The News in Review
POLITICS
Faversham
In one by election after another the Labour Party continues to notch up successes.
As each result is declared, both sides set their statisticians to work to show the voting figures in the most favourable light for them.
A Devizes sends the Tories into raptures—the dark night, they croon, is passing and brighter days are ahead. A Faversham puts the Labour Party back onto its hopeful feet, sets its mouth watering again at the prospect of power which, they think, is almost theirs.
A lot of this enthusiasm is inspired by the theory that nothing succeeds like success, that a big vote in one election begets an even bigger one at a later poll. That is why a party only rarely admits to having taken a beating in a fair and square fight. There is always some aspect of the poll which, selected and perhaps exaggerated, can take the edge off a defeat, and they play this up for all they are worth.
At Faversham the Tories showed their disappointment by dropping their beaten candidate, Mrs. Olsen. From the reports which came from the constituency, Mrs. Olsen did not seem to offer a very effective counter to the Labour candidate’s earnestly sympathetic appearance, which apparently impressed a lot of voters as sincere.
Mrs. Olsen tried to blow up Nationalisation as an issue, while Labour’s Mr. Boston was playing upon the elector’s preoccupation with food prices, rates and unemployment. In a constituency where the workless are something of a problem, the Labour line proved the better vote catcher.
In one of her statements, Mrs. Olsen revealed one of the prejudices (although perhaps she does not hold it herself) which affects a lot of the capitalist parties’ propaganda. Talking about Nationalisation, she said: “ It is worrying people . . . even housewives who are not supposed to be interested.”
Nobody has yet adequately explained why housewives—or any other women— should not be interested in political matters. This is one of the comfortable delusions which, as part of a wider ignorance and prejudice, helps to keep private property in existence. It is unfortunate that the delusion is as firmly held by many women as it is by most men.
And just like any other social prejudice, it has to go. The ending of the social distinction between the sexes will be one of the aspects of the humane world system in which the political parties which prey upon ignorance will be defunct.
ABROAD
Nehru
The death of Pandit Nehru provoked the customary valedictions from the world’s top statesmen, who are of course no more sincere in their expressed opinions about a man after he is dead than they are when he is alive.
At the Albert Hall meeting where tribute was paid to the dead leader, Sir Alex Douglas-Home said that Nehru was a man of contrasts. Indeed he was—in some ways which Sir Alec could not have had in mind.
Nehru was a professed man of peace who saw nothing wrong in the war over Kashmir, nor in the forcible occupation of Portuguese Goa; He was the accepted leader of what are called the non- committed nations, although he was committed up to his neck in the frontier dispute with China. He was the man who foreswore the production of nuclear weapons—as long as his country had no use for them.
“When I asked what sort of conclusions his Government had reached when it studied the future of policy in Asia between a nuclear China and non-nuclear India, he replied with remarkable frankness and warmth that he was afraid that as a Government they had not given it much thought.” (The Guardian 23/10/61.)
He was—and this is the clue to an understanding of Nehru’s career—the alleged Socialist who was busily building what he hoped would one day be a great capitalist nation.
It is at this point that we realise there was nothing of contrast in Nehru. He was presiding over the transformation from one type of property system to another in India and it is not unusual for this to be passed off as Socialist policy. Nor is there anything exceptional in the double-talk and double-think inseparable from this process.
Nehru’s problems were massive. In his efforts to build capitalism in India he was confronted by a vast population seething with every kind of primitive mysticism and religious prejudice. These delusions do not mix with an economic and social structure based upon complex commodity manufacture; Nehru spent a lot of his life trying to break them down.
In the end, as we all know, the prejudices were not ready to admit defeat and Nehru, the great non-believer, was cremated in the same way as a great religious leader..
But he has made his niche as one of capitalism’s innovators. His successors will carry on where he left off, trying to persuade the beggar in the dust that he will be better off as a member of an industrial proletariat, with chains of poverty which are thinner and lighter, but just as real and strong as those which bind him down today.
AT HOME
Epidemic
For the most part, modern society has a pretty tight grip on diseases like typhoid. Capitalism judges everything by its balance sheet and in this case it is preferable to make the initial investment in prevention of the disease rather than to be continually fighting epidemics of it. Sometimes the balance sheet comes up with the opposite conclusion and we all know what happens then. . . .
But the odd concern, in the hope of making a bit more quick money, will occasionally take a chance with the rules of public hygiene. This was the reason for the outbreak at Zermatt (which is now gingerly once more advertising its attractions as a holiday resort). It was also the reason for the lack of precautions in the corned beef factories in Argentina which were apparently responsible for Aberdeen’s epidemic.
As in the case of Zermatt the facts are only slowly coming out and they are not pleasant. It now seems that the British government were aware of the risk in the corned beef over a year ago but, in the words of Scottish Minister Mr. Peter Noble, they considered it “not wise” to withdraw the stuff on “the scantiest evidence.”
Presumably the typhoid sufferers take a rather different view on the scantiness of the evidence and on the wisdom of clamping down on the suspect meat.
But when all this has been said, the basic fact remains. Typhoid is a disease of social negligence. Despite what the meat companies say, corned beef is not one of the world’s prized delicacies; it is a typical working class food—substandard, mass produced, supermarket sold.
And once typhoid gets a grip it flourishes best in the most depressed living conditions—in the overcrowded rooms, in the shared lavatories and in the slum tenements which have no easy means of heating water for washing.
It is ironical that, in conformity with its profit motive, capitalism should spend so much in keeping diseases in check yet should sometimes be defeated by its very own economic conditions. But there is no irony in the fact that, when this happens, it is the same old working class who suffer.
BUSINESS
Rootes & Chrysler
It has been apparent for some time that Rootes were nervous about the magnitude of their gamble, on their baby car, the Imp, which has tied up so much capital in the factory at Linwood.
The link-up with the American owned Chrysler Corporation is probably a result of this, gamble—a method by which Rootes hope to strengthen their financial foundations to withstand any storm which may follow their Linwood investment.
Chrysler, whose fortunes have only recently been revived in the States, were looking around for just such an opportunity. Now some financial seers are predicting that before long Rootes will be entirely under American ownership and control, like Fords and Vauxhalls.
This is the sort of wicket on which the Labour Party thinks they can make a lot of runs. Their leading batsmen were soon hitting out. Mr. Callaghan wanted to know what steps were being taken to ensure that there would be no further dealing in Rootes shares to take control of the company outside the United Kingdom. Mr. Wilson went even further—he wanted guarantees about not only American but also “German or other foreign” interests.
This is the most blatant of playing up to nationalist prejudices. The Labour government of 1945 saw nothing wrong in this country accepting the American encroachments which went tinder the name of Marshall Aid.
The present Labour Party, at any rate while they are in opposition, attack foreign investment in this country as the invasions of money-mad international manipulators. But they also think that the opposite process—British investments and subsidiaries abroad—is an excellent idea, the fruits of good old British enterprise.
This doubtless goes down well enough with patriotic voters who once believed the Labour Party when they used to talk about being an internationalist organisation. Now all that nonsense has been dropped, which may mean a few more votes for Labour candidates.
The deal between Rootes and Chryslers was good business from the point of view of their profit accounts—which is the only viewpoint they are interested in. Capitalism is lubricated by such deals, and is powered by the motive for them.
And if the business deals are something to be expected, so is the dishonest reaction of political parties.
ABROAD
Goldwater
Whatever happens at the Republican Convention at San Francisco this month, Senator Goldwater has established himself as a serious force in American politics.
Once he was laughed at, for his quaint notions about Reds under the beds and his itching button-finger. The results of the Presidential primaries have shown that Goldwater’s neuroses are shared by millions of what are usually called normal, decent Americans.
Goldwater stands unashamedly for reaction. He stands for States Rights at a time when American capitalism is trying to resolve many of its problems by increasing pressure, and power, from the Federal centre. He stands against State insurance schemes just as their value to American capitalism is becoming so apparent He stands for an extreme—some would say fatally impetuous—foreign policy towards Russia at the moment when the American ruling class may be on the verge of allying itself with the Soviet Union in face of a possible longer term threat from China.
Goldwater probably appeals to the uninformed and apathetic sentiments of those American workers who are impressed by his rugged frontiersman’s facade. (They presumably ignore the fact that the Senator is descended from a Jewish family, who were not among the now-romanticised pioneers.)
But in his present vein Goldwater does not offer the policies which United States capitalism needs if it is to hold its dominant world position. Said The Economist of June 6th last: “. . . he has not grasped the nature of the power his country wields in the nineteen-sixties.” Yet he could turn out no different from the other demagogues who have climbed to power on extreme propaganda and have then had their wilder notions tamed by the realities of office. Perhaps it is true that, as Governor Scranton—the one time hope of the anti-Goldwater brigade—said, the Senator is “not as conservative as he thinks.”
For the moment Goldwater is “committed to his present line and will, therefore, probably continue to thump it out if he gets the Republican nomination. If—and this is as massive an “if” as ever was postulated—he becomes President he may well alter his line to fit in with the requirements of American capitalism.
We are accustomed now to the policy reversals of so-called Left Wing politicians when they are catapulted into power. A President Goldwater, as a Right Winger doing the same thing, would make an interesting item for the scrap book.