse of the ancien régime inevitable.

The Nationalist movement, later to be led by Chiang Kai-Shek, left the landlord elite in control of the administration below country level. Thus land reform was effectively blocked. The Communist Party, on the other hand, realised that to develop the country the landlords, as a social class, must be eliminated. To obtain the support of the peasantry, they redistributed land confiscated from the landlords amongst the peasants in those out-of-the-way small sections of the country where they had seized control. This whetted the appetite for Communist Party land reform in the territory controlled by the Nationalists. The plight of the peasants was worsened by the disruption of World War II and, in 1949, the Communist Party were able to seize power on the mainland, leaving the Nationalists, backed by the U.S.A., in control of the island of Formosa. The process of modernising China has been proceeding rapidly. The large holdings of the landowners were quickly distributed amongst the peasants. Then came mutual help groups organised amongst the peasants. This was the thin edge of the wedge in converting the peasant into a landless agricultural wage worker. This primitive organisation gave way to voluntary agricultural co-operatives from which the peasant could withdraw if he so wished. Then on to the next stage—the collectivised farms and finally to the last stage, the Commune.

The Communes consist of 4,000 to 10,000 households. Their central purpose is to expand agricultural production which in turn would speed up industrialisation. The Commune makes monthly payments in the form of a basic wage classified in accordance with the graduations of the members' work performance, plus bonuses for workers who contribute more than the norm. This is clearly a system based upon the principle of “to each according to his work," a principle whose aim is to stimulate production. By making the production unit bigger the state makes it impossible for the peasants to pursue individual production except as wage-earners in the employ of the state. But the greatest benefit to production is that the Commune takes on industrial as well as agricultural functions. Perhaps the most dramatic aspect of this development has been the emergence of tens of thousands of small furnaces in the villages, producing pig iron or carbon steel and making farm implements. The fundamental force motivating Communist China’s new role in international affairs is her militant nationalism, which has advanced a new balance of power in the Far East and has helped to produce the tension in world affairs that we are now witnessing. For the moment, the author says, the addition of Soviet military material and Chinese man-power could create a giant army in case of war and this is partly responsible for the Sino-Soviet Alliance.

The author is typically Chinese in the practicality of his approach and in his logical method of thought unburdened by the religious thought typical of the average Western writer. To read this book is to glimpse an insight into the great depth of learning of its author, who incidentally is a Professor of History in an American University. Such a wealth of knowledge makes a mere amateur student of Chinese affairs like your reviewer feel humble. Yet Socialists know that Dr. Ping-Chia Kuo just does not really understand the world of which he writes. He reveals his belief that China is socialist and is ideologically opposed to the capitalist parts of the world. The Socialist sees a world of capitalism, but Dr. Kuo sees two worlds, with Socialism existing side by side with capitalism, and thinks that both, like sheep and goats on one farm, must be taught how to live together. In his book he makes various suggestions as to how this could be accomplished. What the Socialist views as merely the development of capitalism in China, he sees as “Socialist reconstruction” and he adds a plea to the United Nations to understand and befriend China in the interests of peace and goodwill. Nevertheless, to those who are interested in China as one of the possible bogey-men of the capitalist future, this is a useful book to read.

Frank Offord

Are Politicians Honest? (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does anybody expect politicians and other leaders to be honest? To keep their promises? To admit their mistakes and if necessary make way for somebody who can do better than they? The history of capitalism is crowded with examples of leaders who have never done anything of the kind. Of men who have persisted in policies and actions which were obviously harmful—and have lied to justify their mistakes.

Older people will remember the stubbornness of the European politicians in the 1914-18 war, who persisted in futile campaigns which were often costing thousands of lives every day, without achieving even the objects which the generals had set out for them. There as a story that, when the terrible battle at Passchendaele was at last over, a high ranking British officer went up to the battlefield and wept at what he saw there. But Douglas Haig, the man who had planned and defended the whole campaign, did not weep. He was given an earldom. None of the politicians suggested that the war was one great, bitter futility. None of them, when it was over, balanced the dead against what was settled at the so-called peace conferences. They simply rearranged the frontiers of Europe, threw the Germans out of Africa and waited for the next war to start. And when that happened, one of the excuses for it was a dispute over a part of the post-1918 settlement — the Polish Corridor. The treaties of 1945 have had the same effect—they have not pacified, but have irritated and provoked more sore spots in the world.

These are only some of the instances when, although direct and vital human interests were at stake, the leaders of capitalism have been less than honest .They are still at the same game. Last March, President Eisenhower spoke to some American-Chilean organisations in Santiago de Chile. He had this to say:

The suggestion that America supports dictators is ridiculous. Surely no nation loves liberty more. . . . We repudiate dictatorship in any form right or left. Our role . . . stands as a beacon to all who love freedom.

Fine words. They ignore the fact that, in the past few years, the U.S.A. has supported, financially and militarily, dictators like Franco, Syngman Rhee, and Batista. And, of course, they have helped one of the most ruthless of the lot—Stalin, who was sustained in his pitiless rule by the aid which America poured into his country during the war. At the time, the American and Russian ruling classes had common cause against Germany—and when capitalist interests are at stake, principles of freedom and human rights are left to take care of themselves.

Nearer home, we find other examples of political inconsistency. The Manchester Guardian of 15th June. 1959, reporting on the Whitehaven by-election, drew attention to two statements which had been made by the Conservative candidate. One, in February. 1950. when he was standing as a Liberal, called the Conservative Party ". . . a class party . . . which desires to keep power and privilege m the hands of a particular section of the community". The other, in October. 1951, when he had joined the Tories, described them as standing ". . . not for one section of the community, but for all.”

This latter can be a winning line. Most workers deny the existence of a class struggle and vote against a party which they think stands for the interests of any class. The majority of them harbour the delusion that everybody’s interests are the same—and woe betide the "rabble rouser" who talks about the class war. This goes down especially well with the hire-purchasers of television sets and the deferred buyers of cars. So, to win votes and influence people, a party must often claim that it is above class, and that its opponents dabble in the fields of narrow self-interest.

A lot of money can be spent to put over this sort of idea. The recently published The British General Election of 1959, by David Butler and Richard Rose, reveals that between July, 1957, and October, 1959, the Conservative Party lashed out £468,000 on press advertising and posters alone. All of this—and what was spent at the same time by the other parties and by the various industries threatened with nationalisation—to convince workers that capitalism could be better organised by one set of leaders rather than the other. Are the voters flattered? Apparently so; change as they might between Labour, Tory, Liberal or what have you, their support for capitalism is unwavering.

Here is the very centre of the whirlwind. They trust their leaders Field Marshal Lord Montgomery summed it up when he said, on the anniversary of D-Day:

. . . a way can be found by which the East and the West can live together in spite of different ideas and social systems, but the finding of that way is not for you and me—it is for our political leaders.

This surprisingly is not one of the Field Marshal's least sensible statements. The problems of capitalist society can be left to "our political leaders." But workers—the people who make and build, who manage and organise—and who die in capitalisms wars—have a different task. They must realise that the leaders themselves show the wretchedness and brutality of the system. That, even without the mistakes and dishonesty which we have seen, capitalism would still make one hell of a world. That the future is not in putting blind faith in leaders, but in widespread understanding and socially conscious action.

Ivan

Correction (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the May 1960 Socialist Standard we gave an extract from the Socialist Standard of May 1910, which was in fact corrected in the June, 1910, issue. The first three sentences, as corrected, should have read: "The Social Democratic Party in Germany occupies a similar position to the party similarly named here. Its programme (the Erfurter Programme), according to their own statement, consists of the theoretical part, based on the teachings of Marx—the materialist conception of history, the surplus value theory and the class struggle—and the practical, consisting of reforms and 'palliatives: and we allege that the whole existence of the German SDP has been spent in the advocacy of these reforms, to the detriment of Socialist propaganda. We do not hold the erroneous view . . . that the German workers must obtain certain reforms because the revolution from feudalism to Capitalism was not complete.”

We apologise for overlooking this correction.

50 Years Ago: Married Women in the Factory (1960)

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

From an article by a Factory Inspector

Married women in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in addition to bearing the children and caring for the home, are often compelled partly and sometimes wholly to support their family. In a number of cases which come under our notice the wives work all day in the mill and on their return, tidy the home, baking and washing for the family. Many do not retire till midnight, rising again early in order to provide for a midday meal before going to work. In the dinner hour they quickly return, prepare the meal, serve the husband and children, swallowing their food far too hurriedly and again hasten back to work. Their lives often appear to be little better than those of slaves, and many at 45 are broken-down women prematurely aged. If a community is to be judged by the status of its women, here certainly the condition of the working women reminds one of coolie women in India, or those of many of the African tribes where women are more or less beasts of burden.

From the Socialist Standard, July 1910.

The Passing Show: South African Realities (1960)

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

South African Realities

Anyone who doubts the validity of the Socialist interpretation of events in South Africa — that what we are seeing is the emergence of a new capitalist class, together with the corresponding proletariat, in a country still ruled by the landowners — would do well to look at The Times Supplement on South Africa, which appeared on May 31st. Valuable figurcs are given to back up the verdict that “during the 50 years of the Union, South Africa has developed from a pastoral country into a modern industrial state,” and that the last two decades have witnessed “unprecedented industrial growth.” Steel production, for example, has increased a hundredfold in twenty-five years. The total gross value of the output of South Africa's manufacturing industries has gone up from £40 million in 1915-16 to £1,424 million in 1955-56, thirty-five times as much. Even allowing for inflation, there is still obviously a gigantic increase here.

As the Supplement puts it, “it has become clear that new policies and fundamental changes in attitude are necessary if rapid industrial growth is to be continued into the next half century.” This means, of course, that the policies of the capitalists will have to replace the policies of the landowners. The justification for this is to be found in that favourite phrase of the capitalists, “economic realities.” The Supplement says:

At this time political issues completely overshadow economics in any assessment of the future—the key question being whether government policies will be in harmony with economic realities (industry’s complete reliance on a stable, settled, urban non-white labour force) or whether there will be further attempts to impose on industry racial policies that will increasingly undermine productivity and progress. . . . It has now become quite clear to industrialists that South Africa can realize its great potential and its ambitions to become the “workshop of Africa” only if a contented and stable labour force is built up and if existing barriers to productivity are removed. . . . Industry itself is now beginning to recognize what this means in terms of housing, social welfare and minimum wages, and the need to encourage the emergence of a property-owning African middle class with a stake in maintaining social stability.

It would be hard to improve on these quotations as a statement of the aims and ambitions of the South African capitalist class at the present time. The capitalists now dominate the South African economy: how long will it be before they dominate South Africa politically?—especially since capitalism dominates all the other “civilized” countries of the world. Well, they themselves are optimistic. As the Supplement sums up: “South African industrialists are confident that economic realities will prevail and that a new and constructive approach to the problems of growth in a multi-racial society will emerge.”

Race Hate

The fascist British Union Movement has been distinguishing itself again, this time when some of its members followed an American Negro comedian along the street, shouting abuse at him from a loudspeaker van. There have been some indignant comments on the incident from those who consider themselves left-wingers. No doubt these protests are sincere, but they are illogical. For the capitalist system breeds race hatred. Only in the last twenty years we have seen the ruling classes of various countries, whenever it was in their own interests, whipping up hatred of the Jews, the Germans, the British, the Russians, the Americans, and many more. From time to time every capitalist country goes to war, and needs the working class to kill and be killed in defence of its masters’ profits. The official propagation of race hatred is one of the means inevitably used to lash the workers into the necessary frame of mind. So that people who oppose racialism and at the same time support capitalism (private or state) are merely defeating their own ends.

In the meantime Mosley’s fascists demonstrate the gentlemanly standards of the “white civilisation” they claim to be defending, by hurling insults at a foreign visitor in the open street.

Mutual Help Society

From The Times (9-6-60):

The Institute of Directors have accepted an invitation from the State Scientific and Technical Committee of the U.S.S.R. to send a goodwill and fact-finding mission to Russia to study problems of Soviet industrial management.

Sir Richard Powell, Director-General of the Institute of Directors, said that the mission is “an attempt to get an overall picture of top Russian management policy in industry and commerce. . . . It should prove a unique opportunity for high ranking British businessmen to see their Russian counterparts at work.” 

Without question the ruling class of Russia and the ruling class of Britain could help each other a great deal by showing each other how they run their respective businesses, and keep their respective working classes in order. Although capitalism in Britain is still largely private, while in Russia it is state-run, nevertheless the two economic systems are the same in every important respect. The “high-ranking British business men” and their “Russian counterparts” will have a great deal in common. We look forward to the day when the British and Russian working classes will co-operate in the establishment of Socialism, just as today our masters collaborate for the better running of capitalism.

Alwyn Edgar

From the Branches (1960)

Party News from the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nottingham.

Three London members left for Nottingham during Whit week-end to assist the propaganda efforts of this go-ahead provincial branch.

Most of the local population were out of town for the beginning of the holiday— obviously not anticipating the efforts of Party members—which depleted the audiences at the meetings held on the Saturday and Sunday. The Monday evening meeting well rewarded our speakers, and with an attentive and interested audience listening to the Socialist case and asking questions, our members could well have continued indefinitely. As it was, they delayed their return to London until Tuesday morning. In all, 24s. of literature was sold. On the Sunday evening the Comrades had a very interesting discussion in a member’s home. All concerned are looking forward to a "repeat performance” in the not too far distant future.

#    #    #    #

Ealing

It is some little while since any account of Branch activities has appeared in this column, but this does not mean that the members have been inactive. Far from it. Over the past few months, Ealing Branch has been extremely busy. Members have given consistent support to the writers’ class which was run during the winter at Hammersmith, and the worthwhile results of their efforts have appeared in the Socialist Standard. It is hoped to continue this class shortly on a monthly basis, to enable branch writers to develop their style and exchange ideas. Throughout this period also a very fine series of fortnightly lectures on economics by Comrade Hardy. Members were well pleased and appreciated this golden opportunity to brush up their knowledge (and plug some of the gaps as well).

So far this year, three films have been shown at Ealing. On January 29th there was “Shadow of Hiroshima.” followed by “Man one Family” (February I9th), and "African Conflict” (April 29th). In each case, the usual Socialist comments on the film were given by one of the Party members and much useful discussion ensued. A number of interested non-members have attended these events which we took care to advertise in the local press. Our success here has been due in no small measure to the excellent co-operation and help received from the H/O films committee.

One of the contacts made at the film shows turned out to be a member of the “Socialist Labour League” who gladly accepted our invitation to a further discussion. This took place on May 13th in a crowded branch room. The event was conducted in a very orderly manner and branch members acquitted themselves well in a discussion in which no holds were barred. A return visit from this opponent is anticipated. Branch canvassing has been revived, and good sales have been made in Greenford and Harrow. It is hoped to build up substantial regular subscribers’ lists in these areas, in addition to other permanent contacts elsewhere which have been made by literally years of hard work. Meetings at Gloucester Road were opened by the branch at the beginning of June, and we are hoping for a season as successful as last year’s. This station has certainly been “tamed” since the old days and generally, a far better hearing is given now than in the past. The Branch welcomes support from any comrade who can come along on Thursdays at 8 p.m.

Phyllis Howard

Nigeria (1960)

Book Review from the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

New Nigerians, by Mora Dickson (Dobson, 25s.)

This book describes an experiment that was carried mil at Man-of-War Bay in the south east of Nigeria by the author and her husband. The experiment consisted of a highly intensive training course to test the initiative, enterprise and ability to lead, and to follow, of students who were specially chosen from all over Nigeria. The instructor was selected from the Nigerian police. It was his job to set the tone of the course, and the exercises were designed to prove the students “worthy citizens" and “ upholders of the law.” In referring to a special course for schoolboys, the author says this:

   They were picked from the cream of the Nigerian secondary schools. The best equipment and housing had been provided for them. The whole system of living was based on the English public school.

The author makes no attempt to critically evaluate the intentions behind the scheme and leaves the impression of a woman accepting without question that her suburban values are superior to all others. I found this book rather dull, but it was interesting to note the attempts that are being made to introduce western civilisation into Nigeria and to consider the reasons.

Although Nigeria gains her independence this year, there is still a lot of British capital invested there which has to be protected. This is done by instilling into the minds of prospective administrators of capitalism in Nigeria the ideology and values of the western world, and breaking up the workers themselves into different groups. Technicians and officials preoccupied with their own prosperity and high standing in the community can be relied upon not to identify themselves with the great mass of workers struggling to better their standard of living. So we have the new Nigerians, the new broom sweeping away age-old tribal custom, and Mora Dickson playing her part in the debasement of the African with enthusiasm.

Jack Law

Editorial: Eichmann: Who is Responsible? (1960)

Editorial from the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is impossible to condemn too strongly the terrible brutality of the killing of millions of people, Jews and others, of which Adolf Eichmann is accused. The majority of people have reacted to the press reports with a demand for his punishment. Learning of Eichmann's deeds, they take the short-sighted view that to deal with him as an individual is enough. But Eichmann is the end product of a vast process; he arose from the inhuman conditions of capitalist society. The very people who condemn him are content to leave those conditions untouched.

The working class, not only in Nazi Germany but in post-war Germany—and throughout the world—blindly support capitalism. None of them can escape responsibility for the consequences. For the power wielded by the rulers of world capitalism is a reflection of the political ignorance of the working class everywhere. It is absurd to blame one man, when he is only the instrument of a policy supported by millions. 

After a war, the defeated leaders are vilified, some imprisoned and others executed. The victorious leaders are enshrined as heroes. It is fortunate for the leaders of the 1939-45 Allies that no cloak-and-dagger men are hunting for them. They, too, are responsible for terrible slaughter. President Truman gave the orders for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Churchill, Attlee and Stalin supported this atrocity. In Hiroshima alone, 80,000 people were incinerated in a flash and hundreds more have since died—and are still dying—from various causes. Thousands of Germans were killed in the bombing of Hamburg and in the destruction of Dresden.

These are the vicious conditions which make possible the race hater and the mass exterminator. Although tens of millions of people have been butchered in the last two great wars, the world is not safe. The fear of war is still with us. Nowadays, many nations have vast armaments poised in readiness to exterminate each other. How many future Eichmann's wait to stalk upon the scene?

If only workers would find out why all this madness takes place! War is caused by the struggles between national capitalist Powers over markets and economic resources. This can only be cured by the abolition of capitalism. As long as workers support this system, so will they be vulnerable to the racial theorist who, on nationalist grounds, gets support for his programme of mass murder. The dictators of yesterday, and the dictators and leaders of today, with their frightening military machines, only reflect the preparedness of their workers to ignore the bloodshed of two world wars and still to die for capitalism.

It is futile to punish an individual whilst ignoring the vicious conditions which made him possible. Eichmann was involved in some terrible things—but the exterminations which he so methodically organised are only a part of the greatest atrocity of all—the capitalist system of society. As the movement for a classless world—for Socialism—takes root and spreads, so will the possibility of inhuman murderers like Adolf Eichmann decline and die.

Report on Mau Mau (1960)

Book Review from the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Historical Survey of the Origins and Growth of Mau Mau, carried out by Mr. F. D. Corfield, has now been issued as a Government Blue Book. It contains the following statistics of casualties up to the end of 1956

Terrorists: Killed 11,503. Captured wounded 1,035. Captured in action 1,550. Arrested 26,625. Surrendered 2,714.

Security Forces: Killed 167. Wounded 1,582.

Loyal Civilians: Killed 1,877 (including 32 Europeans). Wounded 978.

The cost of the emergency up to June 30th, 1959, is shown as £55,585,424. before the massive technical and numerical superiority of the British Government Security Forces finally overwhelmed this African uprising, all the violent measures of ruthless repression were called into use, even down to interrogation under torture and the hangman busy in the concentration camp.

Mr. F. D. Corfield, who is a former Governor of Khartoum Province, has produced a report which points a sanctimonious finger of blame at almost everyone except the British Government and the narrow interests that they represent. As an apology for the British Government, as a self righteous justification that might confuse and misdirect, the Corfield Report does a serviceable job. But as an objective historical account of the cause and development of a particularly ugly piece of human history the report is useless and in every way unworthy of its title.

The main contention of the report is that leading Africans, and in particular Jomo Kenyatta, encouraged by sympathy from many outside sources, and unwittingly aided by the facilities provided by a "liberal" government, perpetuated rebellion as a manifestation of their personal malevolence. The report says, "Without the freedom afforded them by a liberal government Jomo Kenyatta and his associates, would have been unable to preach their calculated hymn of hate." Mr. Corfield is completely convinced that the government of Kenya was pre-occupied with "...the material progress of the peoples of Kenya." He says, "One has only to read the annual reports of the provincial commissioners to realise the immense efforts made by officials and unofficials to raise the material and moral welfare of the Africans."

These are the terms in which the report ignores the naked and cruel self interest of the white landowners' mission in East Africa. For a rational society of controlled purpose to be confronted by a primitive social grouping over which it held immense technical superiority would involve problems of a most delicate sociological nature. Its approach would be scientific procedures, its motives would be humanistic. But when the envoys of European propertied society landed in East Africa to preach the Gospel of Self Interest and predatory exploitation they were interested only in smashing the social organisation of the African inhabitants and making them servants and labourers. Here surely was the bed rock basis of the Mau Mau violence. Mau Mau, though loathsome in form, arose inevitably from the indignities, the injustice and the sheer primary poverty of the African's plight. This is well known and the evidence for it is even contained in the government's own Colonial Publications. In contrast with the hypocritical Corfield report the African Labour Efficiency Survey, 1949 (Colonial Research Publications, No. 3) is a realistic appraisal of the problems of making the African a more efficient and effective wage worker.

In viewing the East African situation (in 1947) it says, "The East African comes from a tribal economy in which his human needs of sustenance can still very largely be met . . . He has not, to any significant degree been detribalised . . . The East African has not been bent under the discipline of organised work. In his primitive economy, the steady, continuous labour is carried out by women. In respect of the few working activities which in the past occupied him he was free and independent. Though the tasks he performed were prescribed by tribal law and custom, he could do them in his own way and at his own speed, for him time had no economic value. The work he did for others was not for wages, but was one of the duties arising out of his relationship with his fellows. He gave satisfaction by his work and derived a measure of contentment from it. In these circumstances he was willing to do what was required of him. To work steadily and continuously at the the will of another was one of the hard lessons he had to learn when he began to work for Europeans."

Even so, the report reveals the positive measures taken by the Kenya Government to coerce Africans into seeking wage employment. In the first instance the Kikuyu and other East African tribes were enclosed within small reserve areas which to an agricultural people was disastrous. In the terms of the report, South Nyeri, one of the three component districts comprising the Kikuyu reserved lands, had a population estimated in 1944 to be 542 to the square mile. This population density is probably among the highest in the world. As well as this the Government instituted a hut tax and poll tax, payable only directly in cash. Thus within two simple but brutal measures the authorities began to reduce the African from a dignified tribesman with a stake in his community to a dispossessed wage worker forced into white landowners' service or into industrial undertakings.

The report dwells in some detail on many reasons for the African workers' so-called inefficiency, including lack of education and poverty. It says, "Perhaps in some respects the greatest handicap is physical and arises from malnutrition." On the question of wages this report is equally forthright, " . . . it is clear that the wage plan does not ensure wages adequate to enable an African residing in any of the towns to bring up a family." Again: "It is therefore with more confidence that the whole survey team, including the medical and nutritional investigators, record their reasoned observation that they found much discontent concerning wages in relation to cost of living."

Apart from laying bare the ruthlessness of of British Colonial policy, even in modern times, the report contained a disquieting warning. Quoting a doctor who lived in East Africa for two decades it said "A doctor . . . can assert that the cause of the poor work output is more mental than physical. Malnutrition and disease play their part but, sitting and talking with the workers in their homes, one became aware of a very grave discontent which, unless constructively guided and relieved, may well threaten civil peace."

It was the violent repression that Mau Mau provoked that enabled British interests to finally destroy the Kikuyu and other tribal structures. The way is now clear for the rapid conversion of East Africans into wage workers. Mau Mau retaliation was bloody and horrible, primitive political struggles often are, but undoubtedly British colonial policy first provoked the violence.

Pieter Lawrence