Notes by the Way
Indian Offer to Occupy Belfast
It is often urged in defence of the British occupation of India that the Indians are unable to keep the peace among themselves. Hindoos, Sikhs, and Mohammedans are sometimes on such bad terms with each other about religious and other differences that riots occur and lives are lost. The British authorities then step in and try to keep the peace. This is all very well, but what are the Indians supposed to think about the recurrent riots in Belfast, where Protestants are now refusing to work alongside Catholics, demand the dismissal of the latter, and mob those who do not at once clear out. Several lives have been lost, and many persons have been injured. Troops had to be called out to patrol the streets.
We are waiting to hear that the Indian National Congress has offered to occupy and pacify Belfast.
Irish Gentility
Southern Ireland also is determined not to be out of the picture, and with fierce conflicts between the police, farmers’ mothers, wives, and daughters at Cork, is establishing its right to be regarded as a civilised nation. The following is taken from a report by the Cork correspondent of The Times (July 13th) of riots between farmers’ wives, mothers and daughters and the police, when an attempt was being made to sell up farmers’ stock for payment of land annuities to De Valera’s Government: —
“Some of the women were black and blue with the handling they got. They were driven back time after time, but re-formed in massed formation and charged the police. They captured helmets and caps, and brought them back as trophies. Then they threw them back to the police, charged again, and recaptured . them. The women had a banner, which was taken by the police; but the women recaptured it. Women were sent staggering with punches. Eight women were taken inside the gates under arrest, and the battle subsided for ten minutes or so. Women reinforcements arrived with baskets of eggs and the police were bespattered from head to foot. There was a baton charge and the women cleared away, but not before some were injured.”
Mr. De Valera, who is unable to prevent these riots in Southern Ireland, nevertheless, accuses the English Government of being responsible for the riots in Belfast!
The Boll-Weevil Problem
The Boll-Weevil is a pest which attacks and destroys cotton crops. The United States Government, in accordance with the vicious nonsense which masquerades as economics in capitalist circles, is also engaged in destroying or, rather, restricting the cultivation of cotton in order to keep the price up. The same Government employs a large body of men to help kill the boll-weevil, and large sums of money are spent killing it with calcium arsenate. A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (July 17th) says that people in the cotton areas are asking : “Why kill bugs and at the same time resort to artificial means for crop reduction?” The Manchester Guardian answers the question by pointing out that the individual grower may want the total output of cotton restricted, but wants his own crop preserved. That is so, but whichever way the situation is regarded, it is a splendid example of the shocking lunacy of capitalism.
Who said That?
Students of politics and politicians can guess who said:—
“We are leaving no stone unturned gradually to raise the workers’ standard of living.” (Times, July 1st.)
You will rightly answer that it is a record played on all die capitalist gramophones, from Tokyo to Montreal, and from Pole to Pole. Actually, these words were used by one of the latecomers, Hitler’s right-hand man, Dr. Goebbels. Anyone who still had any lingering suspicion that the Nazis might try to do something for the German workers must, in face of these words, now know that they will do nothing whatever.
The Excuse for Fascism and Nazism
The Nazis in Germany came to power partly through the clever exploitation of a supposed Bolshevik danger. The man who taught them this trick, Benito Mussolini, has admitted (according to Mr. Wickham Steed Observer, June 30th), that his similar story about Italy was utterly false.
On July 2nd, 1921, Mussolini wrote an article in the Popolo d’Italia containing the passage: —
“To say that a Bolshevik danger still exists in Italy means taking base fears for reality. Bolshevism is overthrown.”
Mussolini then proceeded to work up a panic about this non-existent danger, as a means of gaining power. When, later on, his attention was called to his double-faced attitude, he replied: —
“What I wrote then was true, but it is also true that I climbed into power on the shoulders of those who thought there was a Bolshevik danger.”
It is always a sound policy to be suspicious of a known bandit who implores you to let him protect you from some danger supposed to be threatening you.
The Industrial Research Racket
Employers have always been interested in the discovery of ways of reducing the amount of labour required to produce each unit of the product in which they are interested. They have also always considered it useful to obscure their motive —the search for additional profits—with talk of workers’ welfare. Nowadays in the most highly industrialised nations, the whole process has been organised in Governmental and private bodies, which profess to be interested in the scientific study of labour processes, the relationship between hours and conditions of work, and the functions of the human body, and the suitability of the individual worker for particular kinds of work.
Whatever may be the intentions of the individuals responsible for these organisations, and whatever incidental increase of knowledge may result from their efforts, such bodies, in the lump, are absolutely fraudulent. Because industry is controlled by the capitalists and their agents, and operated for profit, these industrial research organisations are only called in by the employer to serve some need of his. The claim of independence and neutrality as between employer and employed is a hollow one. There is a simple test. Let any of these organisations give a single instance of the workers in a factory being allowed to call in research experts to examine the competence, suitability, intelligence, etc., of the directors and shareholders of the company, and their claim to the fees and dividends they receive. This never happens because the object of such investigations is not and cannot be, under capitalism, a disinterested search for truth, it must always be directed to promoting the interests of the profit-seeking class, who own and control.
Evidence of Returning Prosperity
Under the above heading the Daily Telegraph (July 25th) describes how “The prosperity tide is flowing strongly again.” Elsewhere in the same issue are the latest figures of the number of persons receiving poor relief. In England and Wales on January 1st of this year the number was 1,472,891, an increase of 70,166 over January, 1934. The prewar figure (January 1st, 1914) was 761,578. (See Statistical Abstract, 1935, p. 83.)
Looking at profits instead of pauperism there is more justification for the Daily Telegraph’s view. The Economist’s index of profits shows a continuous and substantial increase each quarter since the end of 1933. 694 companies, which published their reports during the quarter ended June 30th, showed total net profits (after payment of debenture interest, etc.) of £80 millions, and paid an average of 6.7 per cent. on their ordinary shares (Economist, July 13th).
Progress or Only Promises?
Lord Trent, head of Boots, the Chemists, addressing the Royal Sanitary Institute Health Congress, at Bournemouth, on July 18th (see report in Times, July 19th), said some sound things about the conditions of working-class life, marred, however by a quite unfounded optimism. He said that “the practice prevailing last century” was that “of treating labour as a commodity by hiring in the cheapest market and casting aside when done with.” No one will dispute that. His second claim was that ”there existed in this country a growing body of employers . . . who held very definitely the view that there was an obligation upon them to give their employees the widest possible opportunities for making the best of their lives.” He then went on to say that the above obligation “involved a very considerable departure from the practice prevailing last century.” This brings us to the important question whether in truth the present practice is any different from that of a century ago. Granting for the sake of argument that employers hold the view attributed to them, can it be said that it makes any difference to their conduct? If Lord Trent thinks it does will he explain how it is that we have seen during the past crisis three millions of workers cast aside by employers who no longer wanted them?
Either the employers have not changed their hearts or, if they have, capitalism has prevented them from giving expression to the change by treating the workers differently. In either case Lord Trent’s assumption that capitalism will remedy the workers’ problems is shown to be unjustified.
Major Douglas’s Little Joke
When Major Douglas and other Social Credit illusionists are asked why it is that banks pay such small dividends compared with the more profitable of the industrial and commercial concerns, seeing that, according to Douglas, they have the power to ”create credit” without limit, and thus make profits of hundreds per cent., their reply is that the banks pay moderate dividends for “reasons of policy, ” for fear of attracting too much attention.” (See Social Credit, 1933 Edition, p. 157.)
In 1935 (see Times, July 25th), five overseas banks paid no dividend at all, and numbers paid 2 per cent., 3 per cent., and other small amounts up to 10 per cent. It is highly diverting to be told by Major Douglas that bank shareholders, “for fear of attracting too much attention,” rest content with no dividends at all, while Great Universal Stores pays 45 per cent., Beecham’s Pills 27½ per cent., Prices, Tailors, 65 per cent, (they own “The 50/- Tailors ”), Eastwood Flettons 166⅔ cent., Woolworth’s 70 per cent., and the Insurance Companies from 25 per cent. to 100 per cent.
Major Douglas had better think up some more plausible argument—or, better still—scrap the great superstition about “credit creation” and start studying the subject.
H.