Editorial: The Working Week (1960)

Editorial from the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the nineteenth century trade unions struggled for shorter hours and meant just that. In post-war years, when low unemployment should have made it rather less difficult to press claims, campaigns for shorter hours have become disguised efforts to get more overtime pay.

In 1938 when the standard working week for most industries was 48 or 47 hours the inquiry made by the Ministry of Labour into pay and hours in manufacturing industry showed that the men were on average doing 47.7 hours.

In 1946 and 1947 the standard week was generally reduced to 44 and the hours actually worked averaged 46.6. By 1952 they were back again to the 1938 level of 47.7, and in October, 1959, averaged 48.5.

Now a new movement is bringing the standard week below 44. In the past few months agreements have been reached covering four million workers, the new hours being mostly 42, but in 1959 the numbers of workers on overtime was increasing again after an earlier fall. It remains to be seen, when the shorter hours agreements come into effect, whether the earlier experience will repeat itself and 'shorter hours' in fact become longer.

Editorial: Profits and Wages (1960)

Editorial from the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

The British propertied class came out of the war much worse off than when they went in but in the past few years they have been moving towards their former position. The phrase used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that what has happened since 1952 “ has about restored the balance.”

This arose out of a question put by Mr. Douglas Jay on 22nd March, 1960, about the increase of wage rates and dividends. Mr. Heathcote Amory replied that whereas weekly wage rates have increased by about 42 per cent, between 1952 and January, 1960, and by about 3½ per cent. between 1958 and January, 1960, provisional estimates about dividend payments show that dividends paid by companies on ordinary shares in 1959 were about 78 per cent. higher than in 1952 and about 12 per cent. higher than in 1958.

The reply was followed by a further interchange. Mr. Amory admitted to Mr. Jay that these figures show that under the Conservative governments “dividends have been increasing faster than wages,” but retorted that between 1938 and 1952 "dividends increased by only 30 per cent. whereas wages increased by 100 per cent. ”

Then Mr. Amory agreed with a Tory interjection that workers’ earnings (he probably meant wage rates) were falling behind the cost of living under the Labour government and have got ahead since.

Figures given in the official Economic Survey 1960 show that company dividends on ordinary' and preference shares rose by nearly 30 per cent. between 1955 and 1959 from £655 million to £848 million.

May Day (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

The engraving (by William Blake after the painting by Collings) reproduced on the cover graphically represents May Day in 18th Century London. Prominent in the days celebrations were the little chimney sweeps (in the engraving they are shown holding dust pans—the symbol of their trade), who were annually released on May 1st from the bondage and brutality of their dangerous job.

When my mother died I was very young.

And my father sold me while yet my tongue 

Could scarcely cry “ 'weep! ’weep! 'weep' 'weep' "

So your chimneys I sweep, and in soot I sleep.

Blake

The E.T.U. and the Press (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists take every opportunity of examining and commenting on all the facets of capitalist society, including that much-publicised field, at the moment, anyway, trade unions. We oppose all other political parties, but when dealing with trade unions the fact that the leadership of any particular union has a political bias does not affect our judgment of their activities on the industrial field. As good or as bad as they may be, we recognise that trade unions are the weapon of the working class in the field of industry, and we therefore support the principle of trade unionism, rather than trade unions.

In line with this reasoning, let us take a look at the Electrical Trades Union. Readers will no doubt be aware of the large amount of publicity that has been given to it—charges of malpractice, rigged ballots and Communist Party interference in the running of its affairs. In fact, over the last two years, the working class, and the electricians in particular, have been subjected to a veritable barrage of “information” and “advice” about their leaders. This culminated in the re-election of the General Secretary, Frank Haxell (much to the disgust of the daily and weekly press) with a lower majority than he obtained five years ago.

In the past, members of the Communist Party have been elected to trade union posts and although the press have commented on these, it has not been with the same ferocity and abuse that has been meted out to the E.T.U. There is no doubt that the Communist Party's allegiance to the Soviet Union has been largely responsible for this, but this is not the only reason: another, and, we think, more important view was contained in an editorial printed in The Guardian (25/2/60). under the heading “T.U.C. Troubles.’’

  The strike weapon was forged in the last century, when local industry was largely self-sufficient, and a strike was often the only way of bringing grievances to attention. Today a strike should be a weapon of last resort—it is absurd to make thousands of workpeople in the motor factories lose wages because of a dispute in one firm that happens to make a vital component.

And it offers a solution:

  If power to call a strike were delegated to a Motor Industry Committee of the T.U.C., the strike would become the weapon of last resort that it ought to be. 

No doubt this would be an admirable solution for the capitalist class. One can imagine the inter-union strife that would go on between the smaller craft unions and the large unskilled unions, especially in the motor industry, before they even agreed that a strike was necessary, with the consequent delay and effect on the workers’ wages and conditions. And if the observations of some trade union leaders like Mr Carron of the A.E.U. are any guide one could visualise an attempt to outlaw strikes with the approval of the T.U.C.

Now, where does the E.T.U. fit into this? First, it must be made known that although they are the seventh largest union in the T.U.C., they have no representative on the T.U.C. General Council. This is the result of the block voting of the two great general unions, the Transport and General Workers and the General and Municipal Workers, ostensibly because of the ET.U.’s “Communism,” but probably also because of their militancy and the fact that they have not always been prepared to play ball with the T.U.C. on a number of vital issues. Notably among these were their criticisms of the wage freeze when the Labour Party was in power after the war.

This, we contend, is the type of activity that should be supported by the T.U.C., not the Guardian “Motor Industry Committee,” which would basically protect the interest of the motor industry section of the capitalist class.

But this is not all. The Guardian Editorial also said:

  The real sickness of the E.T.U. is not the conduct of elections but the fact that its President and General Secretary were members of a Party alien to everything that British trade unionism stands for, and if the pitiful rump of electricians who care enough about their union to vote in its elections want to have Communists as their officers they are entitled to their choice.

No doubt The Guardian would like to see officers hand-picked by "appointments," as operates in a number of other unions. No, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The electrical worker today is one of the highest basic paid workers in industry. On top of this, he is a key worker. No wonder the vast monolith of capitalism, with its interdependence of workers, is worried about the E.T.U. So long as a trade union acts in the interest of its members it is fulfilling its proper function on the industrial field.

Perhaps the last word can be given to the Financial Times, which had this to say about the leadership of the E.T.U. (22/2/60):

  The leaders of the E.T.U. are clearly successful. They are able negotiators who drive a hard bargain, and they are not above uttering the occasional threat which everyone knows they will carry out.

In conclusion, we have this to say to trade unionists. Your right to strike has been bitterly fought for in the past: be careful that you protect it in the future, irrespective of the views of any newspaper or trade union leaders.

J. P. E.

Blogger's Note:

I'd bet one of my bitcoins that J.P.E. was Johnny Edmonds. Same initials and the connection with Electricians Union.

Socialism or Nationalisation (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

"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."

Nationalisation or Socialism?  (1/-)

Finance and Industry: The New Pound Note (1960)

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

The New Pound Note

Several newspapers have commented on the continuation in the new pound note of the meaningless words “Bank of England Promise to pay the Bearer on Demand the sum of one pound,’’ and have wondered why it has not been dropped. Not that it was always meaningless. When gold coins circulated as currency, before 1914, the promise meant, by law, that the holder of a £5 Bank of England note (there were no £1 notes) could demand gold coin for it over the bank counter. And that meant that the purchasing power of the note was always the same as that of the legally defined weight of gold contained in the coins. If the law had remained unchanged and if the promise still had meaning the holder of a pound note could demand from the Bank a sovereign, or gold pound, the present price of which in the gold market is over 60s.

The fall in the value of the note corresponds to the combined effect of the pound having been reduced from 4.86 American dollars to 2.8 dollars, and the gold content of the dollar having been reduced by nearly half in 1934; so that the pound note represents only about a third of the gold it represented in 1914. This has been brought about by the inflation of the currency. Yet all that the Radcliffe Committee on the Monetary System had to say in its report last year was:

  The authorities have explained to us in evidence that they do not regard the supply of bank notes as being the only, nor nowadays the only important, supply of money . . . bank notes are in effect the small change of the monetary system. (Para. 348.)

“Small change” is an odd term to apply to an increase in the note issue by about £1,670 million, from the £530 million of 1938 to the present £2,200 million.

And when the Committee added that “the government’s function in issuing notes is simply the passive one of ensuring that sufficient notes are available for the practical convenience of the public,” they might have recalled that historically every government that has helped to pay its way by the printing press has made the same plea and disowned responsibility for the effect in raising prices.

Cinema Tax

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the abolition of the cinema tax the Cinematograph Exhibitor’s Association said there was no chance of a reduction in seat prices “because it had always been part of the industry’s case in pressing for abolition that it needed the money.” (The Guardian, 5/4/60.)

Apparently the tobacco firms also “need the money” because they are putting up prices by the amount of the extra 2d. duty on 20 cigarettes.

Angry newspaper readers have written many letters of protest at the “unfairness” of it all.

In fact, the eventual outcome will not depend on what the interests think they need, but on what they can get away with; the economists call it “what the market will bear.” If competition is keen enough they will all have second thoughts.

The taxation experts who advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer look at it differently. If an industry is doing very well there is room for the government to skim off some of their excess profit. That was the situation in 1916 when entertainment duty was first levied. Now that the industry has fallen on hard times, taxation revenue declines and the point could be reached that it would be hardly worth the expense of collection.

More about Russian Gold

The Guardian (8/4/60) published an informative article by Mr. Victor Zorza reviewing developments in the Russian gold-mining industry since the changeover from dependence on the compulsory labour of political and other prisoners to the growing introduction of workers attracted by prospects of higher wages and a share in their finds. Some former prisoners have been freed though still confined to the gold mine areas. He quotes estimates by non-Russian “experts” ranging from an output almost equal to South Africa’s to a figure about half that amount and expresses the opinion that output must have fallen greatly with the decline of prison labour, though the introduction of up-to-date industrial techniques of mining may be expected to raise it again. His own view is that Russia may not possess the big gold reserves sometimes assumed to exist, and that the big sales of Russian gold in world markets in recent years may be not far below total output.

Fifty years ago under the Czar’s government gold prospectors instead of selling the gold to the government at the fixed price often smuggled it into Japan where they got the much higher world price. Things have not changed. Prospectors are still supposed to sell to the government, but Zorza reproduces from the Russian press accounts of gold mine prospectors of today smuggling the gold out of Siberia to Moscow and making a handsome gain. One miner awaiting trial is alleged to have got away with half a ton, worth over £200,000 in the world market. And just to remind us of the similarities of Capitalism east and west of the Iron Curtain the same issue of The Guardian publishes news of one of the series of cases from Pakistan of people (including airline stewards) charged with smuggling gold across the frontier.

By-Product of Automation

Automation, because it involves huge expenditure on expensive plant, gives the employers an additional motive for going over to shift working, so that the plant is not lying idle for a large part of the 24 hours. The T.U.C. report Automation and the Trade Unions noted this: — 

  “In order to obtain the greatest possible use of expensive plant and equipment, it is not unlikely that the growth of automation will be accompanied by efforts to extend shift working.”

For many years trade unions tried to resist shift and night work and nobody can pretend that from the workers' standpoint it is not a worsening of conditions. The March issue of the T.U.C. monthly, Labour, summarises a report on the problems that arise when shift work is introduced:

  Domestic life of the family is suddenly upset; feeding and sleeping arrangements are disturbed and leisure time curtailed. The strain on a wife in such circumstances is “considerable,” says the report, particularly if a shift rota system involves a succession of changes.

Along with the difficulty of the workers trying to sleep in the daytime in a noisy home, there is the problem of getting meals at awkward hours and the problem of finding transport to and from work.

One of the attractions of automation noted by the government booklet Automation in Perspective is that ”automation lowers cost and can help to keep British goods competitive in price with those of other countries’’—and the other countries will of course be doing the same in order to keep competitive with British prices. As far as the extension of shift working is concerned it introduces a new concept of capitalist society, living worse to keep down with the foreign Joneses.

Edgar Hardcastle

50 Years Ago: The German Social Democratic Party (1960)

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

The Social Democratic Party in Germany occupies a similar position to the party similarly named here. Its programme (the Erfurter Programme) 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 S.D.P. has been spent in the advocacy of those reforms, to the detriment of Socialist propaganda. In the early days of our Party we held the erroneous view . . . that the German workers must obtain certain reforms because the revolution from feudalism to Capitalism was not complete. But we found that conditions there make a Socialist Party quite as possible as here.

From the
 Socialist Standard, May, 1910.

The German Social Democratic Party, reformed after the collapse of the Hitler regime, recently adopted a new programme from which the theoretical link with Marxism and also the commitment to wholesale nationalisation has been dropped.

Schlock, Payola and Gyp Sellers (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

We live in stirring times. Rockets landing on the moon, bigger and more powerful weapons to ensure peace, and scientifically minded and humane world leaders prepared to use these weapons if peace is no longer possible. Capitalist civilisation in the mid-twentieth century has certainly produced a unique morality and given us poor ignorant workers a set of social values very difficult to live down to.

Consider the advertising profession. Is it not one of the most typical of capitalism’s great institutions, and also one of the most necessary processes between the raw material and the commodity we consume? If there was no advertising, how would we know that our very life depended on our using pink toothpaste? In fact, without advertising, how would we know what to eat, drink, wear, inject, smoke, etc.? We would be completely lost.

But now, of course, we have Commercial Television, and can therefore learn all these vital facts while sitting in a state of complete mental relaxation (or even stupor) in a darkened room before the Magic Screen. It puzzles us considerably how our forefathers existed without television, and yet they seemed to bumble along somehow.

Recent investigations show, however, that television is nowadays assuming its rightful place in the home. A survey of 200 homes in a town in Northern England revealed that three homes had bathtubs, six had hot water, four had their own toilets, but 125 had television sets!

Time magazine of 9/11/59 quotes Mr. Walter Lippmann (a famous American critic) as saying that the U.S. laissez-faire policy has turned TV into "the creature, the servant, and indeed the prostitute, of merchandising.”

Mr. Lippmann’s strong words were uttered following disclosures that certain American TV quiz programmes were “fixed." As is only right and proper when a National God is in danger, a minister of religion (and also a participant in the quiz shows) girded his loins and defended his God (Time, 16/11/59). “Most of us have a great deal of larceny in us," drawled the Rev. Charles ("Stony") Jackson of Tullahoma, Tenn. "The fact that I am an ordained minister does not make me a saint.”

If a licensed representative of the Almighty can fall into temptation, is it any wonder that lesser mortals (including children) were persuaded to collaborate in the deceptions of the quiz shows? The same edition of Time reports that “. . . of 150 quiz witnesses who appeared before the New York County grand jury and swore before God (or on their affirmations) to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no less than 100, said District Attorney Frank Hogan, had lied.. . .” Obviously these upright, honest, American citizens had been well trained by their contact with the elevating atmosphere of Commercial Television, which in turn draws inspiration from the worthy sponsors of its programmes.

A former advertising chief of one firm involved in the “fixed quiz show” saga neatly summed up the whole subject when he thought that producers “ were living between the mixed values of show business and advertising, and moral values were lost sight of ” (Time, same issue).

"Moral values” notwithstanding, it is plain that, under the beneficent influence of this great “free enterprise" system of ours, the marketer of commodity A must employ ail means (fair or foul) to beat the marketer of commodity B to the lion’s share of the market. One of the means he employs is to purchase the talents, the "integrity,” the showing time, etc., of TV networks, which, in turn employ all means (fair or foul) to attract audiences for their programmes.

These recent disclosures of some of the mystical practices and rituals of commercial television have been said to "tarnish" that great institution’s "Image." it is all rather as if someone had testified that the Virgin Mary was not really a virgin at all, and that the "miracle cures 'at Lourdes were faked.

Payola

"Everybody has become so suspicious that if you say ‘Oh, my God!’ on television, people think you're being paid off by the Holy Father." (Famous actor quoted in Time, 23/9/59.) Now actors, like other workers, must live. They must pay their agents and their psychiatrists, pay off their former wives, eat, etc. And, to help make both ends meet, it is only natural for them to look out for some “perks’’—such as the rewards they get for mentioning brand names of commodities (or even making indirect references to such commodities) on television programmes. For instance, one famous comedian said, "Look, Mom, no cavities! ” (the slogan ot a certain brand of toothpaste) on a TV show, and another comedian greeted a guest star with, "What’s this you're wearing—My Sin? ’’ This "plug" was reported to have resulted in "payola" to the tune of $1,000.

If it were not for those gentlemen (called "disk jockeys") who play gramophone records on radio and television, how many of us would ever hear or remember the folk music of our day which emanates from such inspired sources as Archer Street in London? Fortunately for us, these wise men are quick to spot the very best records and then see to it that we hear them over the air at frequent intervals. For the record industry is a thriving one, and record companies will pay a lot of money to sell us excellent records of, say, the amatory aspirations of pre-pubertal boys.

No doubt our readers will by now appreciate that disk-jockeys only tend to “ride” (i.e., ‘plug”) these winning records if they are offered some inducement. Some may consider that the mere playing of these musical treasures would be reward enough, but we regret to state that many disk-jockeys in America have been discovered to have accepted monetary rewards or expensive presents. Some of the more influential disk jockeys have financial interests in record companies and even singers; this may possibly also influence their choice of records.

The latest development in this interesting chapter of honesty and “morality” in American show-business is the emergence of a specialised type of “payola" —to wit, “girl payola” American record companies were recently reported to have shipped two aircraft loads of girls to "entertain" disk-jockeys attending a conference in Miami; doubtless the record companies hoped that, inspired by the love of a good woman, a disk-jockey would oblige by playing (repeatedly) the “right” record on his show after the tiring conference was over. Could business ethics and “morality” be better exemplified?

Despite McCarthy-like government investigations most people involved in the “music business” in America would prefer to retain the status quo, “payola" and all. As Time reports: “The last thing most people in this industry want is to clean it up,” admitted one musician, “ It’s too lucrative for too many people.”

Gypping the Sucker

Thanks to the benign influence of modern commercial television, the fairground quack, the huckster, and the pavement confidence-trickster, have been incorporated in those intellectual offerings of the Silver Screen—the “commercials.” American TV audiences have been so saturated with their high-pressure brand of “commercials” that a special device (called a “blab-off” switch), by which the exhortations of the peddler of a commodity may be summarily silenced, is in great demand. The sale of these “blab-off” switches is much deprecated by the sponsors.

But we digress. Despite apparent differences, the fairground huckster and the TV "commercial" are fundamentally similar: there must be, in both cases, the capitalist duality of seller and buyer. As the chairman of the American Federal Trade Commission investigating alleged dishonesty in advertising methods stated (Time, 4/1/60): "In the blunt language of the street . . . the gyp seller depends on the sucker buyer and can't exist without him." Thus the "gyp seller" and the "sucker buyer" take their place alongside other classical dualities—Holmes and Watson, Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, and capitalist and worker.

Here are some interesting little deceptions practised by American TV "commercials":

 Sticking food particles to a plate before putting it in a dishpan to demonstrate the inferiority of a competitor’s detergent.

  Lacing breakfast cereal with ice cream so that child models will smile with delight at being served the advertiser’s particular brand. 

  Saturating a sponge with a powerful bleach to prove how one cleanser leaves a stained sink sparkling white, while competing brands leave black smudges.

  Filling a coffee pot with hot wine because real coffee tends to photograph like crankcase sludge.

   Icing a bake-it-yourself cake with shaving cream because real icing melts under hot floodlights.

(Time, 4/1/60.)

Even responsible executives in the American advertising hierarchy feel that deception in advertising methods would be difficult to eradicate. Said one (Time, 4/1/60): “Dishonest advertising is here. It is real. And whatever the percentage, the amount is large and is not diminishing.” The same outspoken executive went on to ask: “How can four different cigarettes all be lowest in nicotine, lowest in tars; how can three different headache remedies all work fastest? ” He has us there.

One of the most important principles of our private property society is “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” Members or representatives of the owning class pay large sums of money in attempts to capture the market from their rivals, and are not greatly concerned about the methods employed. In other words, the end justifies the means; a philosophy which must inevitably lead to trickery, dishonesty and cynicism.

Those who support the private property system would no doubt argue that advertising, “commercial” TV, “show business" (in. short, the topics we have discussed here) are examples of “freedom,” “democracy," and “incentive" — alleged hallmarks of capitalism.

Socialists would rather argue that capitalism, with its inexorable drive for expanding markets and more profits, is forced to foster cheating, sham values, artificial desires, and inequality (both political and economic), in its blind drive to its goal—the sale of the commodity.

This thumb-nail sketch of the kind of world capitalism has made, with its own peculiarly twisted type of "morality," may help to show why ordinary workers, who would normally never dream of cheating at a card game with friends, are drawn into the sordid deceits of “phoney” quiz shows. It is of particular interest to Socialists because the deceits and trickery of the advertising business are only reflections of much larger deceptions—those of the apologists, politicians, and spokesmen of capitalism. Perhaps by aiming our Socialist dart at one target, we may hit both. '

Michael La Touche

A Man’s Eye View of Evolution (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is no longer a moot, question or a matter of opinion whether the theory of organic evolution (Darwinism) is valid or not. The science editor of Saturday Review, John Lear, in a special Darwin issue (14/11/59) says:

 . . . the irrefutable evidence (proves) that living things—from invisible microbes to man—slowly acquired their present dimensions, properties and functions (including consciousness) under such analyzable natural law as variations and natural selection.

This general acceptance of Darwin's epoch-making contribution underlies the widespread celebration of the 100th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species. There is hardly a popular journal that has not had a special issue devoted to Darwinism.

It is especially significant that Darwinism has uprooted religious superstitions. In spite of the appearances of religious growth and persistence, hardly any one is any longer religious in his own daily spheres of activities. Apologists usually qualify their defence of religion with statements that transform their “convictions" into statements of ethics and morals. A case in point is no less an authority than Samuel Miller, Dean of the Harvard Divinity School, who wrote in a featured article, devoted to Darwinism, in the Saturday Review (14/11/59);

  The whole imaginative structure of Christian truth, elaborated in myth and symbol, for the most part has crumbled under the impact of the last three centuries of revolutionary thought, scientific methods, and historical studies. The vision of reality articulated in this great Biblical formulary has evaporated and no longer serves as the frame of reference for elucidating the mysteries of being human . . . We have reached a new maturity of freedom from superstition and credulity.

And John Lear (referred to above) goes a step further:

  Our now misplaced supernaturalism. slightly mitigated, but persisting into the new Age of Science, has left our social and political leadership unprepared to define accurately our present problems. 

We find the key for the understanding of biological evolution in Darwinism, which deals with the evolution of biological organs in particular, the evolution of animal organs transmitted through heredity. Marxism may be summarized as the study of the social evolution of human tools (the deliberate planning and making of things to be used by man) as a substitute for animal organs. Progress of man may be seen in his ever-increasing mastery over nature, traced through the evolution of his material conditions of existence.

Both Darwinism and Marxism have the same purpose of explaining the processes enabling living beings to ensure their food and life.

Darwinism shows why those animals best adapted survive in the struggle for life and transplant their more suitable qualities on to their progeny. What is selected and transplanted is their equipment—their organs. These organs are part of the body and are subject to biological laws of heredity and variation.

Marxism, in its examination of man’s evolution, is the study of tools, outside the body. Man’s struggle for existence is carried on with tools. Its evolution is a social phenomenon and not a biological one. Man is not limited by biological restrictions as is the rest of the animal kingdom. Man is not limited to specific modes of life or natural environments. With the aid of tools he adapts himself to varying climates and changing conditions. Whilst his bodily equipment essentially has not changed for tens of thousands of years, his “artificial organs” (tools) have enabled him to adapt to constant and rapid changes. (It might be said that man, with his knowledge of biological laws, is bringing to a close the biological evolution of the previous billions of years. Truly, man is on the verge of becoming master over his own destiny.)

Materialism

The reason why the Marxists of 1859 were among the very first to hail Darwinism was the realization of a landmark in corroborating the validity of the materialist attitude that there are physical-material explanations for all phenomena and that everything is interrelated and in a constant process of motion and change. Modern science is becoming aware that there is neither dualism (the concept of the universe being two-fold, the spirit world and the material world) nor design in nature and that it is monist (the concept that all existence is an interrelated whole with no independent parts).

Coupled together, Darwinism and Marxism were powerful blows against superstition and led the way to the realization of the evolution of existence. Who would deny, today, that there was a time when there were no men or even living organism? Anyone aware of geological truths would not dispute that there was a time without the existence of the earth. Less understood is that there was a time without astronomy and without mass (matter in the form of particles). What more appropriate occasion to point out the spreading recognition of evolutionary processes in all phases of infinite existence than in these comments dealing with Darwinism and Marxism.

We next proceed to the ambitious task of correlating the multitude of scientific explorations and contributions into a unified outlook on science, as an interrelated whole, establishing the patterns of evolutionary processes that bring us up to the present.

Let us summarize a man’s eye view of the evolution of existence in light of today’s science. It is a summary of processes and not mechanisms. It is concerned with generalizations and not specific details. Both Darwinism and Marxism are on sound grounds in their generalizations of processes, yet history may and does reveal errors in their specific details and applications.

All existence may be classified into five major stages: Matter, Astronomy, Geology, Biology and Sociology.

By its very nature, existence is never at rest, it is in a constant process of motion resulting in a parade of changes. The further one goes back, the simpler, more widespread and longer-enduring are the stages. In the evolutionary process, each succeeding progression emerging out of its antecedents becomes more complex and less widespread. Each later stage is but a particular phase of the preceding larger general stage of evolution.

The all-encompassing generalization of all existence is matter, from which rose astronomy. Eventually, geology—the child of astronomy—appeared on the scene, one of its consequences being biology, from which sprang sociology.

The above description of motion and change also applies within the development of each of these great generalized stages of existence, as well.

In a word, we are tracing, here, the evolution of existence from its simpler and earlier form as energy to its latest and most complex form as capitalism.

All existence consists of matter. Matter is not confined to mass, however (things that are tangible and occupy space). Energy is also matter. The very strides in atomic physics are the visible demonstration that both energy and mass are forms of matter—are material. The famous Einstein formula (Energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light) speeded up the actual conversion by man of tangible mass into intangible energy (NOT the release of energy already stored up in mass, such as the heat energy in coal). Likewise, intangible energy can be converted to mass.

The earliest and most abundant phenomenon of existence that we are aware of is energy. [1]

Over countless eons of time, eventually, a single positively-charged proton became the nucleus around which a single, negatively-charged electron revolved. This object was both a form of energy and a form of mass. It is hydrogen, the simplest and the most plentiful (over 99 per cent.) of all the mass in existence.

Evolution can be visualized in the atomic scale which lists elements by the quantities of electrons in their atoms. Elements start with hydrogen (one electron), the first element, then helium (two electrons), all the way up to uranium and the man-made elements.

Eventually, elements combined into molecules. The earliest molecules were gasses, later liquids and the highest form of mass is solids; each form of mass is distinguished from the other by the speed and distance of their electrons in their orbits and also by their organisation within the molecule.

The evolution of matter is from its simplest form as energy to its most complex form as solids.

The embryo of astronomy was nurtured in the evolution of energy into mass. Not until the particle, hydrogen atom, appeared did space come into existence. Space is a relationship of mass, it has no meaning, otherwise.

Evolution in astronomy is traced by densities; the earlier stages being less dense and the higher stages being relatively dense. The most rarified aspect of astronomy is intergalactic space. The space between galaxies constitutes over 99 per cent. of all astronomical existence and illustrates how relatively insignificant is the amount of mass in the cosmos. The density of intergalactic space is estimated to be one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. Man has been unable to even come close to this sort of a vacuum in the laboratory. The next higher stage in astronomy is interstellar space, which consists of one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter. Then arose planetary nebulae with thousands of hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter and which is quite a vacuum on its own merits. The next higher development in astronomy is stellar atmosphere with its millions of hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter. Finally, came the stars and, in particular, our own star, the sun.

Our vast solar system, with its fantastic distances, is like a small pebble near the outer edge of the Milky Way, our own galaxy. Our sun is but one of billions of suns in the Milky Way. All these stars, put together, are dwarfed into a tiny fragment of the area of our galaxy. Then, there are groups of galaxies forming an astronomical system known as a cluster. Sometimes, these clusters are called universes (the term, “universe” is also used to refer to both a galaxy and the cosmos). There are billions of clusters each with billions of galaxies. And all, clusters and galaxies, revolve around a centre and have orbits. The term, cosmos, usually refers to the entirety of astronomical phenomena.

Isaac Rab

(WSPUS)

(To be concluded next month)

[1] We have no information about evolution within energy but we do know that the properties of energy are related to their frequencies.

From the Branches (1960)

Party News from the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist Standard

It is good news indeed that the March issue of the Standard was sold out. The Comrades responsible for distribution and sales were able to plan ahead, noting various meetings and demonstrations being held and with good support from Comrades, successfully disposed of the whole issue. This is good news indeed and augers well for the summer outdoor propaganda season. The aim should be buy more from the printer and sell more to the people who need to learn about Socialism.

* * *

Outdoor Propaganda commenced in April and should be in full swing by May and the remainder of the summer. Details of meeting spots are given on the meetings page and Comrades are urged to note the times and places and support all the meetings at all times.

* * *

Islington

Islington Branch is holding a lecture—The Socialist Party—on Thursday, May 12th, at 7.45 p.m. Comrade C. Michael is the speaker and the meeting place, Co-op. Hall, 129, Seven Sisters Road, N.7 (near Finsbury Park Tube Station).

* * *

North West Kent

Will any readers in the Bexleyheath, Crayford, Dartford, Erith, Gravesend and Welling areas of North West Kent interested in the formation of a discussion group, communicate with H, J. Wilson, 7 Cyril Road, Bexleyheath, Kent (phone Bexleyheath 19S0).

Bristol

The Party platform will be on Durdham Downs every Sunday during the summer. First meeting, Sunday, May 1st. Comrades and sympathisers in the district are asked to support these meetings. The Downs are ideal for outdoor meetings and as proved in the past—very successful meetings have been held.

Phyllis Howard

The Passing Show: South African Revolution (1960)

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

South African Revolution

The recent events in South Africa have made starkly clear the real nature of the conflict there. The entire capitalist world, Governments and press, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, has denounced the measures taken by the present ruling class in South Africa to bolster its position. The Nationalist newspaper Die Burger, the organ of the ruling landowners and farmers, admitted that staid Conservative British papers like The Times and the Daily Telegraph had been “practically hysterical in their vehemence.” The Times, indeed, went so far as to say in its leading article of April 6th, that it was sixteen days “since the revolution began in South Africa.” 

After the Sharpeville massacre it was announced that the pass laws would not be enforced for the time being. This was an astonishing concession for the ruling landowners' class to make to the capitalists. It showed how much the landowners had been shaken, for the pass laws are the cornerstone of the society built by the landed interests. The aim of these laws is to keep Africans in the country, where they must work on the white men's farms in order to live, and to prevent them coming to the towns, where they could obtain higher pay in the capitalists' factories. If despite the pass laws they come to the towns, they are arrested—in numbers running to hundreds of thousands each year—and sent back in convict gangs to labour on the farms for a mere pittance. The news that the pass laws had been suspended was a tonic to the South African capitalist class: the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, which had slumped at the news from Sharpeville, recovered some of its losses. Then came the announcement that the pass, laws would be reimposed: again share prices fell. And the South African Federated Chamber of Industries was reported to be seeking a meeting with Dr. Verwoerd to urge some modification in his policies.

The question now in South Africa is this: how long will the growing capitalist class allow the landed interests to continue ruling the country?

Calvinism

Christians are sometimes harder on their fellow-Christians than many materialists would be. For example, when on April 8th the House of Commons was discussing the open police brutality against Africans in the streets of South African cities, Sir Godfrey Nicholson (the Conservative member for Farnham) said the situation was partly due to the Afrikaners' “background of a rigid Calvinistic creed." This is a case of putting the cart before the horse. Many other peoples in the world share the Afrikaners' Calvinism, but not being in the same economic position, have no sympathy with the South African landowners’ apartheid. The Afrikaners' “Dutch Reformed Church” originated in Holland, whose inhabitants are also closely related to the Afrikaners. But far from sharing the Afrikaners’ beliefs, the Dutch leaders go out of their way to criticise apartheid. The Calvinist Scots Presbyterian Church has long attacked the white farmers’ policies in both South Africa and the Rhodesian Federation. No, religious beliefs do not determine political views. Both of them are, in the long run, expressions of the economic and material position in which a particular class finds itself.

Sailing before the wind

The Readers' Digest, which claims a world circulation of over twenty million copies, is one of the most accurate indicators of the current policies of the American ruling class. During the war it was full of articles showing how bestial the Germans and—even more the Japanese were. As soon as the war was over, and it became clear that in the next war the United States' enemy might well be Russia, with West Germany and Japan lining up as America's allies, the content of the articles shifted abruptly. Now it was the bestiality of the Russians which was written about; references to Germany and Japan became friendly. The editors even went so far as to print articles about the heroic deeds of German and Japanese soldiers in the Second World War.

Rome

But besides Germany and Japan, the United States also fixed on the Catholic Church as a useful ally against Russia. References in the Readers Digest to Roman Catholicism therefore became friendly. The fact that the Catholic Church is hand in glove with Fascism in Franco Spain, and supports at least one South American state (Colombia) where Protestants are harried mercilessly, was ignored. In the March, 1960, issue there is an article on “Good Pope John,” in which the writer talks about the “warm humanity, irrepressible humour and amiable wisdom” of the Pope with all the starry-eyed enthusiasm of a twelve-year-old girl listening to Cliff Richard. Still, that’s not surprising. If America’s alleged “defence of democracy” can be stretched to include military and other assistance to the Fascist Franco, it can't be too much of a strain to take in Franco’s friend as well

The nearly royal family

The news (in the Daily Express, 31/3/60) that at the forthcoming royal wedding there may be present not only Mr. Armstrong-Jones’ father and mother, but also his mother's present husband, his father’s present wife, and his father's other previous wife—the five of them all coming roughly under the heading of “the bridegroom's parents"—reminds one of the extent to which the divorce courts are patronised by the ruling class. The American millionaire Tommy Manville, who has had ten wives (or is it eleven now?) is exceptional, but the difference is not a matter of principle: it's only a question of how often the principle has been applied. Cases of husbands with three or four successive wives, or wives with three or four successive husbands, are not uncommon, as anyone who glances through the gossip columns can testify. Monogamy, at least in the upper class, now appears to have been replaced by this successive polygamy, at it were. The whole subject is worth careful study by anyone who claims to understand the workings of modern society.

Alwyn Edgar

News in Review: Sharpeville (1960)

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

Sharpeville

Recent events in South Africa, which began with the shootings at Sharpeville, have brought condemnation of Dr. Verwoerd and the Nationalist Government’s policy of apartheid from the press all over the world. The absenteeism of Africans from their work for many days afterwards caused great inconvenience to the Europeans, but, more important, it has cost South African capitalists millions of pounds in lost output. Even the Chairman of the Wool Board, representing an industry dominated by Afrikaans-speaking pro-Nationalist farmers, said the Government must change its policies ". . . or else.”

The opposition (United Party) want to see a complete review of the Governments’ policy towards the Afrikans as soon as the situation simmers down, and 12 “Elders” of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa have spoken out against apartheid, saying there is no justification for it in the Scriptures, as Dr. Verwoerd claims. It seems that even sections of this Church are awakening to the fact that changes are taking place, and that apartheid is an anachronism in a developing capitalist country. But the Nationalists’ desire to keep their cheap supply of labour mainly in the country districts is, at the moment, still dominant.

Budget Bunkum

Budget days have become couched in an atmosphere of somewhat phoney excitement. Television interviews, together with the speculations of City Editors and other commentators, regularly assist in bringing matters to a climax. Workers participate in the Budget as an issue, making their own proposals as to what should be done, and, in general, becoming keyed to expectations of the Chancellor’s "miracles.” Mostly, they hope for startling reductions in prices. The details of the Budget itself are usually sobering, if not downright depressing; twopence on the price of cigarettes is an example.

The Budget is not a working class issue. Its proposals are irrelevant to workers’ interests. This is an employers’ world, and the Budget regulates their state finances. Those workers who do view the Budget with excited enthusiasm are allowing themselves to be diverted from the real issue.

H-Bomb Manoeuvres

Russia’s acceptance, with some small reservations, of a new American proposal to ban H-bomb tests, seems to have come as a surprise to the U.S. Government. Previously, each side had been making outlandish proposals to the other, confidently expecting disagreement. This new development leaves us wondering how the U.S. Government is going to wriggle out of it. Already the papers are referring to the Soviet agreement to the U.S. proposal as "the latest Soviet proposal.”

With Russia still ahead in technical development of nuclear weapons, one can understand the dilemma of the U.S. Government They are very reluctant to halt the production and testing of their own nuclear weapons, but they must put up a show of willingness to do so, to maintain their prestige in the eyes of the workers whom they pretend to represent and whose support they need. Krushchev, on the other hand, is in a favourable position for accepting American proposals at this stage. He knows that it is a technical possibility for him to blow us all to Kingdom-come at the drop of a hat. When we find out what Eisenhower and Macmillan decided to oppose at Geneva, Krushchev will earn himself another pat on the back from the working class of Russia by telling them how hard he tried. The working class, whose fate hangs in the balance between the decisions made by their leaders, will probably be taken in once again by these political manoeuvres.

More Disarmament Talks

The opening of the ten-nation disarmament conference in Geneva on March 15th signifies that this has now been accepted as an issue with little sign or hope of solution. This conference, which has been set up by the United Nations Organisation, is concerned only with how disarmament could be effected, if the nations did decide to disarm. But as this is, to say the least, unlikely, the conference appears as a sop to the more naive among us who believe that in a competitive world you can have hostile nations without armaments.

Other organisations, more moderate in their aims, seek disarmament of nuclear weapons only. C.N.D. is organised for this purpose and claims considerable support for it. We are glad that amid so much indifference a body of opinion emerges that is so moved by the horror of the possible use of these weapons that it is prepared to take a stand against their manufacture. But we are sorry that their repugnance does not extend to other forms of destruction. How, we ask, can their concern for humanity begin and end with nuclear weapons?

What a pity that they do not ask themselves why such weapons are necessary for capitalist countries, and, indeed, ask themselves whether they do not in fact support the vile system that makes them necessary?

You may be sure that the representatives of the conferring nations at Geneva are under no illusion why their countries cannot do the thing that they are ostensibly conferring to bring about. Which country is prepared to surrender its sovereignty to another, or prepared to be unprepared for an attack from another?

Since Mr. Krushchev made his disarmament speech at UNO last November, the West has been at pains to convince the world that they desire this as much and more than Russia. Each side at the conference has its own plan and sees the others as giving its sponsors certain military and tactical advantages. It seems that they arc prepared to manoeuvre indefinitely. It has been reported that the U.S. delegation is prepared to stay at least a year!

And after all this, who would be brave enough to forecast any better fate for the Conference than for all its predecessors?

Oil Heaters

Oil heaters have been under attack, and it is estimated that of the ten million in use at least three million fall short of die minimum safety requirements. The conclusion seems to be that the heaters are safe providing the doors and windows are closed, but could cause serious fires in strong draughts. To overcome this danger M.P.s and newspapers have pressed for a recall of all these heaters with a view to their being modified up to the necessary safety standard.

John Horner, the leader of the Fire Brigades' Union, has demanded that new safety standards be made binding. He went on to say, “ All my members know the difference between what is safe and what is dangerous, it is not only their job, it’s simple common sense.” But would it not be more sensible to ask why houses have draughts in the first place? Is there any lack of the ability to build “draught-proof” homes? A visit to the Ideal Home Exhibition would give the answer. There is a wide choice of architect-designed houses—for those who can afford them. If the criterion for building homes today was the maximum comfort of their future inhabitants, surely the progress made in heating and ventilation would render obsolete most of the makeshift heating appliances—or should we now say “death-traps”— cluttering up so many homes today.

Let’s stop making excuses for the many cheap and ill-designed articles which find their way into equally ill-designed homes.

A Victim of the Nightmare

Verwoerd has been for years a leading exponent of Apartheid. He is (or was) an anti-semite, and was instrumental in preventing the entry of Jewish refugees from Germany before the war. He was a staunch supporter of Nazism, was minister for Native Affairs for eight years before succeeding Strijdom as Prime Minister. He has played, a leading part in creating the nightmare that is South African politics today. He has now become a victim of this nightmare, a savage irony indeed.

The Saracens

Military observers in South Africa were puzzled at the purchase of the “Saracens” at a reported cost of £15,000 each. They could not at that time see the usefulness of such a heavy weapon. They have now found out.

The Tragedy of South Africa (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Of the total population of South Africa (estimated in 1958 at a little over 14¼  millions) the Africans numbered about 9¼  millions, the Europeans 3 millions, the Coloureds almost 1½ millions, and the Asiatics (mainly Indians) something like half-a-million. Such ingredients are more than enough to make a rare “devils brew” of race prejudice and discrimination.

The Whites are, of course, only a minority of the population and the whole coercive power of the State, whether expressed in discriminatory laws or in actual armed repression, is directed to preserve the supremacy of this minority. The White man in South Africa is not only afraid of the economic competition of 'the African: he is even more afraid that one day, perhaps, he will be thrown out of the country altogether.

In South Africa, segregation is the rule. Apart from the segregation which exists in the towns in the form of “Black Belts,” to which the Africans are severely confined under penalty of the law, millions of Africans are kept on the rural Reserves where they derive a miserable living from the land, or are exploited as agricultural labourers by the White farmers. What most of the Whites would really like, in their heart of hearts, would be to, see the Africans kept out of the way altogether on Reserves. But there is one overriding factor which prevents this—the need, of South African industry for more and more African labour-power.

This labour power is in constant demand, particularly in the gold and diamond mines which are the foundation of the country’s industrial economy. In spite of all the White man's dreams of complete segregation, large numbers of African workers are constantly on the move between the towns and the Reserves and the White farms. Even before the War this demand for cheap labour-power was becoming so acute that considerable numbers of African workers were recruited from neighbouring territories, including Portuguese East Africa. In such ways does economic necessity triumph over racial discrimination and make nonsense of the White man’s talk about segregation.

Almost all these African workers are unskilled for the White workers monopolise the skilled jobs and jealously safeguard their privileges. As in the United States, so bad did economic conditions become in South Africa before the War that the Whites even began to infringe upon many of the so-called African occupations, but during the War things changed. Industry developed rapidly and the demand for skilled workers became acute, to such an extent that the White Trade Unions and the employers agreed that certain of the semi-skilled trades should be handed over to the Africans.

Africans are, nevertheless, precluded from membership of the White Unions and have been compelled to form their own. These Unions are not registered and are technically illegal organisations. Every difficulty is put in their way, their bargaining power is small, and it is not surprising that as a result the average wages of White workers far exceed those earned by Africans. On the Reserves the position is even worse, for although the Africans own their own land and are nominally independent, the White employers rely on their abject poverty, reinforced by specially-aimed taxes, to force them off the Reserves and into industry. With this poverty, whether on the Reserves or in the towns, are to be found all the usual accompaniments— bad housing (bad is an understatement) and all that goes with it, overcrowding, lack of sanitation, disease and malnutrition, and a heavy mortality rate. Over all hang the humiliations, degredations, and cruelties of the Pass Laws.

So far as the Coloured people are concerned their economic conditions are little better than those of the Africans, and in the country their position is perhaps worse. They face particularly strong economic competition from the Africans and have also to compete against the lower-paid White worker. In general, their conditions economically have tended to become worse instead of better, and even the few privileges they once enjoyed in other ways—such as their voting rights in the Cape Province —have recently been taken away. In the other Provinces, of course, they never had any such rights to be taken from them.

The Asiatic part of the population are mainly the descendants of Indians originally brought into South Africa to work on the sugar plantations of Natal. Many have since found their way into other occupations, particularly as traders and independent farmers.

Asians

Unlike the Natives, they have shown a marked aptitude for business, have actively competed with the Europeans, and as a result have managed to acquire a considerable amount of land and property. Naturally, this has not pleased the European capitalists, and, to put a stop to this development, the Natal Housing Authority can now step in and purchase property in European areas rather than allow it to fall into the hands of non-Europeans (which means Indians).

We are not interested in such misfortunes, whether they be of European or Indian capitalists, but this does provide an excellent example of the manner in which race arguments are used purely and simply to bolster up economic interests. The Europeans in South Africa justify their treatment of the African on the grounds that he is backward, uncivilised, and intellectually incapable of reaching the same status of the White man. When it comes to dealing with the Indian, however, who can play the Europeans at their own game and make a success of it this argument is conveniently forgotten. They drop all pretence at theoretical justification, they cease to talk about White superiority, and proceed to have recourse to the law, exposing at the same time the fallacy and expediency of their racial arguments.

Race Prejudice

As far as the White population is concerned, most of their discrimination, however, is directed against the African. The White worker fears for his job and his privileged position, the White capitalist fears for his profits, and both together fear for their place in the country itself. In so far as the Indian encroaches upon their interests, either as capitalist or as wage-worker, to that extent they are also hostile towards him.

Towards the Coloured population the attitude is rather different. Although they do to a considerable extent discriminate against the Coloured group, the attitude of the Whites, at least until recently, is not nearly so hostile towards them as it is towards the two other groups, the Africans and Asiatics. In some industries, Coloured workers are allowed to join the White Trade Unions, and the general economic level of these particular workers is correspondingly higher than most of the others of their group. Segregation is not so marked against them as it is with Africans and Indians. Although, as is natural with all groups against which there is hostility, they tend to keep together, many of them do live in “White areas" without arousing violent antagonism.

The attitude of the Coloured people towards other groups is varied. Some of them arc apathetic about the whole question; others consider themselves superior to the Africans and Indians. There are some who wish to be independent of the Whites as well, from whom they once expected assistance and to whom they used to look for leadership and support. Recent events have no doubt tended to harden this attitude in them.

As for the Indians, discrimination against them has always been severe, and their encroachments upon the preserves of the Whiles are jealously watched. The Indians, in turn, have their own prejudices. Although more readily prepared to do business with the Africans than the Whites are, the Indians differ little in their prejudice towards them.

And what of the Africans themselves, the great oppressed majority? A few years ago, one would still have thought them an inert mass, too crushed by their grinding poverty and their struggle to keep alive to do anything other than accept everything as inevitable. But despite all the obstacles put in their way, they have not been slow to learn. Their tribal life has been broken up, they have been forced by one means or another into industry, they have become an essential part of South African capitalism, and they are ready for change.

What form will this change take? Will the African obtain for himself the elementary rights which other workers have had to struggle for in the past? Or will he be seized by that virulent nationalism which has already seized other parts of the continent and be carried on to other extreme paths? What of the Whites? Are they prepared to continue driving along a road the end of which can only be bloody violence and destruction? Nobody knows.

But two things we do know. One, that no group can permanently hold down another more numerous than itself. And the other, that the interests of all the workers of South Africa—African, White, Asiatic, and Coloured—are one. Until they realise that there will be no end to race-prejudice in South Africa.

Stan Hampson

The Magazine War (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Three million pounds is spent every day in this country by young unmarried people up to the age of 24. There are plenty of industries—cosmetics, clothing, and so on—which are eager to help them spend this money: the magazine publishers also are after their share. 

Young girls, for example, can choose from an increasingly wide range of picture papers with names—Roxy, Valentine and so on—which indicate that they are very different from the magazines which used to be read by young girls, full as they were of tuck-shops and winning goals scored at hockey. The raw material of these magazines is the weakest of love stories, sometimes— incredibly—involving a famous singer. Some of the strips are said to be inspired by the title of a song hit, although it is usually difficult to discern the connection. Pop singers are prominently featured, giving advice, reviewing records. All of which probably helps to sell the latest products of the recording companies. The characters in the strips have invulnerable morals. Every girl, like a piece in a jig-saw puzzle, must find her boy. Of course, there are obstacles, but love—innocent, chaste and eternal—solves everything in the last picture.

Who publishes this twaddle? On the one hand, Fleetway Publications Ltd. puts out Roxy, Valentine and Marilyn. On the other, Odhams Press Ltd. is responsible for Mirabelle, Date and Marty (named after a rock and roll singer). At the moment, Odhams are setting the pace; Mirabelle and Marty are glossy, with some of the stories told in photographs: Fleetway are trying to catch up with the saucy (and pricey) Honey which, like Date, was introduced last month. Of course, the magazines kick off with a free gift—Marty gave transfer portraits of current heart-throbs, which could be ironed on to a blouse or headscarf.

The picture romance magazines are a sideshow in the war between the two great publishing houses. Fleetway is the result of the Daily Mirror, in December. 1958, paying about £16 million for Amalgamated Press Ltd. (Womans Weekly, The Autocar, Marilyn), which had been owned by the Berry family. Odhams, which was already publishing Woman, John Bull, Picturegoer, etc., paid nearly £2 million in April, 1959, to absorb Hulton Press (Lilliput, Housewife) and a month later bought—for £12.7 million—their bitterest rival, George Newnes Ltd. Newnes had published Womans Own, Tit Bits and the Practical Householder, etc.; they also owned C. Arthur Pearson, Ltd., the publishers of Mirabelle. Odhams is now the largest of the magazine groups with an enormous printing works at Watford.

These two publishing giants are fighting for the fivepennies of the little girl who daydreams at her typewriter or the factory machine. Yet it is difficult to find anybody who will admit to both reading and enjoying the picture love books Here are two opinions:

17 year old: Well, they’re all the same. I don't like them, although 1 do read them. Some of my friends buy them every week and my little sister gets lots of them. I suppose they must like them or perhaps it's the pictures and transfers and things they give away.

18 year old: I just pick them up and read them and then I think, well, I don’t know—why did 1 read that? 1 mean, it never happens, does it? You get on a 'bus and look at a chap and he looks at you and oooh! Well, it never happens, does it? It's not what you find in them, it's girls about sixteen wishing they could find what's in them.

Nevertheless, Marilyn and Mirabelle, for example, each sell nearly 400,000 copies every week. Put this fact alongside the lament of a London librarian, a few years ago, that “Children of fourteen and fifteen seem to want only books written for five-year-olds. And the older teenagers hardly ever enter the public library at all.” It seems a rather depressing picture.

It is pointless to blame the youngsters alone. If a girl has a job like a copy typist or a sweet packer, she often needs about the same mental power to read one of the strip romances as she does to earn her living. And the frustration and boredom of it all means that she is receptive to the magazines which promise, as one does, “Hundreds of wonderful love scenes to make your eyes dreamy!"

There’s plenty of people to tell us that teenagers are a social problem, youngsters in difficulty over growing up. But capitalism has few tears to shed for them. For in truth they are a market, to be captured and exploited. No shareholder ever wept over that.

Ivan

Blue Streak (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

So the Government has decided to write off its new missile Blue Streak! It was so new that it was out of date before the project got under way. They never even had the chance to fire one.

Of course, it was said to be accurate and reliable. The only thing was, it was so heavy and cumbersome that the Russians could have dropped one of their missiles on every one before we could have counted down to forty minutes, let alone four.

When it first appeared in the Government Estimates they provided £6 million for it. By the time they came to scrap it the cost had risen to £120 million. And hardly anybody said a word. £120 million just like that—on nothing.

Yet only a few short days before we had seen the spectacle of a Chancellor of the Exchequer going into tortuous details to explain why he had been forced to put an extra 2d. tax on cigarettes to prevent the economy of the country going haywire.

Socialists talk about the absurdities of capitalism so much that the new ones, and they come along every day, fail to register. The mind ceases to take them in any more. But we have a suggestion to help you remember at least one. Every time you take a puff at that fag, swearing to give them up because you’re only paying for smoke, think of all the smoke that never came out of Blue Streak!

Come to that, looking at it another way, perhaps its just as well.

Stan Hampson

Mr. Macmillan's Worries (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Having floored them at the polls last October, the Tory Party, like any good wrestler, has managed to sit on Labour's head and twist its arms. The Brighouse by-election was a good victory for the Government. Can Mr. Macmillan, then, do nothing wrong? Must he go on winning elections, until everybody else gives up? It must be very irritating for the Labour Party, who can be expected to grasp at every straw that swirls past them in the waters of defeat.

What are these straws? Mr. Amory’s Budget revealed some dissension in the Tory ranks, for whilst Labour members were cheering the Chancellor, Lord Hinchingbrooke, Gerald Nabarro and others sat in glum disapproval. More, Mr. Nabarro forced a division in the Commons. This was probably considered to be a bit thick in the clubs. Hinchingbrooke could be excused, perhaps, but that chap Nabarro, with his big moustache and loud voice and his L.C.C. education—really, it is too much. Labour, of course, gloried in it, forgetting the days when their own critics of, for example, Bevin’s foreign policy, were so unpopular. These men—Zilliacus, Platts-Mills and the rest—were called not cads, but stabbers-in-the-back, fellow travellers, and so on, and were eventually expelled from the Party. Of course, any government dislikes a split amongst its parliamentary supporters, because unity makes it so much easier to push through the measures necessary to organise British capitalism. That is why Nabarro is considered such a bounder and why Labour’s Russophiles were dealt with so sharply.

The tragedy is that workers are often taken in by these squabbles. The points at issue—whether Britain should have been more friendly to Russia after the war, whether Mr. Amory’s Budget should include such high expenditure- are unimportant to workers' lives. The cause of our poverty—the class ownership of wealth—goes on, whether one year we pay twopence less for our beer and the next twopence more for our cigarettes.

Other worries

In any case, Mr. Macmillian has other things to worry about. This month, he must see through the conference of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and later he must attend the Summit meeting. Although the recent bloodletting in South Africa seems, in human interests, to demand some frank speaking, the statement which will come at the end of the Commonwealth conference will probably be as platitudinous as ever. Doubtless, it will touch on what is called the value of the Commonwealth. In fact, the real value of this organisation lies in the commercial ties between its members. These ties are judged on strictly economic terms. Australia, for example, found in recent years that post war inflation had decreased the value of some of the duty preferences which Great Britain allowed her. Letting the so-called Commonwealth spirit go by the board, she agitated for—and got—some alterations.

Mr. Iain Macleod, the Colonial Secretary, was near the mark when he addressed the recent annual meeting of the Glasgow Unionist Association. The Guardian's report of his speech said :

Mr. Macleod said that we did not go abroad to govern: we went abroad to trade. It wasn't really true that trade followed the flag. It would be more true to say that the flag followed trade. So, if we were wise we could stay in countries we once ruled as traders, farmers, planters, shippers, business men and engineers. (22/3/60.)

Naturally, Mr. Macleod was trying to put it in the most attractive nutshell he could find, but the fact is there—empires are built upon the capitalist need for trade and expansion, which makes the deaths of the Sharpeville Africans—and of the millions of others who have been killed in defence of their master’s empires—especially bitter.

Summit

At long last, having sorted out whether it is better for the premiers to decide what their foreign secretaries shall discuss, or vice versa, the Summit meeting is at hand. It is a depressing fact that these conferences do little to ensure the future peace of the world. Perhaps the most propitious time for a Summit conference was in the war-weary year of 1945. Then, if ever, the politicians could have talked peace. Instead, as usual, they got down to carving up the world between the victors, conceiving the disputes from which a future war could be born. They divided Berlin. They divided Korea. Either of these, during the last twelve years, might have caused a third world war. There is no point in moaning over this. These conferences are arranged so that the various capitalist powers can discuss the issues of economic advantage and military power which are so important to them. Nobody can reasonably expect a peaceful conclusion. Yet workers put their faith in them, hoping that the representative of their government, like a champion boxer, will come out on top.

Which brings us back to Mr. Macmillan. Can he crush the rebellion behind him? Ride out the criticism of his neutrality on Sharpeville, captivate the Summit talks? If he can, and if that boom keeps going, working class support for his Party will probably increase. But this could have a serious effect. In 1950, a survey of the Greenwich constituency pointed to the conclusion that, if electors there had voted in accordance with their opinions (on steel nationalisation, and so on) the Tories, and not—as actually happened—Labour would have won the seat. This conclusion was repealed by a similar survey in 1951 in North-east Bristol. How ironical—and how galling for Mr. Macmillan—if he was so successful that all his supporters voted Labour!

This is no joke. In this country and all over the world, political parties are grappling for the power to organise the affairs of their capitalist class. It is working class ignorance and indifference that votes for the slick leader and the dazzling promises. Ignorance and indifference give capitalism each new lease of life, to continue its vicious contradictions.

Ivan