"Nor Prison Bars a Cage?" (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since Russia became the main rival to Western Capitalism, the capitalists of the West have seen fit to acknowledge, indeed to publicise, the vicious acts of their counterparts in that country. Their purpose, as we shall see, is not in the noble cause of truth, for they could have told that at least fifteen years ago, but the far more practical reason of getting the workers “at it.” And. many of the workers who four and five years back were wearing hammer and sickle badges in their lapels and cheering the mention of Stalin, are now prepared or even eager to fight their ex-allies. Not so the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Just as we took the line in both 1914 and 1939, that the workers of this country had nothing to gain by slaying fellow workers in Germany, so do we point out that a future war with Russia will benefit neither British nor Russian workers, but will be no more than a further dispute between the capitalists of these countries. But in the meantime it is our bounden duty to lay these distortions of the truth and show up this propaganda for what it is really worth.

A few months ago the Daily Express carried the headline, “Britain publishes Russia’s forced labour laws," the Evening Standard, "Soviet slave laws revealed," and the Daily Herald, so different from the days of not so very long ago had the biggest headline of the lot saying, “Soviet slave camp code shown to world." Many workers, who previously sympathised with the system of administration in capitalist Russia, rapidly changed their ideas. Those who looked just a little farther than the news put right on their plates by their masters, were not surprised. As long ago as 1935, a translation of the “Corrective Code ” was obtainable in Britain. It has taken the capitalist class a long while to find it!

Anyway up to this time, far from deploring this penal code, various spokesmen and apologists of Capitalism, both British and Russian, were quite vehement in applauding it. Sir Montague Burton said, “A better opportunity for prisoners to become useful members of society" (Yorkshire Evening News, 25710/35). Canon F. J. Shirley, in a sermon in Canterbury Cathedral, preached "Russia is reclaiming the criminals; the system is redemptive and men are restored to good moral life, assets once more to the community” (Kentish Gazette and Canterbury Press, 7/9/35). In March, 1937, the A.E.U. delegation published a report applauding the system, as did the Quakers in 1933. So we see that there has been a great deal of change in their ideas; there has been none in the Russian penal system.

But in slating the propagandists of Western Capitalism, we must not allow those of the East to escape scot free. Equal trickery comes from such Moscow henchmen as the Communist Party and its subsidiary Anglo-Soviet Society. While one group attacks the Russian system, the other attempts to defend it.

In its pamphlet "The Forced Labour Swindle” the British Soviet Society try to smooth over these revelations and get into such deep water that if their words were true the Russian worker would be better off in prison than out of it.

They begin by trying to establish a wealth of difference between the words "corrective” as used in the Russian text and “forced" in the newspapers. Surely this treatment is not voluntary?

Prisoners have much more freedom, we are told. When they are not performing their tasks, they are free to indulge in “political” education. In a country which recognises the need for only one political party, we can well imagine what form that education takes. Incidentally political prisoners are treated exactly the same as criminals.

Apart from these points it seems, in theory at least, that the conditions in Russian prisons are similar to those in the rest of the capitalist world so far as material conditions are concerned. In accordance with modern ideas they may attempt to rehabilitate the recalcitrant worker as an honest and servile wage-slave, but as a recent report by several psychologists pointed out, such systems are doomed to failure, for no matter how ideal the conditions in one of these centres may be, the subject must eventually return to the environment which was the cause of his misdemeanours.

The right of exile is excused by the author of this pamphlet and made to sound as if it doesn’t really matter. The exile is allowed to take his family with him and pays "only” five to fifteen per cent, of his income as cost. They are allowed twelve free days per year. They fail to emphasise the vast climatic and geographic difference between, say, Moscow or Kiev and the frozen wilds of Siberia.

It is, by the way, possible to imprison without a trial in Russia, and the writer compares this law with Defence Regulation 18B. Countering the argument that this Regulation is only enforced during a war, he says that Russia has been in peril for the whole thirty years of the Communist Party’s regime. But if the conditions in that country are as rosy as he would have us believe, who on earth would want to sabotage them?

As a conclusion the pamphlet points out that forced labour exists in many parts of the world, and cites the forced porterage in Tanganyika, Papua, Indonesia and Malaya. Attack, they say, is the best form of defence. But we know all this, and expose it wherever it exists, whether in Russia or Timbuctoo. And furthermore we know that wherever slaves exist there must be a class of masters, in other words, Socialism does not exist.

In 1917, the Russian revolution and what followed, transformed a semi-feudal society into an effective capitalist state. The fact that the particular organisation of Russia is worded with a hotch-potch of "left- wing” jargon counts for nothing. In Russia wage-labour exists as the counterpart of capital: there are armies, navies, airforces, police and prisons. All are hall-marks of Capitalism. That being so, the task which faces the Russian worker is similar to that which faces the workers throughout the modern world—the casting off of the yoke of exploitation and the establishment of Socialism.

Ronald.

Editorial: How will you use your vote? (1950)

Editorial from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the General Election in 1945 the S.P.G.B. had a candidate at North Paddington, and contested the same constituency again in November, 1946, when the Labour Member elected in 1945 resigned on grounds of ill-health. This time we are again contesting North Paddington and also putting up a candidate at East Ham South. Southend Branch is carrying on electoral activity and if sufficient support is forthcoming the candidate will be nominated. Our candidates, according to present information, will be opposed by Labour, Tory, Liberal and Communist candidates. All four parties will be calling on the workers not to vote for the only candidates who represent the Socialist challenge to capitalism. It is right that all four parties should do this and we welcome the opportunity of putting the election in its proper setting. It is our task and ours alone to press home the truth that for the working-class here and in all countries there can be no escape from the poverty, insecurity, hatreds and wars of the world as it is except through the abolition of capitalism and establishment of Socialism.

It is a hard lesson and one the working class are slow to grasp. The bitterness with which the other parties conduct the struggle for power lends colour to the belief that there are fundamental working-class interests at stake in the choice between them. In truth none of the four will touch the fundamental issue of Capitalism—Tory, Liberal, Labour or Communist administration will all leave the working class in the wage-slave position from which only Socialism can emancipate them. Whatever the detailed way in which the capitalist system is administered there will still be luxury and privilege for the rich, poverty and arduous toil for the working class. This is a basic feature and one that is common to all the superficially different forms of Capitalism, whether it be private enterprise America, Labour administered Britain or Russia under Communist dictatorship. A Minister in the Labour Government, Mr. Glenvil Hall, M.P., Financial Secretary to the Treasury, admitted in the House of Commons on 18th May, 1949, that: —

"Of the 550.000 people who die each year only 10 per cent. own more than £2,000 but these ten per cent. between them own 90 per cent, of the total property."

Inequality is inseparable from Capitalism, and while all the non-Socialist political parties profess to deplore “extreme inequality,” all of them, including the Communists, advance specious arguments in defence of inequality itself. They are all concerned to defend and perpetuate the system that gives wealth and privilege to a minority.

During the election campaign, the S.P.G.B. will put in its election literature and from its platforms the same Socialist message that our propagandists address to the working class at all times. There will be no vote-catching programme and appeals specially designed for election purposes.

The inauguration of Socialism demands the understanding of the working class. Votes and support given for anything less than Socialism would be only a source of weakness and confusion. We will do all we can to ensure that the Socialist candidates receive only the votes of those who understand and want Socialism; no other votes are sought.

What of the result? The number of votes given for Socialism will serve as a measure of the growth of Socialist understanding. Knowing how far the great majority of the working class are from accepting the Socialist case we know that the Socialist vote must be small. We are not discouraged by that. We have on our side forces that constantly add recruits to the army of Socialism as the other parties repeatedly betray their mental bankruptcy in their vain attempts to bring order, well-being and peace out of the chaos that is Capitalism.

Notes by the Way: Cock-eyed Trade Unionism (1950)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cock-eyed Trade Unionism

Before the Labour Party became the Government, when Labour propaganda was more exuberant and unrestrained, trade unionists were always told that a Labour Government would push up wages at the expense of profits.

But Labour in power is very different from Labour in opposition, and now the Government devotes its principal efforts to persuading the workers not to make wage claims. This turnabout reached the peak of the fantastic late in December, 1949, when the Government held parallel meetings, with the T.U.C. on the one side and with the British Employers’ Confederation on the other.

The purpose was first to persuade the T.U.C. to accept wage-freezing and recommend it to its constituent unions. The T.U.C. agreed. The Government then appealed to the employers and we are told that they also pledged their support to Government policy on wages, production and profits. Here are some Press reports of the pledge given by the employers' spokesman to Mr. Bevin:—

“The Foreign Secretary gave a review of the present national situation, and asked for the co-operation of employers in the necessary efforts to secure stabilisation and increased production.

“Sir Greville Maginess (president), on behalf of the Confederation, gave the assurance that the employers would co-operate fully in the national interest.” (Daily Herald 22/12/49).

The Herald went on to explain:—

“The mention of “stabilisation” is believed to refer to the continued need for restraint on personal incomes, including wage rates, profits and dividends.”

The Times (22/12/49) added a few points, under the charming heading

"Employers promise support for wage stabilisation.”

Lastly, Mr. Ernest Bevin appealed to representatives of 50 employers' federations for their help in securing stabilisation and increased production. The last meeting was remarkable in that it found Mr. Bevin, the old trade union leader, appealing, among other things, to employers for their co-operation in stabilizing wages. . . . Sir Greville Maginess, on behalf of the confederation assured him of the employers* support.” (Times 22/12/49).

So we have reached the ironical position that the Labour Government (which promised higher wages) asks for and receives the backing of the T.U.C. (which exists to press for higher wages) for a policy of wage-freezing; and as if that isn't funny enough, the Government then appeals to the employers (whose interest it is to resist wage claims anyway) to promise in effect that they will go on resisting them.

The supporters of Labour Government, of course, defend themselves by saying that circumstances compel the Government to act in this way.

We agree up to the hilt; with, however, the slight amplification that the “circumstances" referred to are that the Labour Government has taken on the job of keeping Capitalism going.

Mr. Horner and the “Daily Worker”

In its issue for 30th December. 1949, the Communist Daily Worker reported that the miners’ national delegate conference had voted in favour of “wage-freezing” by passing a resolution endorsing the policy of the Trades Union Congress General Council. The resolution read: —

“Having regard to the serious economic situation of the country, we approve the terms of the report of the General Council in relation to T.U.C. wages policy.”

The Daily Worker condemned the resolution and urged the miners to reject it; and described the “wage-freezing” policy as one "foisted on the Trades Union Congress by the Government.” The Daily Worker reporter, Mr. George Sinfield, stated that "several leaders” of the miners told him that if the policy of withdrawal of wage-claims is pursued there will be serious repercussions in the pits.

It will be noticed that Mr. Sinfield talked about the matter with several miners’ leaders, but one of them he does not mention. That one is Mr. Arthur Horner who is General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, and is a year-long member of the Communist Party. The Daily Worker said nothing at all about their esteemed Communist Party colleague, but the omission is made good by the Manchester Guardian. The latter, on the same day, reported that the resolution which the Daily Worker found so obnoxious and which was presented to the delegate meeting by the Union's Executive, was “moved by Mr. Arthur Homer," secretary of the Union.

Ask the Basutos to come and help us

The following are recent news items: —

“Professor G. I. Jones, lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge University, has been sent to South Africa by the Colonial Office in an attempt to trace to its psychological source the wave of ritual murders which is sweeping Basutoland” (E. Standard 26/11/49).

The other items refer not to Basutoland, but to crime in Britain:—

”Except for the year 1946 there has been an annual increase since 1938 in the number of indictable offences. The 1938 figure of 283,220 rose to 522,634 in 10 years.

The 1948 figure of 40 murders was the highest in the 10-year period. The lowest was 20 in 1944.” (D. Telegraph 6/1/1950).

“Number in gaol, highest for 38 years.” (D. Telegraph 29/9/49).

The Professor seems to be travelling in the wrong direction.

The Catch in the "Welfare State"

The Labour Government claims credit for having introduced or extended various social services, and tries to give the impression that they represent a clear gain for the workers. This is only half the story. In the first place part of the expenditure on unemployment pay, sickness benefits, etc., is met from the workers’ own national insurance contributions.

Secondly, as was pointed out by the S.P.G.B. when the Labour Party campaign for social reforms was in its infancy, when the workers are relieved of the need to pay for certain necessities, they have to struggle against pressure by the employers to reduce wages correspondingly.

Bodies responsible for arbitrating on wage claims, even when they do not put it down in black and white, take these factors into account in their awards.

And to put the matter beyond any possibility of dispute we have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, stating the position in set terms in Parliament.

He was explaining the Government’s insistence that there should be no departures from the wage-freezing policy except in the case of very low wages, and he made it clear that when you are considering whether a wage comes under this heading it is necessary not only to consider the wage itself but also the benefits provided under the social service schemes.

“The White Paper must, therefore, be observed strictly, and it is only in the exceptional and genuine cases where some wage survives which, together with all the subsidies and social services, is insufficient to provide a family with a minimum reasonable standard of living, that there can be any possible excuse for going forward with a claim for an increase.” (Cripps, Hansard, 27/9/49. Col. 26).

Old Age Pensions in the U.S.A.

The same issue is arising in U.S.A. in a slightly different form. There is an old-age pension scheme covering 35 million workers, the fund being financed by equal contributions from employers and workers, supplemented by additional income raised by taxation. The old-age pension is 26 dollars a month for a single man and 41 dollars for a married couple.

But in recent months workers in some big industries have, by strikes, forced the employers to agree to pay a non-contributory old-age pension in addition to the Government old-age pension. According to the Manchester Guardian, from which the above details are taken, the steel employers and the Ford Motor Co. have agreed to pay whatever amount is required to make up the old-age pension to 100 dollars a month. Workers in other industries are threatening strikes for similar agreements, and “it is likely that this system of industrial pensions, to which the employees do not contribute, will spread widely through American industry.” (Manchester Guardian, 5/1/50.)

Just at this moment the Truman Government, with its eye on forthcoming elections, is proposing to extend the Government old-age pension scheme both by bringing in millions of workers now outside and by increasing the amount of the pension, which at present is small by American standards.

The cost of the scheme will of course go up but the interesting point is that the American employers have an obvious financial motive for supporting the increase in the amount of Government old age pensions because the larger the Government pension the smaller will be the amount the steel and other employers will need to bring the total up to 100 dollars a month.

“Industrialists have therefore a strong motive for supporting, or at least accepting, a liberalisation of the Federal scheme. It will put some additional weight on their shoulders, both in taxes and in levies on wages; but it will relieve them of the threat of a much greater weight" (M. Guardian 5/1/1950).

It will be seen that capitalism works in much the same way whether it be called a Labour “Welfare State” or a Truman “New Deal ”.

No Wage-freeze here

The Government's attempts to get the workers voluntarily to refrain from demanding wage increases to compensate for the rising cost of living are meeting with more resistance and there is no doubt that one of the reasons is that trade unionists note and resent the way in which lucky individuals vastly improve their own position by being appointed to highly paid jobs on the Boards of nationalised industries.

In the issue of the House of Commons Hansard for 8 December, 1949, the Prime Minister gave a complete list of all the members of the Boards and all their salaries and allowances. The full-time posts range up to £8,500 (plus allowances), which is the amount paid to Viscount Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, to Lord Citrine, Chairman of British Electricity Authority, and to Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the British Transport Commission.

Other full-time members mostly receive £3,100 or £5,000, and part-time members £500, £750 or £1,000.

Many are former trade union officials and the large difference between what they were paid for that job and what they get on the Boards sufficiently explains the competition for appointments. The Labour Correspondent of The Times (31/12/49) points out that about a quarter of the members of the T.U.C. General Council in 1945-6 are now on State Boards. He writes:— 

“In addition to Lord Citrine, then T.U.C. general secretary, the list includes seven general secretaries of important unions—Mr. Ebby Edwards, of the miners; Mr. Jack Benstead, of the railwaymen; Sir Joseph Hallsworth, of the distributive workers; Mr. E. W. Bussey, of the electrical workers; Mr. W. P. Allen, of the locomotive engineers and firemen; Mr. George Gibson, of the mental hospital workers (who later resigned), and Mr. C. N. Gallie, of the railway clerks, who has a part-time appointment."

Apart from these ex-members of the T.U.C. General Council many other T.U. officials have been appointed to National and Regional Boards.

The Times Labour Correspondent also, for comparison, summarises the position in the trade union world:—

“One striking feature is the difference in the salary levels of members of boards and of trade union officials, who have often increased their earnings by four or five times by the change. Salaries of trade union officials probably average less than £800 a year. They vary from £400 or £500 a year up to about £1,500, or in one or two cases may be as high as £2,000. There are still chief officers who earn less than £1,000, though actual salaries are often augmented by such things as a free house and expenses arrangements." (Times 31/12/49).

Wisdom from Nigeria

To protect themselves and their dependants against destitution in old age people who can afford it take out life assurance policies and do so voluntarily. The Labour Government boasts that its national insurance and old age pension schemes are a very good thing, yet so little do the workers want to be compelled to contribute that the Government has to threaten them with legal penalties if they fail to do so. The purpose behind it is to even out the poverty of the working-class by taking contributions from the young to be returned when they are old; and from the more healthy to be paid out to the less healthy; and from those who are working to those who are unemployed. Some individuals can say that they gain out of this and welcome it, but in the final analysis the capitalist class anticipate that it is cheaper for them than was the old arrangement when the sick, unemployed and aged had to be given State relief and charity.

It appears from evidence given to the official inquiry into the troubles at the Nigerian mines that the miners have seen that there is a catch in the social reform argument. The following is from a report in The Times (19/1/50):—

"Mr. L. P. Ojukwu, one of the three I.B.O. members of the colliery board . . . told the Commission that steps had been taken to induce the workers to resume normal work when information of the go-slow strike had been received. On each occasion that he spoke to the men the reply was always that they wanted money. When he explained proposals for the extension of housing schemes, hospitals, and maternity homes and for the provision of other amenities he had been met with the argument: ‘Give us more money and we will provide these things ourselves.' "

They have something there and it is a pity we do not know what kind of answer they were given. It is an aspect on which our Labour Party defenders of reformed capitalism are always silent or obscure. 

Edgar Hardcastle

SPGB General Election Meetings (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News Briefs (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hackney Branch has received short notice to vacate its present meeting place at the Co-op Hall in Mare Street, Hackney, owing to a scheme for re-building. Future branch meetings will be held at the Bethnal Green Town Hall on Friday evenings until further notice. The Mile End Baths have been booked for a debate with the Conservative Party candidate for the Mile End (Stepney) Division, on Monday, February 13th, at 8 p.m. Application has also been made for a further booking of the same hall to hold a Social and Dance sometime early in March.

The Manifesto of the S.P. of Ireland is at the printers. We are expecting copies to be available before the next issue of this paper.

The W.S.P. of U.S. has moved its National Headquarters from Boston to Detroit. The address is now World Socialist Party of the United States, 3000 Grand River, Detroit 1, Michigan, U.S.A. The previous headquarters at 27 Dock Square, Boston, Mass., will remain the centre for publication of The Western Socialist, and all matters concerning that journal should be addressed there. All matters for the National Executive Council should be sent to Room 307 at the first-mentioned address.

The Report of the 45th Executive Committee to the 46th Annual Conference (1950) is now in the hands of the branches. The Conference will be held at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W.C.l, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, 7th, 8th and 9th of April. The report is a very detailed one covering 22 foolscap pages. From it we learn that membership figures are still slowly increasing. At 31st December, 1949, we had 1,071 members. The Executive Committee, acting on a 1949 Conference resolution, agreed on a procedure for enabling members of our Central Branch (comprising those members who reside in an area where no branch of our Party is established) to vote at Annual Conferences. The procedure is being implemented. The Central Organiser reports on a series of meetings held in the provinces at Derby, Nottingham, Edinburgh and Bristol, and says: —

“ At the. moment it is difficult to assess the value of these meetings, but they must contribute to the ultimate formation of branches in the areas mentioned. In 1950 attempts will be made to hold meetings in other parts of the Provinces and it is hoped that our increased speaking strength will make this a practical possibility."

Since the increase in the size of the Socialist Standard from its war-time 12 pages to its present 16 pages, our Head Office has suffered a loss with the publication. Figures are given in the report which show that the normal monthly deficit is approximately £18 10s. 0d. and this does not take into account the expenditure connected with posting and packing of library copies, free issues, etc. Objection is raised to any increase in the price of our paper to offset this deficit. It is suggested that increased sales are the remedy. A 1949 Delegate Meeting resolution recommended that the cover design of the Socialist Standard be changed. This matter, together with proposals for a new lay-out, is receiving attention.

Detailed statistics of the year’s propaganda meetings are included in the report. The total number of outdoor meetings reported to Head Office during 1949 was 950. Other figures are as follows: Indoor meetings, 108; Debates, 14; Addresses to other organisations, 21. Total for all meetings, 1,093. Not included in the report, but for readers who are interested, we give comparative figures for the past few years. These are for meetings that have been reported to Head Office. It has been estimated that approximately 33 per cent, are not reported.

Under the heading “Education” the Executive Committee makes a statement in reference to a 1949 Conference resolution calling for the setting up of machinery “ . . . to more effectively utilise the energies of those members who have passed through the tutorial classes at Head Office.”

“The view of the Executive Committee is that it should be borne in mind that the production of speakers, writers and tutors is not simply a matter of attendance at classes. These kinds of Party work, like others, produce themselves, as always, by doing work and keeping on with it and this would happen, better or worse, if there were no classes. What the classes do provide (in addition to a general survey of Party theory) is a more systematic training and encouragement They also help to sort out Party members leanings, and provide refresher experience for older hands, and their existence as a permanent part of organisation helps to maintain the general level of Party work in various fields.”

The report then reviews the work of the Introductory Class, the Speakers' Class, the Writers’ Class and Special Classes together with the arrangements for an Advanced Economics Class.

The difficulties experienced by the Committee that was to inaugurate the Research Bureau are reported. It had been hoped to publish a regular publication composed of the material produced by the Research Committee, at least once a quarter and possibly once a month. Unfortunately plans did not materialise, not because the response by branches was lacking or that the matter was insufficient, but mainly because the members of the Committee, for reasons of employment and pressure of other work, could not continue the job. Under “Electoral Activity” we are informed of the nomination of G. McClatchie as prospective Parliamentary candidate for North Paddington by the Paddington Branch and of H. Young for East Ham South by the West Ham Branch. Following a Delegate Meeting resolution calling for a new procedure in the manner of appointing Parliamentary candidates, the Executive rescinded the two previous candidate appointments. The new nominations from the two branches concerned were approved (C. Groves being unable to stand for health reasons and W. Waters expressing a desire to withdraw).

It is not possible to deal with all the matters covered by the report. It must be sufficient to say that it is a clear statement of the condition of our organisation, containing no false encouragement, but a plain explanation of what has been done, what has been left undone, what it has not been possible to do and what it is intended to do in the future. Altogether it is good reading and gives one a feeling of satisfaction with the progress made.

The Publicity Committee reports that the Star has declined to accept an advertisement for the Socialist Standard. No reason given.

W. Waters

Election Forecast (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Extract from letter in The Times (17/1/50) from Sir Geoffrey Bracken, Joint Editor of the "Economic Digest":

"Whatever the result, no spectacular change in policy is to be expected: the man in the street will find things going on very much as they have been going."

Labour Honours for Capitalists (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

We wait with interest a reply from any Labourite willing to offer us an explanation for the following selection [only a selection] of awards made in the recent New Year Honours List, issued under the authority, and with the blessing of a Labour Government “in power as well as in office.”

AWARDED A BARONETCY

Sir Alexander Steven Biisland. Member of the Dollar Export Board. Chairman of Glasgow Industrial Finance (Development), Ltd. Chairman of the Union Bank of Scotland, Ltd. Chairman, Glasgow Stockholders Trust, Ltd. Chairman, Hillington Industrial Estates, Ltd. Director, Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Director, Colvilles, Ltd. Director, Burmah Oil Co., and other companies.

AWARDED KNIGHTHOODS

Mr. Colin Skelton Anderson. President, U.K. Chamber of Shipping. Director, Union Bank of Australia. Director, Orient Underwriting Co., Ltd. Director, Vancouver Investment Co., Ltd. Director, Not- grove Trust, Ltd.

Col. Robert Chapman. Chairman, North-Eastern Trading Estate, Ltd. Chairman, North-Eastern Investment Trust, Ltd. Director, Manchester Dry Docks Co., Ltd., and other companies.

Mr. Henry Laurence Urling Clark. Late Chairman of the Council of the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Cuthbert Barwick Clegg. Chairman, Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Association. Vice-Chairman, British Cotton Industry Research Association. Vice-President, British Employers’ Confederation. Director, London and Lancashire Insurance Co., Ltd. Director, Martins Bank, Ltd., and other companies.

Mr. William McGilvray. Director, National Benzole Co.

Mr. John Coldbrook Hanbury-Williams. Director, Bank of England. Chairman, Courtaulds, Ltd. Chairman, British Nylon Spinners, Ltd Chairman. British Cellophane, Ltd. Director of other companies. 

AWARDED C.B.

Col. Douglas Stephenson Branson. Director, Park Gate Iron and Steel Co.. Ltd. Director. British Law Insurance Co., Ltd.

AWARDED C.B.E.

Sir Hugh Trevor Dawson. Director, British Drug Houses, Ltd. Director, Decca Navigator Co., Ltd. Director, British Tyre and Rubber Co., Ltd. Director, Northern Commercial Vehicles, Ltd., and other companies.

Whatever may have been the feelings of Labourites, the Financial Times was very pleased to find that “Many ‘City names’ appear in the New Year Honours List . . . .” (2nd January, 1950).

Stan Hampson

Science under capitalism (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science held its last session in January. After being considerably shaken early in the proceedings by Professor Einstein’s announcement of his new theory in the realm of physics, it proceeded to review the reports of new advances and discoveries made in other fields.

It heard details, for example, of the new evidence brought to light that cancer may be allied with certain type of fungi; that another substance. Compound F, has been isolated from the adrenal gland and appears to be as effective as Compound E in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; and of the discovery of a new drug, neomycin, capable of killing the bacilli causing tuberculosis. The meeting also heard the confirmation of a simple blood test for the early diagnosis of cancer, and the invention of a device whereby people who are stone-deaf are enabled to hear through their finger-tips. Numerous reports of discoveries and inventions in other fields of science were also discussed, ranging from the discovery of a planet between Mercury and the sun one mile in diameter to the discovery of a glue-like substance in the teeth that prevents bacterial decay.

But just in case anybody has relaxed back in his chair marvelling at what science is capable of doing for the human race, even under the handicap of Capitalism, we should also state that there was much speculation during the meeting as to whether the American Government will decide, in the words of Alistair Cooke in the Manchester Guardian (3rd January, 1950),

“ To go ahead and make the monster atomic bomb that its Atomic Energy Committion now knows to be

practicable—namely, one achieved by the nuclear explosion of hydrogen. The Alsop brothers report this morning the debate on this grisly weapon—a thousand times as destructive as the Hiroshima squib—which is now disturbing the high policy men in Washington.”

“But inside the conference rooms,” he adds, “ most of the papers presented testified to the life-giving knowledge that is abundantly at hand,” following it with the cynical comment, “ if we can manage to stay alive to use it.”

It is a fitting comment on the relationship of Science and Capitalism that whilst one set of scientists is busy at work trying to prolong the life of mankind, another group is working like hell to shorten it.

Stan Hampson

What! Another Mistake? (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

1. Old.

In the October, 1936, Socialist Standard there appeared an article “The Russian ‘ Terrorist ’ Trial,” dealing with the infamous “Moscow Trials.” It contained extracts from a special number of “International Press Correspondence,” Vol. 16, No. 41, September 9th, 1936—a journal of the late, unlamented “Third International” (“Comintern,” Moscow). The article is contained in the pamphlet "Russia Since 1917” (Socialist Party of Great Britain, 1948, 1s.) from which the following is quoted (pages 59, 60):—

(Vishinsky, prosecutor, cross-examining Holzman):

" 'We drove in a taxi—Holzman continued his deposition—but I do not remember the street. Sedov took me into a flat. It was on the fourth floor. Here I gave him the report and code. ... I met him like this six to eight times in the course of four months. 'In November,' Holzman continued, 'I again 'phoned Sedov, and we met again. Sedov said to me: 'As you are getting ready to go to the U.S.S.R., 1 would advise you to go with me to Copenhagen, where my father is.' "

“Vishinsky: ‘That is?'

“ Holzman: 'That is, Trotsky?'

“Vishinsky: 'You went? ’

“Holzman: "I agreed and told Sedov that in two or three days I would go to him in Copenhagen and stay at the Hotel Bristol, where we could meet. I went straight from the station to the hotel, and met Sedov in the lounge.' (Page 1120)."

The writer of the “ S.S.” article commented:

“ Let us consider this statement.

“ The second paragraph states that Holzman went to a flat with Sedov, but Holzman could not remember the street, although he visited the flat ’six to eight times in the course of four months.' How very curious!

“This paragraph states that they met in 1932 at the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen. Unfortunately for this statement the diplomatic correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (September 17th, 1936) points out that the Hotel Bristol was pulled down in 1917! Possibly one of those who took part in preparing the case had been in Copenhagen during the war but did not know the dirty trick someone had played in 1917! ”

There is much more in the article quoted from, which throws grave doubts, to say the least, on the reliability of these confessions and the evidence on which conviction is obtained.

2. New.

“. . . Two and a half years ago, ... the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party passed a resolution of congratulation on the occasion of ... (the) birthday ... of the party’s general secretary.” (Vernon Bartlett, News Chronicle, December 19th, 1949.) 

He continues: —

“ One sentence in it is worthy of repetition: ‘ Your deep Marxist-Leninist knowledge, your great culture, your well-known industry and steadfastness, your modesty, your iron will, your unquestionable loyalty towards the Party and [! ] the working class, are those Bolshevist characteristics which beautify your whole life.’ ” 

This was for Traicho Kostov!

Later, when his Bulgarian Nationalism appeared to be superceding his Russian Nationalism, “Kostovism” became “Titoism on Bulgarian soil,” according to a report from Sofia. (“Titoism” appears to mean Yugoslav Nationalism superceding Russian Nationalism “ on Yugoslav soil.")

The following is quoted from the Evening News December 13th, 1949. If a correct report of proceedings it would indicate an incident similar to the “Hotel Bristol 'mistake'. "

"The Foreign Office said to-day that Mr. 'Billy' Watson, whose name has been mentioned in the treason trial in Sofia of Traicho Kostov and others, was a business man who lived in Sofia. It was alleged that Mr. Watson had contacted Kostav in February, 1948; in fact, he died in January of that year . . ."

Perhaps this is a case where we should add : "Psychic News: please copy ”!

Alec Hart

SPGB Meetings (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Editorial: The Food of the People. (1906)

Editorial from the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Food of the People.

Let the people eat grass, said the representative of the governing class in reply to the clamour of a hungry populace in the days that preceded the French Revolution; and let the people eat the poisonous products of Packingtown say that portion of the capitalist governing class of to-day engaged in drawing their profits from that nauseating undertaking. And from the point of view of capitalism, why not ? If diseased flesh, decaying offal, and excrementitious matter can be dosed with essences to change its taste and chemicals to stay the process of decomposition and after passing through embalming machinery appear upon epicurean tables as ham, chicken and tongue, or other delectable comestible, and upon the scanty board of the hungry as corned beef or what not; and if this can be done without inducing nausea in those who eat and without coroners’ verdicts of death from ptomaine or other poisoning being too closely associated with the “food”-stuff; and if, above all, it can be done at a good fat profit—why not, indeed ? Why cant of the “moral” aspect and blether of the anti-Social rapacity of the vendors of such filth? Are they more anti-social or immoral than the God-fearing capitalist who locks out his men for refusing to submit to his terms, or shuts down his factory or mine when, through the arduous toil of his “hands” a surplus has accumulated which he can then proceed to work off at enhanced prices ? He doesn’t care greatly whether the men thrown out of employment starve to death. It isn’t expected of him. He is quite within his right in the action he takes. “The law allows it, the court awards it.” If the unemployed refuse to die quietly, he is quite justified in shooting them into eternity. He is even applauded for his “strong” action in protecting property and maintaining order. The embalmer of “beef,” or filth, as the case may be—or rather the capitalist director of that “industry”—is just as indifferent to the fate of the purchaser as his kind order-loving fellow capitalist is to the fate of his discharged hand. Yet a mighty roar of indignation goes up when we get a sensational disclosure of the “food” embalmers’ method and the name of Armour is anathema; while the only roar that goes up at the Featherstone disclosures is one of congratulation and the name of Masham is honoured in the land.

Capitalist Cant.

The only apparent reason for this divergence of opinion is that the probable purchasers of “canned delicacies” are to some extent members of the capitalist class themselves and their esprit de corps is not equal to the strain of a possible painful death even in the noble cause of unlimited profits. It is fairly certain that if it had been merely a question of the revolting conditions under which the workers of Packingtown were forced to exist, the stir would have been barely sufficient to perceptibly disturb the social placidity. That at any rate has been the invariable effect of other disclosures of working-class hardships and unhappiness in the process of production. They can be poisoned by lead or pork, killed by starvation or bullets, cremated, suffocated or drowned in mines, worked under revolting conditions in Chicago or Cradley or Whitechapel or the Potteries. That is of no great consequence. But let the suspicion get abroad that the capitalist goes in danger of his life from poisoned food out of Chicago or of disease-infested clothing out of Whitechapel and the Social “conscience” is immediately aroused, the “soul” of Society is stirred to its deepest depths, and we are in the throes of a great popular agitation assiduously fostered by Press and Pulpit, for something to be done to end such immoral rapacity.

The Chicago disclosures simply go to show that adulteration is still regarded by the capitalist class as it was by that “Christ-like” political pet of Nonconformity and Liberalism, John Bright, as a legitimate form of competition. The keener the competition the greater the adulteration. And when competition finds its inevitable end in monopoly what more natural than that the methods which have accompanied its evolution should remain to assist in the creation of greater profits. “Morality” has nothing to do with it. The question of profits is the only thing that matters to capitalism—that and a tender regard for longevity. While commodities are produced for profit there will always he adulteration and unemployment and sweating and misery and poverty. They all spring from the same source in the private ownership of the means of living and although it may occur that some of the more revolting and dangerous of that private ownership may be suppressed, they cannot be disposed of until the cause bas been attacked and removed. Until then the people are at the mercy of the capitalist profit-monger in the matter of their food-stuffs as in all else.

On Personalities. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A standing objection to us and our method of propaganda in press and on platform is that we are too personal. When all other criticism has been reasoned down, we can generally rely that our opponent for the time being will fling at us as the last word in the category of the objectionables—too personal. Generally, also, we get this dialectical missile hurtled at us as our worthy critic hastens without the reach of any reply we may wish to make—which provokes in what I endeavour shall be my exceedingly charitable mind, the thought that the objector is more concerned with scoring a point at our expense than with urging an argument for the sake of truth.

Nevertheless, I am aware that the same objection seriously influences some number of persons to regard us unfavourably, so that it may be worth while to occupy a little space in an enquiry into the validity and the value of the objection.

My endeavour will be to shew, not that we do not use what is called personalities, but that such personal references as we make are entirely unobjectionable and are, indeed, absolutely indispensable to the elucidation of the problems and the discussion of the questions we direct our attention to as a Socialist Party. Not, of course, that the use of personalities is peculiar to a Socialist Party. Every other body of propagandists, from the occupants of professional chairs dilating upon the wonders of a universe, to the denizens of a pot-house dilating upon the virtues of a particular brand of four ale ; from men of the standing of Ernst Haeckel to men of the lying of say, Dr. Torrey, all make the personal appeal, the personal reference, use the personal illustration. Even our friend the anti-personality man commits what he regards as the unpardonable sin in illustrating his objection by personal references to us. There is no subject under high heaven that can be discussed without personalities of one sort or another. We can hardly talk of the law of gravity without reference to Newton and without pointing our remarks upon the operation of the law by the illustration of the unfortunate men who have fallen out of balloons. Nor can we dissociate Darwin from evolution, Marx from the theory of value, Armour and Co. from the recently disclosed horrors of embalmed beef, “Labour” Leaders from political impotency and the cause of working-class confusion and so on. These are all personal references and should be, if our objector’s case is a good one, taboo. Does our objector agree ? So far as the first four cases are concerned probably he does, but he disagrees about the last mentioned. Which means that he is in favor of some personalities sometimes. Then where does he draw his line ? How does he discriminate ?

If I know my honest objector well (as I think I do), his protest is not against the use of personalities at all. It is against the unfair and the unnecessary use of them. And his idea of the unfair and unnecessary personality is that one which for certain reasons is distasteful to him. He is an admirer say of Will Crooks or John Burns. He thinks they are good men who are striving whole-heartedly for the benefit of the working class. And when we lump them together among the crowd of working-class enemies, he is indignant and declaims our use of personalities. But when in our examination of the workings of Capitalism we make denunciatory references to the pork packers of Chicago who are prepared to poison the proletariat for personal profit, he says “hear, hear,” and applauds vociferously.

Now why is this ? It is in the one case because he can appreciate enough of the facts to know that our personal references to Armour and Co. are fair and necessary and serve as a forceful illustration of our argument, while in the other the references are not fair or necessary, because he has not appreciated the facts. Yet we are continually placing on record facts in proof of our arguments against Burns and Crooks, who we hold are poisoning the minds of the proletariat. We make our personal references to them serve as illustrations in just the same way as our personal references to the poisoned pork packers.

Why does not our friend appreciate the facts as much in the one case as in the other ? Because in the case of Crooks or Burns he starts prejudiced in their favour and either will not listen to the facts at all, or dismisses them as personalities. Which simply means that he is in favor only of the personalities of approval so far as they are concerned and is in favor of the personalities of disapproval so far as we are concerned, because he usually stigmatizes us as “personality” purveyors of an objectionable type. But be it observed he approves the use of personalities in any case.

The same thing applies to our references to the I.L.P., the S.D.F. and similar bodies or members of similar bodies. It is frequently urged that we may and should go on our way preaching our gospel, regardless entirely of such men and organisations. But this is just as impossible as the omission of references to the individuals whose names are inextricably intermixed with such subjects as Evolution would be, were we discussing those subjects. As a Socialist Party, we have to face and deal with a doleful mass of working-class ignorance. To do so we have to face and deal with what we regard as contributing factors to working-class ignorance such as the organizations and individuals named. In their case we have the greater incentive because their existence is known of in every district that we can reach in our national propaganda work and we are, therefore, the more urgently called upon to shew cause why we, making for the goal which they too are ostensibly working toward, are yet dissociated from them. Moreover, even if it were possible to drop them from our consideration entirely, we should be discarding the potent illuminating force to be obtained from personal reference. Anything that may be fairly used to illustrate our argument and emphasise our attitude, should be utilised. We should be failing in our duty to our class were we to omit to do so. We should most certainly be voluntarily weakening ourselves as propagandists and to that extent should be defeating our own purposes. Incidentally we should be laying ourselves open also to the charge of cowardice from those who, knowing of the existence of these other bodies, observe that we studiously avoid tackling them.

Very well. The position narrows itself to this : personalities, so far from being objectionable, are proper and necessary, so long as they are fair. A fair personality is one which expresses that which can be substantiated as true. If any objector thinks he has a case against us he must, therefore, shew that our personal references are unfair because they are untrue. If he can find any such and will point them out to us and so prove his objection, we, for our part will be very ready to withdraw and apologise. So far as I am aware, no such unfair reference has been made by members of this Party. If it has, I am quite confident that the Party will immediately repudiate it. We are out to speak the truth as we know it to the end that the working class knowing the truth may organize upon a sound basis and proceed along right lines towards their emancipation.

That is our business. Simply that and nothing more, and if in the process we come full tilt against the words or the deeds of the heroes of our good friend the conscientious objector to personalities, I hope that, before he stultifies himself by launching the personality of opprobrium against us, he will carefully weigh with what of calm, cool dispassionate discrimination he may, the facts and the argument which we adduce in support of our attitude. Then he will be the better able to judge whether we deserve dismissal from his or any other’s consideration. In any case, I am sure a fair attention to this little screed will induce him to regard his objection to the use of personalities with rather less favor than at present.

Agra.

The Note Book. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

It’s come at last ! I knew it would if we only kept at it long enough. When you call a man say, a thief, and prove it, he has no reply except perhaps “you’re another.” When we say a Party has sold out to the capitalist class and prove it, there is no reply possible except perhaps “so have you.” After Camborne it is therefore not surprising that we should hear from the S.D.F. that we are financed by the capitalist class. The allegation comes from Bradford. I understand it’s quite a common sort of charge against us there in the S.D.F. branch. Deponent sayeth that this paper is run by a wealthy American gent (name and extent of financial resources unknown) who pours his wealth into our party exchequer to the end that we may break up the Socialist movement in this country. We are, it seems, bold bad persons of no delicacy, and we are also, at last, discovered—in Bradford.

o o o

It’s such a pretty story that I am fain to withhold my hand from writing that which will burst it. Yet must I. Therefore be it known to all men that, like so much of the information that cometh out of the S.D.F., this story is entirely untrue. Unlike the S.D.F. this Party’s Treasurer is not allowed to issue all-embracing items of expenditure such as “Ink and Sundries £50,” or similar statements. He must give to all the membership a full detailed return of income and expenditure. These returns, supplied quarterly and annually, can be inspected by arrangement with any of our Branch secretaries, or through the Head Office. That should, I think, dispose of our American millionaire. Will the S.D.F. allow the same inspection of their books ? or the I.L.P.? or any other party claiming to represent the working class as against the capitalist class ?

o o o

Speaking for the S.D.F. at Tottenham, on Sunday, June 25th, Mr. Whitlock of the Stratford Branch, said “I would not have crossed my doorstep to vote for Will Thorne at the last election.” Referring to an interview he had had the previous week with Mr. H. M. Hyndman he said “Mr. Hyndman declared himself utterly disgusted with the present Executive Committee of the S.D.F.” Here’s a pretty kettle of fish !

Mr. Hyndman utterly disgusted with his Executive and Mr. Whitlock utterly disgusted with Mr. Thorne. It’s a great Party !

o o o

“Socialists don’t desire to get into Parliament quickly : they desire to make Socialists. And they can make Socialists best by teaching Socialism, not by masquerading as ‘Labour’ men.” This is not an extract from a back number of the Socialist Standard—it is from the “Answers to Correspondents” column of the Clarion, of all papers in the world ! And the Clarion is a thick-and-thin supporter of the gentlemen masquerading as “Labour” men, and says that what the workers want is more of ’em ! Well! Well ! If consistency is a jewel the Clarion men must have realised on theirs very early in their career, if, indeed, they ever had it.

o o o

In reply to a question put to him in the House of Commons on May 23rd, Mr. John Burns said it was not true that he stated in 1886 that there were five millions of people in England on the verge of starvation. We fear that John Burns’ memory, like most other official memories, has grown very short. Speaking from the Old Bailey Dock when on trial for conspiracy on April 9th, 1886, Mr. Burns said, “I say we cannot have in England as we have to-day, five millions living on the verge of pauperism, without gross discontent.” This speech was published at the time in pamphlet form, and was sold widely. It has been sold by Burns’ supporters and by Burns himself. A copy of it, unless I am very mistaken, is at the present time among Mr. Burns’ collection. I have never heard of Burns repudiating the accuracy of his reported remarks before. It is only now, when it is brought up in evidence against his official view of the poverty problem that he denies it. Which brings us to this : either Burns was disseminating a falsehood then or he is disseminating a falsehood now. On the evidence of the supporters of the Party he belongs to, like Mr. Chiozza Money and Mr. Rowntree, the statement made at the Old Bailey must have been well within the mark. Therefore it is now that Mr. Burns is fabricating

o o o

The question referred to was asked, I observe, by Mr. Will Thorne and Mr. Thorne is a regular reader of this paper, as I happen to know. And in this paper for May we reproduced extracts from Burns’ speech in the Dock. The source of Mr. Thorne’s information, therefore, is clearly the Socialist Standard ; and not a bad source either. I commend Mr. Thorne’s example to the other “Labour” members. A regular and careful perusal of the Socialist Standard would, I am sure, do them a world of good. The terms, gentlemen, are 1s. 6d. per annum, post free.

o o o

When Mr. Burns denied the accuracy of Mr. Thorne’s statement, Mr.Thorne replied that he had the evidence in his pocket. A thousand pities Mr. Burns did not challenge its production.

o o o

I observe that the S.D.F. have endeavoured to secure kudos from the incident by reprinting the speech referred to. We published a few extracts only in order to effect a sharp contrast between the Burns of the eighties and the Burns of to-day. The possibility of reproducing the whole speech was discussed by us several months ago but, although we could see that it would find a ready sale, the idea was rejected because there would be no propagandist value in the document by itself. Like most of Burns’ speeches (in this respect at any rate the gentleman has consistency) it was largely wind and bombast. Apart from their educational possibilities we have no concern with the publication of pamphlets. Because it had no educational possibilities we rejected the Burns’ speech pamphlet. For the same reason, apparently, the S.D.F. seized upon it. They are very welcome.

o o o

Mr, Thorne has, it seems, nearly arrived at the conclusion that if anything is to be done in the matter of the unemployed, they will have to do it themselves. “They,” I presume, means the “Labour” members. William must have been very muddle headed if he thought the Government was ever likely to do more than the exact equivalent of nothing. And William must be still more muddle-headed if he thinks the “Labour” members can do anything worth talking about. If William wants reasons and has preserved his back numbers of the Socialist Standard, he will find any number of them have already appeared in our columns. If he wants any more, a note to the Editorial address will receive prompt attention,

o o o

On the authority of The Labour Record, this—”while Parliament sits in the sweltering heat of these summer days discussing dogma, trifling about tittles and often failing to take occasion by the hand, J. R. Clynes, the Labour representative for North East Manchester, sits quiet, emotionless, imperturbable, noting everything and forgetting nothing ! Someday he will arouse himself—and then !” Lor ! Someday he will arouse himself. Note that, impatience ! Someday—and then? Well, frankly, I don’t know what then ; but I conclude, there’s a good time coming boys when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. We may wipe away all tears from our eyes—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. And we shall have a time—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. But why, oh, why! does he sit quiet, emotionless, imperturbable ? Why doesn’t he arouse himself?

o o o

Quoth the Daily News in adverse criticism of that prince of political judges Sir William Grantham (whose judicial calm and serenity by the way, appears to find highest expression in speech husky with emotion and watered with the bitterest of tears !)—”We do not complain of the Bodmin decision as it stands by itself. The serious part of the business is that the election at Bodmin should be declared void while the elections at Yarmouth and Maidstone are allowed to stand.” The naiveté is charming. The serious part of the business, the part that really matters is that two Conservatives retain their seats while the poor Liberal loses his. If now, it had been two Liberals who had maintained their positions and a Conservative who had failed, it wouldn’t have been nearly so serious a matter. Indeed, there would have been nothing at all calling for comment except, perhaps, the skilful discrimination and the even-handed justice of the be-wigged and very learned exponent of law on the Bench. As it is, the really serious part of the business to the Liberal Daily News is that all three Liberals have failed—two in their efforts to unseat their opponents and one in his effort to himself remain seated !

o o o

In the matter of the Daily News—can anyone tell me why its “Life and Labour” column now appears only about once a week ? Was the writer too out-spoken, giving offence to too many good Liberals and true ; or has the need for the maintenance of the fiction which the Daily News was so assiduous in disseminating about the time of the General Election, that the Liberal Party is the Party of the workers, the Party of Progress and industrial reform, etc., etc., ad nauseam, now ceased to exist ? Many of those who take in, and are taken in by, the Daily News, incline to the first view. I accept the second. The good Liberals and true, don’t mind the “Life and Labour” column fillips so long as the writer is always careful to muddle the real issue of the irreconcilable antagonism existing between working-class interests and the interests of that section of capitalism represented in the Liberal Party.

o o o

It is time the good Liberals aforesaid could always rely upon the good Liberals in the editorial and sub-editorial chairs deleting anything particularly objectionable, but I don’t think there would have ever been serious occasion for their intervention. Those who are familiar with the writings of the “Life and Labour” column man know how adroitly he can steer himself out of the danger zone while leaving in the mind of the casual reader the impression that he has faced the whole problem and arrived at the only conclusion. They know too that it is inconceivable that a man can get so near the truth without seeing it, and they know, therefore, that the writer referred to can be relied upon to say just enough and no more. It may consequently be fairly concluded that the Daily News does not now think it necessary to particularly emphasize the fiction mentioned. When the time comes again, as it surely will, the “Life and Labour” column or its equivalent will surely reappear as a regular feature.

January's "Done & Dusted"

A relatively quiet month. Only 10 Socialist Standards 'done and dusted' in January. I'm not sure if I was just being lazy or it's a further indication that I'm running out of Standards to complete. I need to try and work out how many are still do. Okay, that's enough thinking out loud for one post.

Cue cut and paste . . . 

What is now a regular feature on the blog . . . okay, you've already read this bit before so I'll scrub the rest of this paragraph. (Note to self: come up with some new schtick for next month's "Done & Dusted".)

Here's a list of the Socialist Standards that were completed on the blog in the month of December 2023. Slowly but surely the digitization of the Standard is *cough* nearing completion. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say it will be finished by the end of 2024  2029. Famous last words, and all that. 

They are broken up into separate decades for the hard of hearing.

January's "Done & Dusted"

March 1906

April 1906

May 1906

June 1906

January 1933

January 1983

January 2008

January 2009

January 2010

January 2024

Voice From The Back: Is This The Way In Amarillo? (2007)

The Voice From The Back Column from the February 2007 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is This The Way In Amarillo?

“In March, 2005 a nuclear warhead almost exploded in Texas. The near miss accident occurred in Amarillo, when workers at the Pantex nuclear weapons plant bungled the dismantling of a W-56 warhead, a weapon 100 times stronger than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War 2. Details of the averted catastrophe have been kept under wraps until last month, when the Department of Energy (DOE) fined the company that operates the plant, BWX Technologies, $110,000 for safety violations. In a letter obtained by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), technicians at the plant blamed the accident on severe working conditions, including mandatory 72 to 84 hour work weeks. One nuclear scientist told POGO that he “would not work on his car engine if he were fatigued from a 72- hour work week, and sure as hell would not work on a nuclear weapon.” (The Nation, 18 December) $110,000 fine is hardly reassuring but what is worse is the news that the plant has set its 2007 production aims for a 50 percent increase.

Viva Las Vegas?

The city of Las Vegas likes to promote itself as a tourist paradise of fun and entertainment, but there is another side to it. “This is a boomtown, but it is also scattered with signs of bust – namely homeless people. And the city is taking a hard line against them. With mixed success in the courts and on the streets, Las Vegas has tried sweeping away their encampments, closing a park where they hang out, making it a crime to feed them, even passing a ban on sleeping within 500 feet of faeces.” (Associated Press, 18 December) The mayor has even proposed moving the homeless to an abandoned prison 30 miles outside the city. The area has a population of 1.8 million but has 14,500 homeless. The mayor may seem heartless, but capitalism is a heartless society.

Post Xmas Blues

At a time when many workers are reeling from credit card demands and other reminders of our debts it is heartening to know that this is not the fate of everyone. “Sales of high priced items such as designer shoes and celebrity jewellery are breaking records, while John Lewis’s director of retail operations, Gareth Thomas confirmed that the department store group is poised to record its best ever performance. … Sales have been buoyed up by shoppers buying flat-screen televisions for second and third rooms… Mark Henderson, chief executive of tailor Gieves and Hawkes, said: `There is a definite return to formality and a flurry of sales of traditional dinner jackets starting at £1,200`” (Observer, 24 December) Fellow workers, as you sit watching your third flat-screen television in your traditional £1,200 dinner jacket you must often reflect that capitalism isn’t such a bad system after all.

New York, New York

“Food or rent? That is the daily choice faced by about 1.2 million of New York’s 8.2 million people. Faced with that choice, mostly they pay rent and rely on emergency or charity food to survive, poverty activists say. … Hunger is not unique to New York. More than 12 million households – or 35 million Americans – struggled with hunger in 2005, according to the US government. … About 3,800 people were living on the streets in 2006, according to New York City statistics.” (Reuters, 26 December) When Sinatra sang about “The City that never sleeps”, he was telling the truth – it must be hard to sleep on the street with all that traffic.

The Insecure Society

In Dundee after the Second World War the NCR company in Dundee employed over 7,000 workers, but over the years this has fallen to less than 1,500. So when Bill Nuti, the company’s chief executive announced 14 months ago that he was “one million per cent committed to the Dundee operation” the remaining workers felt relieved, but capitalism doesn’t work that way. “A total of 650 factory workers in Dundee were dismissed via transatlantic videolink by their American employer yesterday after being told that production was to be switched to cheaper plants overseas. Employees at NCR, which makes  automatic teller machines, were summoned to a meeting at midday yesterday where amidst angry scenes, the job loses were announced by videolink by Bill Nuti, the company’s chief executive.” (Times, 12 January)

Priorities

Two items appearing in the same newspaper on the same day illustrate the priorities of British capitalism. “Patients face much tougher rationing of treatments and restricted access to breakthrough drugs if the Government does not rethink its plans for health spending, the NHS’s treatment regulator has told the Times. Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, the head of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), cited treatments ranging from new life-saving drugs to free food for the elderly in nursing homes as examples of care that could suffer if ministers slowed the rate of spending, as expected.” And … “Tony Blair defended his policy of intervention and said that more money would have to be spent on the Armed Forces to improve conditions and equipment, enable Britain to stay a warfighting power and face the threat of terrorism.” (Times, 13 January)