The Race for Space: Rockets Galore (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was 9 a.m. on August 6th, that the Russians fired Major Titov into orbit. The spaceman himself seems to have enjoyed the trip in Vostock II. He even managed to eat three meals and sleep for eight of the 24 hours he was out in space.

Who can deny that the whole thing was an impressive achievement? Indeed, it stands out as yet another example of man’s technical ability and his power to acquire knowledge and apply it to solve the problems he faces. In the space race these must be formidable, yet such has been the fantastic advance in the last few years that Professor Sir Bernard Lovell of Jodrell Bank hardly turned a hair when told of the latest Russian achievement. “I am not a bit surprised,” he said. According to a spokesman at his observatory, the Professor holds the view that a manned flight to the moon is only about five years off and nobody laughs at him for thinking it. Yet it was not so long ago that the British Interplanetary Society talked with daring optimism of perhaps a 50 year wait.

But it is against a background of events here on earth that we must view the Soviet feat. While the Bank holiday crowds in Britain digested the news, and messages of congratulations were heaped on the beaming young astronaut, the Western diplomats and politicians were doubtless reflecting gloomily on this latest indication of Russian rocket mastery. It was just one more worry to add to their already splitting headache over Berlin.

Some British scientists have expressed, the opinion that Vostock II was one of a series of “in between” flights to bridge the gap between Major Gargarin’s single orbit and a manned lunar flight. It should not be regarded, they say, as just a prestige trip. Be that as it may, it has certainly been exploited to the full by Mr. Khrushchev and the propaganda organs of the Soviet ruling class, as a boost to Russian confidence. There is little doubt also that American prestige suffered a corresponding blow, although it remains to be seen to what extent, particularly among the newly rising capitalist states.

The Guardian of August 8th offers a crumb of comfort to the American rulers and tells them not to be downhearted.

“They have some new and powerful rocked corning into service in the next year or two; they may soon be the pacemakers again. If Vostock II was a military weapon, a twelve months start might be technically decisive. In the history of scientific exploration twelve months is the blinking of an eye.”

The last sentence is true enough, but how foolish it is to ignore the war-like potentialities of scientific study in a capitalist world. This neat little piece of “compartmentising” just does not face up to the unpleasant reality that there really is no such thing as research for “peaceful purposes” in private property society.

While Vostock II itself was not a war weapon, it does nevertheless point to the undoubted technical lead currently held by the Soviets, and the military significance of this will not be overlooked by the U.S. and her N.A.T.O. allies. We can all remember the fear expressed in some sections of the British press, when the Russians successfully fired their “Moon Probe” rocket, that it would be possible to set up a military base on the moon, from which a power would be able to bombard its earthly enemies in a future war.

Now, with Major Titov’s flight, similar fears have been given voice in the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Richard Russell, has warned that “… a satellite of this size could be utilized as a very dangerous weapon.” On the same day, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson confessed his admiration for the Soviet feat but “prayed that the arms race will not spread to outer space.”

But even ignoring this possibility, the sheer power of the present rockets and their accuracy as inter-continental missiles, give us all a glimpse of the terrifying prospect which we face if the cold war gets hotted up at any time. Mr. Krushchev has told us of Russian military might. When talking on August 7th about the Berlin crisis, he said :

“We are developing various rocket weapons, inter-continental ballistic rockets, of various range, strategic and tactical purpose, with atomic and hydrogen warheads. We also pay the necessary attention to other forms of military hardware.”

It was shortly after this that we heard of the Soviet 100-megaton bomb and his claim that there was a rocket to deliver it.

More specific was the Soviet Governent’s announcement of August 30th that they would resume nuclear testing and that “Titov-type” rockets could be used to carry their new super-powerful bombs to any part of the globe. An acceleration of the arms race can now be confidently expected and the space race is part of it.

And what of America? Although, at. present, she lags behind Russia in rocket development, she will make frantic efforts to catch up and snatch the lead. Already, anyway, there are three very advanced American rockets available—Polaris, Sky-bolt, and Minuteman—all highly mobile, but having warheads of no more than about 1 megaton yield. Now that Russia has broken the three year old moratorium on tests, the U.S. Government has the ideal political excuse to try out a greater range of bombs and develop the rockets to carry them. It is admitted in the Guardian of September 1st that pressure of opinion in favour of this has been building up in American military circles for some time, and designs already exist to increase the yield of Polaris and Sky-bolt to 2 megatons each.

So it is clear that the usual dirty and cynical game has been played by both sides over the past two or three years, and that all their talk of banning nuclear arms has been so much hypocritical eyewash. We shall not here take part in the futile debate on the relative advantages of the Russian and American types of rocket. Is it more desirable to have one that is massively powerful and can deliver 100 megatons, or one that is far less powerful and destructive, but has greater mobility? We neither know nor care. As far as we are concerned both types are highly undesirable.

Despite all these melancholy developments, do not let us lose sight of the tremendous possibilities of rocket propulsion. It is here to stay, and in the years since the end of the second World War, we have seen great strides in its development. There seems little doubt that fairly soon, it will be used in the exciting adventure of landing men on the moon and maybe even on the planets further afield. It could have great potentialities as a means of enhancing our knowledge of the universe. One thing is certain, it will unfortunately suffer perversion and defilement like so many other things in a capitalist world. But do not blame the rocket for this. Get rid of Capitalism.

Eddie Critchfield

China and America (1971)

From the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

After more than twenty years of waging a propaganda war against each other and working up suspicions and hatred among their respective working classes, the American and Chinese mobster politicians are to seek some kind of reconciliation.

To those numbered in their millions all over the world, who mouthed and continue to mouth the slogans of Chinese capitalism denouncing “American imperialism”, and equally to all those who mouthed the phrases of American capitalism denouncing “Chinese expansionism”, it must seem as bewildering as were the Catholic church to suddenly get together with the League of Militant Atheists. After mountains of vitriolic propaganda, oceans of hate and the widespread belief that a real and unbridgeable ideological chasm separates the two sides, what explanation can there be for such a momentous reversal of attitudes?

Such about-faces are far from unheard of in the double dealing world of lies and hypocrisy which is capitalism. Stalin and the Bolshevik heads of Soviet capitalism got together with Nazi Germany and, after denouncing the war as imperialist, wound up on the side of British and American imperialism against their former Nazi friends. Conversely, Churchill who had spent twenty-five years denouncing the Soviet regime as a “cancerous growth”, wound up as head of British capitalism, supporting Soviet state-capitalism against Hitler and Mussolini (whom he had formerly admired).

Russia and China are capitalist countries, whose foreign policies, quests for world markets, world investments and military power only make sense when seen as part of the world-wide rivalry that characterises capitalism everywhere.

If the British capitalist class (or most of them) are jubilant at the prospect of multiplying their profits in the European market of 250 million people, large sections of the American capitalist class must have been biting their nails for years at the frustration of missing the pickings of the Chinese market.

During the years since 1948, trade, and even more so investment, has been rigidly restricted between Western capitalism and China. Successive American governments have pursued a policy of “containment”. For many years developing Chinese capitalism depended heavily on Russian equipment and technicians. But during the last ten years when the Russian and Chinese rulers have been embroiled in mutual abuse, technicians have been withdrawn. All this has forced capitalism in China to rely on its own resources and know-how. It has been found that containment and trade embargoes only meant less reliance on the outside world and a greater impetus for developing internal technology.

The priorities of capitalism in China are the same as in other powerful capitalist countries. They exploded their first A-bomb in October 1964 followed by their first H-bomb two years later. From then on it was only a matter of time before they mastered the rocket techniques for delivering them. This marked a significant turning point in how the West regarded the threat of China. When China put her first satellite into orbit in April 1970, Time magazine (11 May 1970) discussed the prospects of rockets and guidance systems and declared, “Peking beyond any doubt will, within weeks or months, possess at least the first elements of a nuclear missile force.” The article went on to review the likely impact on other countries and said “As Japan assumes a larger role in Asia, the country may feel the need for the superpower weapons to match its growing international status”. Which is all very ominous and shows how commercial struggles and military power go together.

During this period there was diminishing opposition to China’s entry into the so-called United Nations. It became known that despite all the mud-slinging, American and Chinese representatives had for years been meeting secretly in Warsaw.

True to their dedication to profits and military force, it took the possession of nuclear weapons to make American capitalism take Chinese capitalism seriously.

Nixon has pulled off the political coup of a life time—if things continue to go in a direction favourable to both sides. Which is not bad considering he does not officially recognise the existence of the Peking government. However, these get-togethers can burst into flame one moment and freeze over the next. But no doubt the masters of mass head-fixing on both sides will be ready to blame each other if it all turns sour. Just as Nixon and Chou-En-Lai will be seen on television smiling and embracing each other, having forgotten the threats of war and mutual destruction so the threats will be revived and the smiling forgotten, if after all it does not come off. An additional irony is that it should fall to Nixon to go sweet-talking in China, since it was he who first made his name as a red-baiter in the post-war years.

Peace is avowed as the heart-felt desire of both sides. And no doubt many millions of ordinary workers will welcome the prospect of diminished hostility. Any sign of hope will be grabbed at by a generation that has seen nothing but wars and military build-ups. But here again there is plenty of evidence to show how hollow these hopes are. There have been hundreds of conferences since the end of the Second World War and the major powers (America, Russia, France, China and Britain) have endlessly negotiated and yet there have been 73 wars including Korea and Vietnam, between 1945 and 1968. Many times hopes have been built up of reducing nuclear weapons, but despite negotiations they have steadily proliferated. After years of friendly relations, Russia and China came close to war in 1969. These two giants keep up the pretence of being different from imperialist America and Britain and used to heap admiration upon each other as “socialist” brothers. Yet they were driven to each other’s throats by the same sordid territorial ambitions as any openly capitalist countries.

What chance is there of China and America forming a relationship where commercial, strategic and territorial ambitions do not clash? It is precisely these interests which make capitalism what it is. The struggles for trade, investments, strategic positions and profits, make clashes inevitable.

The war in Vietnam has dragged on despite years of negotiations. All the suffering, death and destruction are as nothing to the negotiators who ruthlessly stick out for the interests they represent. China may now be expected to use her influence to pull American chestnuts out of the fire. Despite their support for North Vietnam and all the years of anti-American propaganda, such a service to American capitalism must now be regarded as a good bargaining lever. During 1966 China supplied the American air-force with steel for building air-bases in full knowledge of what this meant for their allies in the North. So both sides are well versed in the arts of cynicism and double-cross.

The Japanese government seems enthusiastic at the prospect of a new approach to China. Japan fought a long and bitter war to get her hands on the loot from China. What they failed to achieve by arms they now hope to achieve through the circulation of commodities. Japan is in an expansion frenzy and is hungry for raw-materials and markets.

There may be a period of mad scramble to get into China with capital investments to develop industry and extract minerals, but in the long-term, another massive rival for markets will emerge. Capitalism can operate in no other way. The smiles and frowns of politicians only reflect the prevailing situations presented to them by capitalism.

The final irony, to this latest stage of developments between China and America, might be Russian opposition to China’s entry into the UN. The Russian ruling class too have established “better relations” with Washington, so they may well play it cool. Their reaction will in any case be calculated to create whatever pressure is need to make Russian interests felt in what is going on.

Regardless of the public face they show, Russia, China and America will watch each other very closely. They are each in the same game for what they can get. The fact that friendly relations may exist for a time between each of them, should delude nobody. Trade does not mean trust. They will continue to spy on each other. Investments do not receive peace. They will each maintain their nuclear and other weapons.

Only the working class can get rid of this system of mutual suspicion, rivalry and war. This will involve establishing a world community where trade and investments and military force will have no place. Neither will the cynicism and hypocrisy of politicians.

Harry Baldwin

Fog on the Danube (1962)

From the March 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

From a Comrade in Vienna

Turning over the pages of the Arbeiter Zeitung, the interested intelligent reader must surely ask himself where this so-called Socialist journal differs from other daily papers that do not pretend to stand for Socialism. There are the usual features of all the other newspapers: pages of commercial advertisements, pages of sport, programmes of all the theatres, cinemas and other entertainments, Police and Court reports on crime and the daily tragedies of misery and want, murder and detective stories, appeals for funds to help victims of natural catastrophes, to help the blind, the cripples, the orphans and all the other unfortunates dependent on alms and charity culled welfare.

Here are a few examples of the way these “Socialist” journals deal with news items that would offer good chances of driving home the Socialist case and lessons for the workers:

A report in the Arbeiter Zeitung stated that the 89 year old Lord Bertrand Russell was continuing from his prison cell his anti-bomb propaganda. The paper quoted the aged philosopher as saying in an appeal: “You, your families, your friends and your States will be exterminated by the common decisions of a few but brutal men.” These, Lord Russell named as Kennedy, Kruschev, Adenauer, de Gaulle, Macmilllan and Gaitskell. What did the Arbeiter Zeitung have to say to enlighten its readers on the merits or demerits of Russell’s action and peace propaganda? Nothing.

But should not a journal and a party calling itself Socialist enlighten the workers on this, as on all other political questions? Should it not point out that it is not individuals alone who move the world, but the forces of capital? And that the Kennedys and Adenauers, the Kruschevs and Macmillans are only the temporary managers of these forces? Should it not be made plain that if these individuals were removed tomorrow, other executives and lackeys would take their place and continue the same policy, as has repeatedly happened in the past, and is daily happening before our eyes? Was not Asquith, the British manager of world-war I, removed and promptly replaced by another, Lloyd George? Was not the Kaiser (who had been denounced as having caused the war) exiled and replaced by other individuals who carried on the old system until it produced world-war II? Did the system of Capitalism end with the end of Hitler and Mussolini, who had been accused of having caused that second war? Were not Russian and Bulgarian Czars, Rumanian and Yugoslav kings dethroned, only to be replaced by reformers and more up-to-date administrators of Capitalism like Stalin, Kruschev, Tito, etc., to uphold and continue the private ownership basis and money economy of society, albeit State-Capitalism? Does Lord Russell really believe that if Kennedy and the other present top managers of Capitalism were removed, all would be well in the world, and the nightmare of an impending third world-war lifted from men’s minds? Does he not see that the other pretended “socialist” and pacifist politicians like Nehru, Ben Gurion, Spaak, Guy Mollet, Ollenhauer, etc., are equally staunch upholders of the universal conflict-breeding system that makes war inevitable?

Competition

As long as it is possible for men to exploit other men, war will be threatening humanity. The proceeds (profits) from Capitalist exploitation must be realized by selling the products of labour in the world’s markets. This is where the conflict arises. Commercial competition is war. Even when the rivalry is carried on at the business offices and in the State chancelleries, the clash of interests—the cold war—is there all the time and is eventually transferred to the battlefields of the various continents. What is at stake is big business, the question primarily of who can pocket the profits to be made from “assisting” the underdeveloped countries! Who can get in first? Who can “help” them—in truth, who will exploit them and make the big profits? And as the exploiters mistrust and are envious of each other, one tries to oust the other from the market. For this purpose all means are considered, including atom-bombs.

About Christmas time high functionaries of the Socialist Party of Austria, like the Vice-chancellor, and top Municipal councillors, painted dreary pictures of things happening in the Austrian Welfare State. Said Dr. Pittermann, leader of the SPA:

“In the days before Christmas we heard of the shocking tragedy at St. Polten, where four children burned to death in a barrack dwelling. In the country with the highest increase of the national income, a working class family with four children has to live in a barrack, not because there are too few houses in Austria but because inhuman greed does not place these flats at the disposal of those who are in dire need of a home: they are only for those who can pay higher rents than a worker’s family with many children. In the nearly 2000 years from the stable in Bethlehem to the death in the flames of the four children in the stable at St. Polten, usury with the housing and property has not been done away with. There are tens of thousands of flats empty or only partly occupied in Vienna alone, and innocent children become victims of borderless greed.”

During the budget debate of the Vienna City Council, councillor Mrs. M. Jacobi deplored the widespread unhappiness still existing in our welfare world. She said :

“The Vienna municipality has in its homes or with foster parents 3,900 children whose parents do not care for them. The background of nearly everyone of these children is a heart-rending life-story. Recently one of the boys wrote a letter to his mother, which read: Dear-Mother, I leave school this year. I should like to come to you, otherwise I shall have to stay at the home. If your new husband objects, please write to me.

A few days later the letter was returned. On the back it said, without salutation or signature: Sorry cannot take you; must stay at the home. My husband does not want you. Don’t write any more, it is no use. You are grown up, go to work! Do not think of coming to me. Please do not come, otherwise my husband throws me out . . .”

During the same debate, the Vice-Mayor Mandl also deplored the “cultural crisis” and said that:

“despite all the achievements of the welfare state there are alarming signs of decay, of a sick society. In Austria 1,630 persons committed suicide in 1960. 11,500 persons intending to take their lives were taken care of by one welfare centre alone. In another department 15,000 addicts to alcohol applied for treatment and the numbers of alcoholics, of alcoholic intoxicated and juvenile criminality and neglect are rising.

The place of the physical and material misery has been taken by the psychical and cultural misery. The invasion of the mass media of Press, film, radio and television into leisure is one of the main causes of the negative, often anti-social reactions ….”

Although the so-called Socialist journals report daily the threatening problems in all parts of the present turbulent world, they never advocate Socialism as a solution for society’s troubles and problems. Whether the scene of the turmoil is in Goa or Angola, in Algiers, Kuwait or in the Congo, in New Guinea or in other divided countries like India, Pakistan, Germany, or divided cities like Kashmir, Jerusalem or Berlin, the “experts” of the Arbeiter Zeitung will deal lengthily with these insoluble problems, claims, threats and demands: they will refute or support the “rights” or “wrongs” of this or that predatory clique, take sides for one or the other band of thieves, and so confuse the workers and entangle them in things that are no concern of theirs bill only of their masters.

However well they may know that drastic evils call for drastic remedies, however glaringly evident it is—often on their own showing—that the Capitalist system is responsible for the evils and sufferings of the workers, their leaders will not draw the attention of the people and will not have them concentrate their thoughts on the need for the removal of the cause of all the trouble. One does not expect the Conservative politicians to preach revolutionary change as the only wav to remove the social ills and incongruities, but parties and journals calling themselves Socialist or Communist and not advocating consistently the revolutionary doctrine and principles, stand identified with the enemies of the working class.

Rudolf Frank

Pathfinders: Big Red Button (2026)

The Pathfinders Column from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last year Hollywood director Kathryn Bigelow caused a minor stir with A House of Dynamite, an earnest and compelling warning against nuclear war in the tradition of Fail Safe (1964), or its comedy twin Dr Strangelove (1964). Unlike her other films it probably won’t win any gongs though, because it annoyed a lot of people.

Note, this paragraph contains spoilers. Critics complained that the film wasn’t a ‘proper’ story, with a beginning, middle and end, but instead was a looping repeat of the same chain of events from different character viewpoints. Nor did it have an ending. The viewer is just left hanging. Does the missile blow up the city? Does the US launch a retaliatory strike, and against whom? We don’t find out. But that’s ok, because the ending wasn’t the point.

The point of Dynamite is how we got ourselves into this situation in the first place. ‘We all built a house filled with dynamite… and then we just kept on livin’ in it,’ says one character. Jacobin magazine sniffily objected that the film doesn’t really say anything, and is essentially an ‘impotent and unserious exercise in handwringing’. We might sniffily object in turn that anyone who doesn’t advocate the immediate abolition of capitalism is also merely handwringing. Which would include all of the left including Jacobin magazine.

Because while capitalism has done a lot of good things for humanity, it’s also an out-of-control profit-making machine that comes with some catastrophic downsides. Runaway global warming isn’t even the worst of these. We can probably survive that, as a species. But who would survive nuclear Armageddon? Who would even want to?

For all the Boomer generation’s supposed privileges, like free higher education, affordable houses, job security and career advancement, they still had to grow up in the Cold War under the shadow of the Bomb, not knowing whether each day would be their last. Now Gen Z and Gen Alpha, on top of their other problems, may come to know what that feels like. ‘On January 27, 2026, the Doomsday Clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its history’.

Who’s got nukes?

Nine countries today have a total of around 13,000 weapons, down from the Cold War’s 60,000, but arsenals are increasing again. You can see the distribution at a glance at armscontrol.org. Most belong to Russia and the US, but China is fast playing catch-up. These are not just nukes, but BIG nukes. ‘For example, the warheads on just one US nuclear-armed submarine have seven times the destructive power of all the bombs dropped during World War II, including the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. And the United States usually has ten of those submarines at sea’ (ucs.org).

Who wants nukes?

Basically, every country’s ruling elite, following the National Rifle Association’s argument that in an armed society, you’re safer if you’re packing heat too. Ukraine gave up its nukes in 1994 and what happened? It got invaded. Iran keeps being bombed by Israel, but who dares bomb nuclear North Korea? The lesson is obvious and unavoidable. Disarmament is for losers. To paraphrase Mark Carney at Davos, if you’re not at the nuclear table, you’re on the menu.

There are fewer total nukes than in the Cold War era, so why is the threat worse today? Because treaties are easier when there are only two sides to negotiate. After the panic of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War finally settled into stasis with arms control treaties. Now there are three major nuclear powers, and more on the way. In February this year the 2010 START nuclear non-proliferation treaty expired, and no nuclear power shows any interest in reviving or replacing it. Instead, with Russia fighting in Ukraine, China threatening Taiwan, India and Pakistan having cross-border skirmishes, and the US under Trump threatening to remove the ‘extended deterrence’ umbrella from its own NATO allies, the gloves are off. Any country that can get its hands on nukes and more nukes is going gangbusters to do just that, and never mind other internal costs like health and social welfare.

The upshot is proliferation. Now even America worries that, despite its gigantic arsenal, it won’t have enough to go round if adversaries like Russia and China decide to join forces. There is a terrifying escalatory logic at play, as the Economist points out. A country may opt for ‘minimal deterrence’, having just enough nukes to survive a first strike and still deliver unconscionable devastation on enemy cities. But beyond minimal deterrence, military planners aim for ‘damage limitation’, which means having enough missiles to take out all the other side’s nuclear silos, submarines and mobile launchers. If this capacity is achieved, it only drives the other side to acquire further weapons, and so on indefinitely (‘Nukes of Hazard‘).

Even if war is not the immediate result, this multi-sided arms race makes the prospects of any binding arms treaty look more remote, and the chances of a Fail Safe-like accidental launch greater than ever. But we, the vast majority of the world’s people, didn’t do this. We are merely the grunts who do all the work of maintaining what we like to call civilisation. It’s the rich who have built a world of dynamite and are sitting on top of it, smoking fat cigars. Our only mistake is continuing to support and vote for the market system which created the rich, and their nukes, in the first place.

J Robert Oppenheimer, the self-styled ‘destroyer of worlds’, was along with Einstein a founder of the Doomsday Clock that now ticks perilously close to midnight. There’s still time for humanity to claw its way back from the brink, and use its miraculous science and technology purely for the collective benefit, but only if it stops deluding itself. Capitalism is not sustainable, nor our best option. It’s a death cult with a Big Red Button.

Paddy Shannon

Notes by the Way: “No Reparations, No Indemnities” (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“No Reparations, No Indemnities”

At the time the Communists seized power in Russia their favourite slogan for winning the support of the war-weary workers of Europe was “No Reparations : No Indemnities.” They bitterly attacked the Allied victors for trying to collect vast reparations from the defeated Central Powers, opposed the Versailles Treaty and encouraged the rebuilding of Germany as a great power. As Foreign Commissar Molotov was still saying after the outbreak of war in 1939, but before Russia was attacked, “We have always held that a strong Germany is an indispensable condition for a durable peace in Europe.” (Speech to Supreme Soviet, 31/10/39.) In 1929 the British Communists put forward the same plea at the General Election. They demanded “repudiation of all imperialist treaties and pacts—the Versailles Treaty, the Locarno Pact, the Kellog Pact” and “annulment of the Dawes Plan ” (a plan for the collection of reparations from Germany).

Now the tune is altered. Russia’s demand is for the payment by Germany of 10,000 million dollars as reparations. (Manchester Guardian, 15/12-’47.) Curiously the Daily Worker during the meetings of the four Foreign Ministers in London in December, while this was being discussed, was very coy about reporting it and managed on more than one occasion to report the debates without mentioning the figure. Perhaps they have a fear that readers may remember what they used to say about the futility and iniquity of reparations.

* * *

Why Workers Read the “Daily Worker”

The following is a notice issued by the Daily Worker and published by them as an advertisement in the News and ‘Book Trade Review and Stationers’ Gazette (6/12/47). It needs no comment.

“IT GETS AROUND. 

News has a habit of spreading. People soon get to know what’s happening. For instance, there’s a lot of talk in the sporting world about the consistent success of Cayton, the Daily Worker’s racing tipster. After all, 752 winners in the flat racing season is worth talking about! So you will understand why more people are asking for the Daily Worker. If you have difficulty in getting copies get in touch with us, we might be able to help.”

* * *

Some “Austerity” Fortunes

Among the fortunes reported in the Press recently on the death of the holders are the following:

Mr. H. Mountain, £1,122,616;

Sir W. McLintoch, £410,203;

Mr. Hermann Marx, £1,262,492;

Marquess of Lansdowne, £1,023,792;

Mr. Frank Hodges, one-time Secretary of the Miners’ Federation, £132,959.

Mr. Frank Hodges after leaving the trade, union movement went into the more lucrative occupation of company director.

All of the amounts given above are before payment of death duties

Another interesting news item recently was a comment by the City Editor of the Evening Standard (9/12/47) on the Ellerman fortune. After stating that Lord Ellerman holds £519,000 Deferred Stock of the Ellerman Shipping Lines, his holding being estimated to have a present value of over £2,500,000, and also holdings in a group of investment and brewery companies worth another £1,050,000 the Editor goes on as follows about the total present value of all investments :

“No firm estimate can be made of the Ellerman fortune today, but many people in the City believe that he would not lose in the comparison with his father. The first Sir John left £40 million.” (Evening Standard, 9/12/47.)

* * *

Grain Shortage?

”BUENOS AIRES, Wednesday. — The Argentine has been forced to burn £125,000,000 worth of crops, chiefly maize, says a Government statement tonight.

“It blames an economic blockade which keeps out machinery, cars, and rolling stock.

“Ports and railway terminals are jammed with grain which cannot he loaded in ships.” (Daily Express, 30/10/47.)

* * *

Growing Imperial Importance of Equatorial Africa

The following is an extract from an article on Equatorial Africa in the Times (14/11/47).

“As the British Empire in its old significance tends to shrink, with the gradual advance of its peoples to self-government and with the transfer to United Nations trusteeship of responsibility for certain territories at present administered by Britain, attention must he increasingly directed to the remaining British Colonies. That several of these are to be found in Africa is a fortunate fact in view of the withdrawal of British power from Egypt, the uncertain future of Palestine, and the consequent insecurity of the Mediterranean and Suez Canal route to those parts of the Commonwealth and Empire lying in the East.

“The search for alternative routes more secure from attack and for areas more conveniently situated for the disposition of imperial military resources must focus attention on West and East Africa, where there are great territories which, on examination, may be found to provide in great measure alternatives capable of making up for losses elsewhere. It might on the face of it seem that from a general move southwards into Africa only military advantages would accrue, such as safer lines of communication, areas suitable for British troops, and even alternative resources of man-power to succeed those lost by the changing conditions in India.”

* * *

Echo from Bikini

“King Juda of Bikini and his 165 subjects are to be uprooted afresh and shipped to a new island. Eighteen months ago their ancient atoll home was sacrificed to the atom bomb tests. Now, in the words of an official American Navy report, they are ‘a destitute, defeated, frustrated, poverty-stricken and hungry people.’

“Before the bombs exploded they were persuaded to make their ‘contribution to the advancement of science.’ Lock, stock and barrel they were moved to Rongerik Island, 120 miles away.

“There they found: 416 acres, instead of the 1,500 they were used to ; fire, which devastated their coconut trees ; and a lagoon with poisoned fish.

“They were driven to cutting palms and eating the leaves.” (News-Chronicle, 4/10/47.)

* * *

“The Greatest Social Reform Parliament in History.”

The Labour Party likes to make the claim that it is a Socialist party committed to the introduction of a Socialist system of society, but whenever its leaders set out to defend themselves against the Tory Opposition their line is always the very different one that they are a better social reform party than any of their predecessors. In a speech at Bermondsey Mr. Herbert Morrison is reported by the Daily Mirror (16/12/47) as making the claim thai “the present Parliament is destined to be the greatest social reform Parliament in history.”

He may prove to he right but the workers will discover that after all the Labour Party reforms have been put into operation Capitalism will still be with us.

* * *

I.L.P. History

In the Socialist Leader (6/12/47) Mr. F. A. Ridley writes an article on the theme “Had Rosa Luxemburg lived, Stalin might never have come to power in Russia, nor Hitler in Germany.” He writes:

“For had that amazing woman survived, she, at the head of German Communism, might have been able to establish a ‘Balance of Power’ in the new International which would have offset the Russian domination that subsequently monopolised it, in other words the ‘Third International’ might have become really international.”

Without going into elaborate arguments to answer this too-easy re-writing of history it should surely be obvious that as Socialism was impossible in 1918 because there were too few Socialists inside and outside of Russia, the Russian Government, if it had failed to control its instrument, the Third International, would have scrapped it and created other instruments for carrying out its foreign policy. We might just as well say that if Ramsay MacDonald had not been born or had succeeded in his first ambition, that of becoming a Liberal M.P., the Labour Party might have been Socialist.

Or perhaps now that Mr. Ridley has shown Stalin where he is wrong Stalin will mend his ways and do what Ridley thinks Luxemburg would have done.

* * *

A.R.P. Again

The following is from an Editorial, “Atom Age A.R.P.,” in the Daily Mail (12/12/47).

“To most people the revival of the A.R.P. service on a national scale is like a blow between the eyes. 

” ‘It is little more than two years since the end of the last war,’ they say, ‘ and now we seem to be getting ready for the next one. Has the world gone mad?’

“No, it has not gone mad, because it always was in that condition. But there are degrees of lunacy, and the wild state of this age is shown by the extent of the new Civil Defence plans.

“The aim in future is that everyone shall be trained in these warlike duties. The professional element will be provided by a full-time force of A.R.P. ‘commandos’ ready to move anywhere at a moment’s notice. An ‘incident’ in a future war may be the blotting-out of an entire town.”

In the meantime the war-time allies have finally ended the London meeting of the four Foreign Ministers quite unable to agree about the future of Germany. More or less open hostility now replaces the protestations of everlasting friendship. And the remedy is not more A.R.P. but the abolition of Capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Abolish the cause of war (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

That “the old order changeth” is a statement that few would now contest. Not only have individual capitalist owners been replaced by huge corporations and state ownership but the face of the world has been changed within living memory. Gone is the ramshackle empire of the Russian Czar, the German empire of the Hohenzollerns, the Eastern empire of the Japanese, the self-contained policies of the Americas, and the vast colonial empire of the British. In between the two wars the Nazi and Fascist empires had a brief though hectic existence.

In spite of these tremendous and far-reaching changes one thing has not altered—the exploitation of the wealth producers. The changes have only been changes in the composition of the groups that live out of the surplus wealth wrung from the toil of the workers of the world. The workers as a class still receive in return for their labouring only sufficient to enable them to live at the level required in order to carry out the work they have to do. Even that is only true in “good” times; in “bad” times starvation or semi-starvation is frequently their lot. All the time they are harassed by insecurity, for they are never sure how long their jobs will last nor what prospects they may have of getting another one at the same standard of living or even below.

The last thirty years have brought into greater prominence another form of insecurity, the insecurity of life itself, brought, about by the expansion of wars and of the means of destruction developed by warfare which threaten the existence of both the members of the fighting forces and those behind in their homes. All the fine schemes for outlawing war, building up League of Nations and United Nations organisations, as well as limiting armaments, are rendered impotent by forces and ideals that are the necessary product of the present social organisation which drive the privileged groups into conflict over the plunder extracted from the labour of the workers. A little talk awhile there is and then—breath-taking plunges into the production of means of warfare that successively increase the weight of the staggering burden of armaments. In 1914, and again in 1939, we were assured that the war, in which millions lost their lives and millions more suffered injury, hardship and misery, was a war that would end all wars. Now we are threatened with another war which promises to reduce to insignificance the terrible results of all previous wars.

All the boasted intellectual eminence at the disposal of governments is incapable of solving the problem of war and this impotence is made plain by the disagreements between the “experts” and their attempts to blame “the other fellow.” In this also there has been no change ; the general propaganda justifying going to war uses arguments that are as old as war itself. And yet the real solution to the problem of war is a simple one, but one that only the workers can apply. The solution is simply to abolish the cause of war

What is the cause of war? We have said wars are struggles between privileged groups over the plunder extracted from the workers’ labour. What is this plunder and how is it extracted?

The workers in the extractive, productive and transport industries produce the wealth of the world. The worker works for a period and receives in return for his labours a wage or salary. The total output of the workers is sold for a price that is greater than the price the workers receive (expressed in wages or salaries). This surplus, which costs the privileged class nothing, is taken by them and it is out of it that they live, some in stupendous luxury. Broadly speaking the more that is sold of what the worker produces the greater is the surplus to be divided among the members of the privileged class. Consequently this class (or rather those who act on its behalf) is constantly engaged in increasing the amount of capital invested in industry, finding more prolific sources of raw material and expanding the market for the goods produced by the workers.

Although members of the privileged class, the capitalists, have a united interest, the interest of plunderers, as opposed to the interests of the working class, they come into conflict with each other over the division of the plunder. Hence sections of the privileged class fight each other over spheres for the investment of capital, over sources of raw material, over markets for the sale of commodities and over trade routes to markets and to sources of raw material. It is these conflicts that at times flare up into wars, and, as we have shown, they have their fundamental source in plunder wrung from the workers. Therefore the only way to abolish war is to abolish its source—plunder. And that is where the workers come in, because it is they alone who can accomplish this job.

Is it necessary to urge that the workers have a vital interest in abolishing war? Hardly—the devastation of the last war and the promise of the next should be sufficient to compel them, even if they only want to live, to spend a little time and mental energy pondering over the problem. Here is a simple solution which must be obvious to any worker who will clear the capitalist cobwebs out of his brain for a few minutes.

The wealth that is produced is the result of the application of human energy to the material provided by nature. The people who apply this human energy are members of the working class employed as labourers, mechanics, managers, foremen and so on—people who have to sell their energies to a privileged class for wages or salaries. The capitalist as such is not engaged in industry; he may be touring the world, feasting or hunting or dying, but wealth production goes on just the same—he is simply a parasite upon industry; his disappearance would therefore have no direful consequences to industry. As the workers run industry today for the benefit of a parasitic class they could just as easily run it to-morrow for the equal benefit of the whole human race. This would involve the common ownership of the means of production and the abolition of all forms of privilege that arise from private property ownership. This is the only solution to the problem of war and to all the other evil consequences of Capitalism from which humanity is suffering.

Gilmac.

Remember Hiroshima? (1965)

From the August 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the aircraft carrying the atomic bomb appeared above Hiroshima early in the morning of 6lh August 1945, the people of the city were not especially alarmed.

They assumed that it was the reconnaissance ‘plane which every day reported on the weather over a nearby lake, used as a rendezvous point by the American bombers. For months, the B-29’s had been hammering at one Japanese city after another; in August 1945 there were only two of any importance which had not suffered a heavy raid. One of these was Hiroshima.

Uneasily, the city was organising its defences. Every home was required to have a concrete water tank readily accessible for fire-fighting. Many houses were being torn down to make fire breaks. But the Super-Fortresses kept roaring past to the lake, and swung away to other targets. The people of Hiroshima became convinced that the Americans were saving something especially horrible for them.

All these fears came to a head, at eight-fifteen that morning, when the bomb flashed in the sky and the blast roared down and out and eighty thousand human beings died in a way which nobody had ever known before. More than four square miles of Hiroshima was destroyed; within a year the death roll had reached one hundred and forty thousand.

The effects of the bomb were gruesomely strange, and this gave rise to panic rumours about what had happened. Some people said the Americans had sprayed petrol over the city and set light to it. Others thought that a cloud of magnesium had been dropped, and ignited by high tension wires. Unfamiliar and menacing things were happening to the survivors of the bomb. Their hair fell out, their gums bled, trifling cuts stayed open and festered for weeks. Pregnant women suffered miscarriages and premature births; countless babies were born dead. People who had no visible injuries or burns quietly and simply died. And as if in mockery at this, weeds and wild flowers of all sorts flourished under the bomb’s rays and grew in profusion over the wreckage of the city.

President Truman announced that the weapon he had launched against Hiroshima had “. . . more power than twenty thousand tons of T.N.T. . . . more than two thousand times the blast power of the British Grand Slam, which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.” Although the people who were dying and suffering at Hiroshima did not appreciate it, history had been made at their expense.

In the United States, the New Yorker added its own little bit of history by devoting its entire edition, for the first time in its life, to a single feature. This was a report by John Hersey on the experiences of six people…..a German Catholic priest, an office girl, a Protestant Minister, two doctors and a windowed housewife—who had lived through the destruction of Hiroshima. Hersey’s story was immediately famous, and in November 1946 it was published in this country as a shilling Penguin (Hiroshima, by John Hersey—Penguin Books).

Here was the reality behind the politicians’ statements and the statisticians’ tables and the scientists’ measurements. These people had been crushed and wounded and frightened by the bomb. They had seen inexpressible horrors. Hersey told their story with restraint and sympathy, leaving the enormity of Hiroshima to speak for itself. Only once did he stand in judgement, and that was when he was telling what happened to the office girl when the bomb went off:

“. . . the bookcases right behind her swooped forward and the contents threw her down, with her left leg horribly twisted and breaking underneath her. There, in the tin factory, in the first moment of the atomic age, a human being was crushed by books.”

For the rest, the tragedy of Hiroshima is laid out in clean and compassionate English. All the horror is there, in the description of the wounded peoples’ macabre procession into the Red Cross Hospital:

“Dr. Sasaki worked without method, taking those who were nearest him first, and he noticed soon that the corridor seemed to be getting more and more crowded . . . Before long, patients lay and crouched on the floors of the wards and the laboratories and all the other rooms, and in the corridors, and on the stairs, and in the front hall, and under the portecochere, and on the front stone steps, and in the driveway and courtyard, and for blocks each way in the streets outside. . . . Dr. Sasaki lost all sense of profession and stopped working as a skilful surgeon and a sympathetic man; he became an automaton, mechanically wiping, daubing, winding, wiping, daubing, winding.”

The twenty years which have gone by since that nightmare have been full of the lies and evasions of the official propaganda machines. The allied governments excused Hiroshima on the grounds that there was no other quick way of ending the war. They have never successfully explained why it was necessary to show the bomb’s power on a virtually undamaged city, when there were plenty of other places where it could have been demonstrated without killing over a hundred thousand people.

Then they fed us with the deterrent theory, which began with the argument (remember?) that so long as the United States was the only power to have the secret of the Bomb no other country would dare to start a war. The other capitalist powers, however, did not see it in this light; many of them said that the best way to preserve peace was for them also to have the Bomb and so restore the balance of power in the world. And while they have been arguing, and while the disarmament conferences have been droning on, and while the official lies have been flowing out, nuclear weapons have spread and become more powerful. If one of today’s hydrogen bombs had been used at Hiroshima, none of Hersey’s six people would have lived to tell their stories; they would all have been well inside the first fireball.

The important question now is what effect the establishment of nuclear armaments has had on the world. There is no evidence that the six people of Hiroshima, among the luckiest alive, learned anything from their experiences. The widow, for example, descended into destitution, and placidly accepted it. The office girl relapsed into bewildered despair. The priest had his own consolations:

“If your God is so good and kind, how can he let people suffer like this?” She made a gesture which took in her shrunken leg, the other patients in her room, and Hiroshima as a whole.

“My child, Father Kleinsorge said, “man is not now in the condition God intended. He has fallen from grace through sin.”

And of course there were always the delusions of blind patriotism:

“. . . I never heard anyone cry in disorder, even though they suffered in great agony. They died in silence, with no grudge, setting their teeth to bear it. All for the country!”

This was not unusual. In every city and in every land, in 1945 the war-weary working people could see no reason to abandon their support of the social system which had brought them to atomic warfare. All over the world, capitalism ruled on. Eventually there came the anti-nuclear movement, but that was a protest not against capitalism, nor even against war, but against a particular method of waging war. The nuclear disarmers were no different from the other movements which have protested against capitalism’s problems without understanding why they exist.

The atomic bomb was a refinement of the high explosive bombs—like the Grand Slam—which were becoming increasingly cumbersome, because the only way of stepping up their destructive power was to increase their size. High explosive bombs were an extension of the artillery shell, which in turn was a development from small arms fire. The refinement and the increase in the power of armaments is a continuous process, spurred on by, and inseparable from, the ever-present possibility of war.

All the time, the powers of capitalism are in conflict—over the right to exploit the places where they can sell goods and over access to the places where they can find the raw materials to make the goods. Singly or in alliance, they dispute over oil, tin, rubber—which means that they dispute over the Middle East. Malaya, the Congo. They dispute over trade routes and the ports and bases which serve and protect them—which means over Suez, Cyprus, Gibraltar. Here is the basic reason for armed forces, for the arms race and for the build up in weapons which now holds the possibility of a future too terrible to imagine.

It is time now to remember Hiroshima, but not in protest against the Bomb, nor against the men who made it or who dropped it, nor even against the men who sanctioned its use. The only effective protest is against capitalism, against the social order whose conflicts have brought us to the stage where human society can almost wipe itself out. Remember, then, Hiroshima—but not as a beginning nor as an end, only as an incident in a terrible story.

Ivan

20 years ago (1965)

From the August 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

One August morning twenty years ago an atom bomb exploded on the town of Hiroshima. It was shortly after 8 o’clock local time that a U.S. bomber dropped the new weapon. An estimated 80,000 people died; and more than that were injured. Together with the attack on Nagasaki a few days later, about six square miles of built up area were completely destroyed. President Truman mentioned the figure of 2,000,000,000 dollars spent on the research and production involved in the manufacture of the bomb.

Despite six bloody years of mechanized slaughter, the devastation resulting from this single raid was on a sufficient scale to penetrate the minds even of those resigned to a world constantly racked by war. Throughout the capitalist press the need for a new morality was preached and, here and there, voices were raised in humanitarian protest,

To consider the protests first; these generally took the line that the atomic bomb was such a terrible weapon that it should never have been used. But the A-bomb is just as “legitimate” as any other weapon. There is no distinction between methods of warfare which are “acceptable” and others which are not. If the stakes in any capitalist dispute are sufficiently high then every available resource is thrown into the struggle, and pious condemnation of this makes not one iota of difference.

Yet this emotional reaction to nuclear war still finds its adherents in CND and similar organisations. It is based on a refusal to face up to the reality of this capitalist world where brute force is a not inconsiderable factor in securing and maintaining a share in the world’s markets. When the permanent bickering over trade periodically flares up into open warfare no power is prepared to fight with one hand voluntarily tied behind its back. Speaking three days after the Hiroshima bombing, Truman’s double-talk made quite clear the purpose of the second world war, which culminated iu the use of a nuclear weapon:

“The U.S. wants no territory or profit or selfish advantage out of this war; we are going to maintain the military bases necessary for the complete protection of our interests and of world peace.” (Our emphasis).

However, in August 1945 the bulk of the press was unanimous in its support of the allied bombing but cautioned its readers on the threat involved to mankind. This took the form of sermonising on the “new world” which was to be ushered in with the coming of “peace” and which had to be a world free from the danger of war. The Daily Express advised:

“Everything turns on the wisdom and goodness of the peoples and their rulers.”

The Daily Telegraph felt that:

“Unless we now so bear ourselves that the power of war-making is stamped out and peace among men of good will is securely established, the human race must go down to ghastly ruin.”

The pacifist Peace News cried from the heart:

“The latent moral crisis of the world has now become evident and palpable. The invention of the atomic bomb imposes upon mankind the necessity of a new behaviour-pattern.

Henceforward, there is only one form of security for Russia or any other great power. That is moral security.”

The Daily Mirror took refuge in the thought:

“Basic power is moral power.”

Originality seemed to have gone by the board. The sum total of this wisdom amounts to this: that wars in the past have been the result of the wickedness of men but if mankind now decides to embrace the good, wholesome life than (God willing) we can all live in peace and plenty.

In Britain, amid this deluge of rubbish, Socialists raised their voices in a common sense analysis of the situation. They explained that man is not innately evil and warlike and that, in a world dominated by production for profit, it is the mad scramble for economic advantage that causes war. Conflicts between nations are the result of friction between their rival economies in the struggle to obtain or keep foreign markets and supplies of raw materials, trade routes and spheres of influence. The decision before mankind of war or peace presents itself as the wider choice between capitalism or socialism.

J. B. S. Haldane, writing on nuclear energy in the Daily Worker, had the cheek to declare:

“Marxists should be the first to realise that with a complete revolution in war and production the principles of politics will also change. What was right last week may be disastrously wrong this week.”

On the contrary, Marxian socialists realise that as long as capitalism: lasts nothing fundamentally changes in the relationship between the property-owning class and the working class; the class struggle continues. The advent of nuclear energy is no reason for socialists to desert their principles. The only effect of nuclear weapons is that the task of the working class—to establish socialism—is now even more urgent. As the Socialist Standard pointed out in October, 1945:

“Your choice is as simple as it is vital! On it rests the future of humanity.” 

If this were true in 1945, how much more so these twenty years later?

John Crump

Nuclear power — making it clear (1986)

From the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has been drawn to our attention that the statement in the June Socialist Standard that "nuclear power could be safe” needs qualifying.

Nuclear fission (splitting the atom) which is the process used in all existing nuclear power stations can never be made safe, not even in socialism, since this is a question of physics not economics It can only be made less dangerous.

What we had in mind was the possibility of being able, within a generation, to construct power stations based on the principle of nuclear fusion. This is a quite different nuclear process in which there would be no danger of a melt-down, nor of any accidental release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. nor any radioactive waste products, the only problem in this respect would be that the equipment used to contain the process would acquire a relatively short-lived radioactivity

Editors.

An American Broadcast (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a letter from Mr. Charles Sussman, of Philadelphia, informing us of a proposal to broadcast over the American Radio the answers to seven questions relating to armaments which he was putting to us as well as for a tape recording of our views for broadcasting purposes. Below is the script of our answers to the question which was recorded by J. D'Arcy on our behalf.

Speaking on behalf of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, I am responding to an invitation to give our views on a number of questions concerning armaments and foreign policy.

In fairness to you, and to us, I must explain at the outset that we are not asking for your consideration on the grounds that there is large support for our ideas in Great Britain. We are indeed a small organisation, formed in 1904, and growing slowly. Nevertheless, we claim that our views do merit your careful thought, as we have the only practical answer to the problems of a distracted and violence-torn world. As it is unlikely that you have ever heard our views before we appeal to you to give them the consideration that should be given to fresh ideas on a subject of such supreme importance to the human race.

Seven questions have been put to us. In order to make our answers to these questions understandable, I must explain the outlook from which we start.

Our aim is a world in which everything that is in and on the earth will be the common possession of all mankind, without privileged groups of any kind except the old, the infirm and the young. A world in which there would be no buying and selling, or profit motive, and in. which frontiers would have disappeared.

We hold that, economically and politically, we all live in a world that is desperately sick, and this means all the peoples in all the world; in Europe and the Americas, in India, China and Russia, in the West as well as in the East

Holding this view, we do not offer to draw up better foreign policies in place of the existing ones. Such efforts, as the bitter experiences of the past have made clear, are useless for curing the disease affecting the world. The disease is a fundamental one, and requires the elimination of its cause.

I would put it like this.

If the world were organised in the way we Socialists want it, there would be no foreign policies. Foreign policies are concerned with the frictions and animosities that exist between national groups, each pressing forward and defending antagonistic sectional interests. If the interests throughout the world were mutual, there would be harmony and friendliness between the people in all parts of the world, and there would be no need for a foreign policy, or a foreign secretary, to tell us how this can be accomplished.

But the nations are not organised for friendship. They are organised for the aggressive competitive activity of seeking trade and profit Behind these, and directly concerned with them, is the effort to control sources of raw material and trade routes; and behind that again the supporting military forces, up to, and including, the latest horror—the H. Bomb.

Holding the views we do about the kind of world society that could and must be brought about, and holding the views we do about the incurable nature of the evils affecting the world whilst under the present social system, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has declared unqualified opposition to the wars of our time, including the two world wars, the Korean war, the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt, and the brutal Russian suppression of Hungary two years ago.

In the light of what I have already said, I now come to the seven questions I have been asked to answer.

Firstly, I am asked what is our view of re-unification and re-militarising Germany?

The very fact that these two questions have to be linked together shows how cruel and evil the world's habitual attitudes are. Surely the situation is absurd in which the simple problem of German speaking people getting together cannot be considered except in relation to armaments.

The second question concerns NATO.

In the world as it is the rival national groups make uneasy alliances for war, under the mistaken impression that they are avoiding war. In the world that Socialists envisage there will be no rival national groups.

The third question is about the construction of rocket missile bases in England.

We do not share the mistaken, and often dangerous, nationalistic prejudices of non-socialists. People from America, or Russia, or anywhere else, are welcome here as far as we are concerned. But then, of course, from our standpoint we would have them come here not to construct weapons and means of destruction, but to help us with the elementary things that people need, or just to enjoy themselves. In any event, we are opposed to people anywhere in the world making or using weapons of destruction, or being the victims of their use. To be willing that others should suffer but not yourselves is part of the evil thinking produced by present conditions.

The fourth question concerns the proposal of a disengagement of the rival military forces facing each other in Europe.

Of course we are always glad to see a war end or a war avoided, but where really does the proposal get us? From a military point of view, with the fast movement of ground forces, and still more with all the weapons that move at incredible speed above the earth, what does disengagement really amount to?

The same applies to the proposal of a European neutral zone free from nuclear weapons.

The sixth question concerns the suspension of all hydrogen and atomic tests.

We are opposed to the threatening of anyone, individually or collectively, with violence or war. We are opposed to the testing, use or manufacture of any weapons for destroying human life, as our object includes abolishing them all. But we are not interested in the limited campaigns of those who are not concerned with abolishing the conditions that cause wars.

The seventh question relates to disarmament under international inspection and control.

This brings us back to our basic point of view which is diametrically opposed to the various conventional views. Trying to inspect and control heavily armed national groups that, by definition, are seeking to deceive each other preparatory to being able to destroy each other, is not a policy for sane and sober well-wishers of our fellows, but for gamblers with the life and death of the human race.

In conclusion, I appreciate that the outlook and views of the Socialist Party of Great Britain may sound utopian and impossible to those who have never heard them, let alone considered them.

However, we are by no means pessimistic. The dire consequences of the present social system are helping, however slowly, to force our solution to the front. Time will accelerate the pace. We are sure that people all over the world will sooner or later recognise the correctness of our approach to world problems, and the need to change the social system in the direction we have described; a need that is as urgent in Russia as in America or Britain.

Don’t hang back too long, and don't leave others to do the thinking for you. With so many scientists concentrating on weapons of mass destruction, and politicians of such limited vision, the fate of humanity depends on your own sober and clear thinking.

I would add that associated with us in outlook is the Socialist Party of Ireland; the World Socialist Party of the United States; the Socialist Party of Canada; the Socialist Party of Australia, and the Socialist Party of New Zealand; as well as groups in other parts of the world.

Anti-climax (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past year our attention has been turned to the skys in many ways. We had Fred Hoyle’s Lectures (broadcast by the B.B.C.) on the New Cosmology, giving many of us a fascinating insight into the wonders of the universe. In a B.B.C. broadcast we also learned that Societies exist to plan trips to the moon and later to mars, although it is stressed that many years will elapse before they can actually be attempted. In the same programme (Focus on Interplanetary Travel), we were taken on an imaginary trip (by rocket) to the moon.

A book was published entitled, “The Conquest of Space.”  W. Ley had collected technical information on this subject and presented it with pictures (by Chesney Borestell) based on the latest authentic research. The trips to the various planets in the book were, of course, purely imaginary. Becoming “sky-conscious” Hollywood gave us a brace of films, “Destination Moon” and “Rocketship X-M.,” but the most spectacular appeal to public attention was made by the “ Flying Saucers.” This elusive and much publicised phenomena caught the public imagination and the most extraordinary rumours were circulated regarding their speed, manoeuverability and brilliant light, particularly in America where they mostly appeared, although people in British Isles claimed to have seen them.

On 7th October, following much advance publicity, the Sunday Express featured a series of articles on the subject entitled (rather dramatically) “Is another world watching us?” The author, Gerald Heard, was introduced as “distinguished writer and well-known broadcaster,” and the articles were extracts from his book, “The Riddle of the Flying Saucers.” He certainly spread himself at length on the subject as the series did not finish till 3rd December. First a mass of testimony was brought forth by those who claimed to have witnessed the phenomena. Then it was said. “The question of their speed seems to rule out any human designer. . . from a quiet brooding to a speed of 18,000 miles per hour.” Heard put forth an astonishing assortment of suggestions quite seriously, the most fantastic being that they were “manned” by insects from outer space. (Insects being able to withstand the pressure of the tremendous acceleration). Each planet of our solar system was solemnly examined and mars singled out as the only one upon which insect life could exist.

We were told that U.S. Army and Navy denied all knowledge of the saucers: surely Mr. Heard could not be so naive as to accept that as conclusive? A child of average intelligence would realise that if It were a military or naval “ top secret ” it would be disowned rather than acknowledged prematurely.

The conclusion of the articles is more fantastic than all that has gone before and we really question whether Mr. Heard is indulging in that pastime, colloquially known as pulling our legs. He quotes earlier on that “No form of life as we know it could exist on mars, but insect life.” Nevertheless he concludes in the following extraordinary manner:—“The earths rind of rock (the lithosphere) may not be at all thick. It may be possible with our 'modem atom power explosion to burst through it. Then, quite likely, out would come our molten insects. Martians might well have strong views about planets that explode themselves. For turning ourselves into a dust belt filling our entire orbit with a thick mist of fragments we might cut off a dangerously large amount of the all- too-little sunlight they now get . . . When we twice struck Japan and then not to slaughter but to astound— made the Pacific spout, when we, time and again sent up great super-thunderheads of smoke, spray and the wreckage of human industry and human bodies right up into the stratosphere, then we put out a finger to beckon attention on any watching fellow planet that we were the little fellow out for trouble and able and itching to give it. They could hardly have failed to see that defiant wanton signal. Does that close the question Why Now?”

Well! Here comes the anti-climax, the secret is out—flying saucers are atom test balloons. The information was released by the chief of Nuclear Research, U.S. Navy (Daily Herald, 13/2/51).

Shades of Jules Verne. On 31st December, 1950, the Sunday Express patted itself smugly on the back that it had led the field with articles on “that interesting topic Flying Saucers ” and were much flattered that other newspapers were following their lead. They can claim no credit, rather the reverse, for sponsoring these articles as a serious attempt to solve the mystery.

The Astronomer Royal (Sir Harold Spencer Jones) took a dim view of the whole thing and said (when questioned about flying saucers) “It is very significant that most of the reports appear to have come from a country where mass hysteria is rather prevalent.”

We will close by following Mr. Heard’s lead and indulge a short flight of fancy. Supposing that space ships brought beings from another planet. One imagines they would be fleeting visitors to this miserable world of conflicts, and want alongside potential plenty. Interplanetary travel presupposes a more intellectual and very much farther advanced form of life, the outcome of which we should presume to be a classless society, where all the evils that are the outcome of capitalist society could not exist. The inevitable and ultimate goal of all human endeavours.

Many of us would want to “thumb a lift” for the journey back.

F. M. Robins

Passing Comments: Why we don’t get the coal (1951)

The Passing Comments Column from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why we don’t get the coal

The prospect of a coal crisis has produced the usual crop of enquiries about the coal industry. What exactly is wrong with it?

As might be expected, the Sunday Express has the answer. It has gone to the expense of sending a journalist, a Mr. Gwyn Lewis, on a three-week tour of the coalfields. Mr. Lewis has now produced his report: it appeared in the Sunday Express on February 4th.

The article covers nearly thirty-two inches of column-space; and more than three-quarters of it (over twenty-four inches) is taken up with complaints about the idleness of some of the miners. :If every man on the payroll did an honest day’s work the present hardships would have been greatly mitigated.” The article avoids statistics which would give the exact position over all the coalfields: instead, there are vague allegations, interspersed with figures applying only to single pits on single days, which are of no use at all to anyone who wants a true picture of the situation, but which are none the less valuable for propaganda purposes. This is the kind of thing: “In Midlands colliery towns I saw miners’ welfare institutes filled with men playing cards when they should have been working.” There are no details given with the aid of which one could check up on the accuracy of the observation. Which Midlands colliery towns? Which miners’ institutes, and how many of them? What exact number of men is the vague verb “filled” intended to convey? How did the reporter know they “should have been working?” After all, there are some men in a miner’s institute at every hour of the day: in the morning, the afternoon shift men, and in the afternoon and evening, the day and night shift men. Perhaps Mr. Lewis is skilled in telepathy; at any rate, his information did not come from the men themselves, for in his next sentence his complains that “when I tried to get their point of view I could only get ’whose deal?’ and a request not to interfere with the card-playing.”

* * *

Contrast

What a contrast this makes with the recent incident at a club which caters for another class of the population. On the one hand we have a group of miners, spending their leisure hours in their own institute, accosted by a Tory journalist who wants to know why they are not working harder: and all they do is to request him politely not to interfere with the game. And on the other hand a group of “gentlemen” in a London club last month were so incensed with the mere inoffensive presence of a man whose political views they consider too Leftish, that one of them, who learnt his manners at Eton and Oxford, made an unprovoked physical assault on him as he left.

* * *

Duties as Citizens

But to get back to these idle miners. A printed sheet was distributed to every one of them containing a New Year’s message from Mr. Attlee, appealing to him to work harder; but Coal Board officials say it has had no result. A Coal Board assistant director tells this woeful tale: “We tried giving the men lectures on their duties as citizens. Most of them listen, but some call out 'Tell us when you are finished.’ ” The lecturers’ task would probably be easier if the duties were the same for all the citizens. As it is, the miners can be forgiven for taking up a cynical attitude when they read an article by a man who hints that colliers are lazy because they are paid too much, but who doesn’t mention the £14,000,000 a year paid to the ex-coal-owners; and who says it is becoming a “common practice” for miners to take Monday off, and sometimes Friday as well, but who has no harsh remarks for the shareholders who take all seven days off and still draw an income.

* * *

No wage-earners need apply

Do you want to be a Conservative M.P.? You stand a poor chance if you come from the lower income groups.

“Comment,” which describes itself as a right-wing magazine run by undergraduates, has published in its January, 1951, number some statistics about the social background of the Conservative members of the House of Commons. Of the 298 M.P.s, the schools of 52 are unknown: but of those whose schools can be discovered, 214, or 87 per cent, went to public schools (including 79, or 32 per cent., to Eton). Again, of the 298 M.P.s, 62 per cent, went to Oxford, Cambridge, or “one of the military colleges—nearly always Sandhurst.”

The occupations of Tory M.P.s are also listed, though no attempt is made to divide them into two or three big groups; “Comment” says it would be difficult to know in which group to place a man “who is perhaps a landowner, director of a big industrial company, and was for ten years in the regular army." Readers of the Socialist Standard might enlighten the editors of “Comment” as to which social group an M.P. with these particular qualifications would belong. But the statistics given are quite interesting enough in themselves. 36 are farmers or landowners; 37 are in business; 16 are in industry; 17 are publishers. These groups provide 106 M.P.s, or 36 per cent, of the total number. Then there are 31 (or 10 per cent) from the Services, and 124 (42 per cent.) are professional„ men. Of those M.P.s who are not listed in any of the above categories, 6 are women, and 59 are put down as “unknowns’’—this figure, which" is 19 per cent., includes all the full-time politicians. Furthermore, “Comment” calculates that there are anything from 500 to 1,000 directorships spread among the 298 members.

* * *

Good opportunities for smart aristocrat

Even after five years of Labour Government with its “inevitable fall in the number of knighthoods and baronetcies conferred on Conservative members,” there are well over 100 M.P.s, more than a third of the total number, who “either hold titles themselves or are intimately related to title-holders.”

And how do these sirs and honourables get into Parliament? Elsewhere “Comment” quotes from a forthcoming book by Mr. Herbert Nicholas on the General Election; and it appears, even allowing for the fact that the Tory definition of “working-class” is more restricted than the Socialist definition, that 54 per cent. of those who voted Conservative last year are working-class electors (compared with 89 per cent. of the Labour voters). So both big parties get most of their support from wage-earners.

* * *

Incomes

Last October the Commissioners of Inland Revenue published their report for the year ended March, 1949; and according to this, in a country which some simple Labourites continue to refer to as “Socialist Britain,” there were eighty-six people left with an annual income exceeding £6,000 a year after payment of income-tax and surtax. There were more than five thousand people having incomes of between £80 and £120 a week, and nearly 80,000 with between £40 and £80 a week after payment of taxes. On the other hand, there are eight and a half million given as having incomes between £3 and £5 a week, and 1,113,000 with between £2 14s. and £3 after tax. Those with less than £135 a year are not mulcted of income-tax by a generous government, so they are not dealt with in the report.

* * *

How to suffer in style

These figures go some way towards explaining the news which appears every so often in the Tory papers about the activities of the rich, and form a strange commentary on the statement of the Continental Daily Mail (26-7-50) that “the wealthiest classes have been almost destroyed by the tax-collector.” If we believed the Continental Daily Mail we would find it difficult to understand how the Eton entry-list is filled up till 1963, when its costs £308 a year to send a boy there, “plus a small amount for extras ” (Daily Mail, 12-12-50); and why Harrod’s think it worth while to insert an eight-inch two-column advertisement in the Observer (11-2-51) devoted to the charms of a fur coat which costs £357—more than most workers get in a year; and how Sir Bernard and Lady Docker can afford to give an “epic” cocktail party at the Royal Thames Yacht Club, which was just large enough, so we are informed, to take the hundreds of guests, while motorists queued for a mile outside to get to the party (Sunday Express, 17-12-50). For good measure we are told, in the same paper eight weeks earlier, that Sir Bernard is having a car made specially for his wife, complete with cocktail cabinet, radio set, silver- equipped vanity case, bookshelf, and fluorescent lighting. Gallant Sir Bernard. And wealthy Sir Bernard. The car is costing £5,622.

* * *

Dodgers and super-dodgers

But the official figures apparently do not tell the whole story. The report issued by the income tax authorities cannot be wholly accurate if some people do not reveal their real incomes to the tax inspectors; and it seems that evasion is being practised on a large scale. One inspector of taxes says: “There are roughly 20,000 dodgers, but half the £40,000,000 withheld from the State each year can be accounted for by approximately 2,000 super-dodgers.” (Sunday Express, 31-12-50). This would make the super-dodgers withhold an average of £10,000 a year each. And what is the total income of a man who should pay tax at the rate of £200 a week”

Yet the Tories still tell us that the wealthiest have been almost destroyed.

* * *

Undesirable familiarity

It is comforting to think that Mr. Millard Caldwell, the head of US Civil Defence, has confidence in us. Mr. Caldwell said in London: “ You will find that your people will take atomic bombs just like they took others.” (Reynolds News, 11-2-51).

An official of the Ministry of Supply agreed with him. He said: “ It would be just the same as in the last war. The more familiar we get with atomic bombs, the easier they will be to deal with.” But just how familiar do we have to get with atomic bombs? J. Bronowski, writing in the Observer (4-2-51) says that whereas the type of atomic bomb used in the last war caused a circle of destruction only two miles across, a hydrogen bomb weighing a ton would “cause irreparable damage over a circle on the ground which measures twenty miles across.” That is to say, it could destroy London from Barnet to Croydon, and from Hounslow to Woolwich; and burns and fires from it would reach through a circle of thirty miles in diameter. Such a bomb dropped on London “would kill far more than 1,000,000 people.”

Has the Ministry of Supply worked out how many bombs of this size will have to be dropped before we consider ourselves familiar with them?

Alwyn Edgar