Notes By The Way
No Politics in the Army
Under the heading “Every Soldier Must Learn Why He Fights,” the News Chronicle (August 2ist, 1941) reports a scheme of discussions now being arranged for soldiers by the Army authorities.
“Free discussion will be encouraged . . . but politics will not be introduced, and officers must not emphasise their political views.”
After they have solved the problem of explaining war without mentioning politics, they should turn their attention to explaining beer without mentioning alcohol, and explaining air raids without mentioning aeroplanes. It will be just about as profitable.
The Poacher Comes into His Own
The following is from the Daily Herald (August 4th, 1941) : —
“The Army needs poachers and ex-poachers.
Gamekeepers and men with experience of poaching have been asked to give in their names to commanding officers.
The poachers need have no fear that their illegal activities will be charged against them. The Army will gladly take them for special duties.
Such men would be able to detect, by means of the movements of birds and animals and through broken twigs and tracks, the presence of concealed troops in woods and undergrowth.
They would be very valuable if there were an invasion.”
This should produce some entertaining back-chat in rural courts after the war, when poachers return to their normal pastimes.
Those Who Direct Us
The classical defence of the present system is that, whatever its faults, it brings to the fore in industry and politics the best brains and best characters. Two newspaper editors who ought to know their subject don’t appear to be satisfied with the result.
“There are more boneheads in positions of authority in this country at this moment than at any previous period in our history. We are suffering from national ossification of the brain. And unless we make some very swift and drastic changes we shall rue the day.”—Mr. John Gorden (Sunday Express, July 20th, 1941.)
“There is no doubt in my mind that the present system of selecting directors of these big corporations (banks and railways) is definitely bad.—Mr. O. R. Hobson, City Editor (News Chronicle, June 3rd, 1941.)
Mr. Hobson has to admit that some of the directors are “chosen for their military, political or social powers, and for their business connections rather than their business acumen.”
By the way. Mr. Hobson believes that the Capitalist era has already passed away : —
“Contrary to the belief of many people true Capitalism, the system under which the man who provides the capital runs the business, hardly exists any longer.”
Hitler’s Dupes
Much argument has been going on as to whether any distinction should be made between Nazis and Germans, or whether all Germans should be held responsible for the crimes of Hitler. One German, a former County Court Judge, in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (July 18th, 1941) made quite a telling point when he asked : —
“Shall they be blamed for trusting the words of a man who succeeded in cheating the informed, educated and scrutinising governments outside the Reich?”
After all, when it is remembered how many influential people in this country described themselves as trusting admirers of Adolf Hitler and his associates, it will be obvious that if all of Hitler’s sometime admirers and dupes are to be liquidated, there will be quite a lot of empty seats in the House of Lords and elsewhere.
Sob-Stuff And Its Uses
Speaking in London recently, Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree said: —
“Sob-stuff is no good in wages conditions. I have sobbed myself when telling employees I could not afford more wages.”
If this is meant to imply that employers as a whole could not pay higher wages than they do, it is, of course, all eyewash. Employers are primarily concerned with making profit, not with paying away as much as they can afford to their employees.
A recent report of a wine auction—published by the Daily Telegraph (June 10th, 1941)—indicates that quite a lot of people who do not work for wages have been able to sob themselves into a very comfortable taste for expensive wines.
“A wine auction, with attendants grave as priests carrying around sample glasses as gravely tasted, is always an enjoyable mixture of festivity and almost religious ceremonial.
Yesterday’s was notable for enthusiasm, too. Men in the wine and catering trades had to reckon with spirited bidding from private connoisseurs, including several women and a bearded R.N.V.R. officer.
“The prices,” said a representative of Christie’s, “delighted us, and I am sure they will delight the sellers.”
By far the largest stock of champagne came from the cellar of Sir John Buchanan-Jardine. The prices for all the leading brands for a good year like 1921, and for Lord Moyne’s Pol Roger, 1915, were about the same—from 250s. to 260s. a dozen.
Lot after lot, three dozen in each, were bought at this price by a white-haired man in a raincoat who might have been a rather austere farmer, but actually is a well-known figure in the catering world.
Despite the popular notion that champagne should not be more than 12 or 15 years old, 260s. was paid for Perrier-Jouet, 1919; and even two dozen and 11 half-bottles of Bollinger, 1903, practically museum pieces, brought 75s. a dozen.
Anyone with a less fastidious palate could have St. Marceaux, 1919, Brut, slightly ullaged—an ullaged bottle is not as full as it should be—for 135s., or Lemoine, 1911, for 115s.
Among some distinguished clarets Chateau Latour, ’93, sold for 230s., Haut Brion, of the same year, 240s., and several lots of Cheval Blanc, 1921, 310s. and 320s., after very lively competition. By contrast, some Chateau Lafitte, 1870, ullaged, went for 135s.
Good sherries averaged 130s. and ports 80s. to 94s., with some special Cockburn. 1900, reaching 180s.
Cigars sold extraordinarily well, prices ranging from 260s. a hundred for first-class brands to 325s. for A. Allones “Lonsdales.”
The Finnish Labour Party and The War
The attitude of the Finnish Labour Party in supporting the war against Russia is an example of the difficulties that are bound to arise when workers’ organisations are involved in international disputes under Capitalism. When the Soviet Government picked a quarrel with Finland in order to destroy the Mannerheim Line and push back the Finnish frontier further away from Leningrad, they were denounced by the British Labour Party, and the latter, along with the British Government, gave help to the Finns. Now the Russians claim (and rightly as far as purely military considerations are concerned) that subsequent events have fully justified their action in removing a potential German threat to Leningrad. But against the purely strategic argument is the fact that in so doing the Russians stirred up bitter enmity towards themselves in the minds of many Finnish workers and thus paved the way for the present situation, which sees the Finnish Labour leaders urging the British Labour Party to support their attitude even though Finland is associated with the German attack on Russia.
Mr. Tanner, who is now in the Finnish Cabinet, representing the Finnish Labour and Trade Union movement, says: —
“Surely Britain is not ignorant of the fact that Finland is fighting for all Democratic principles based on the right of self-determination which the Russian aim is to destroy.” — (Daily Telegraph, July 8th, 1941.)
Now comes another development. The reactionary Field Marshal Mannerheim has announced that in addition to trying to recover the territory lost to Russia, Finland should also take Karelia “to make the frontier easily defendable”—(Manchester Guardian, August 2nd, 1941.)
Once grant the necessity for nations to have rival interests necessitating the existence of armed forces, there is no answer to the argument that frontiers must be rectified in order to make them more easily defendable, and no escaping the fact that there is no limit to such claims, quite apart from the certainty that every movement of a frontier in one direction stiffens the demand in the country affected to have it shifted back again and more also.
A Squint-Eyed Parson
The following is taken from the Sunday Express (July 20th, 1941): —
Criticising life in the pre-war years, the Rector of Eynesbury, Hunts, the Rev. J. E. Cowgill, in his parish magazine, says:—”We have taken the Beatitudes in St. Matthew’s fifth chapter and altered them somewhat, thus:—
Blessed is he who looks after himself, for he shall collect many pennies.
Blessed is he who wins a pool or a sweep, for he shall have something for nothing.
Blessed is he who makes a promise, for when he breaks it it costs him naught.
Blessed is he who oils his tongue, for he can deceive other people.
Blessed is he who scamps his work, for he shall be looked on as clever.”
The Rev. J. E. Cowgill, though perhaps he does not realise it, is condemning an attitude that is the outcome of Capitalism, for it has always been Capitalist doctrine to praise the accumulation of wealth and to condone the tricky ways in which it is done; not to mention the basic fact that the whole system is based on the exploitation of the workers.
Notice in particular the things that escape the attention of this parson. He has not observed other Capitalist Beatitudes, such as : —
“Blessed is he whose father was a millionaire and who was thus able to live in luxurious idleness all the days of his life.”
“Blessed is he who gambled on the Stock Exchange or made a fortune in the last war.”
“Blessed is he who sold shoddy goods and became universally recognised as a public benefactor through his gifts to charitable institutions.”
“Blessed is the politician who wins an election for his party by promising to solve the unemployment problem.”
Mr. Pollitt Again
Mr. Harry “Pollitt, of the Communist Party, who supported, opposed, and now again supports the war, has been telling the workers at a meeting in Manchester that “even now this country was only playing at war. . . ..How long, were the Russians to be allowed to fight in isolation? The way effectively to help them was by the opening of a second military front in the West.”—(Manchester- Guardian, August 25th, 1941.)
During the eighteen months or so that Mr. Pollitt opposed the war, he and other Communists (echoing Moscow propaganda) had one simple formula which they applied to every fresh outbreak of fighting. They opposed it on the ground that it was an extension of the area of war, and urged their then policy of opening peace negotiations. Now it is Mr. Pollitt who wants to extend the area of war by invasion of the Continent.
Those who appreciate how closely Communist policy and Communist explanations and apologies adhere to Russian foreign policy, will notice, for possible future reference, Mr. Pollitt’s further statement : —
“Unless we were prepared to organise something .that would take a great part of the German pressure away from the Eastern Front we would have no right to be surprised at anything that might happen on that front.”
Mr. Pollitt also had a word .for the workers in the factories: —
“They would have to set a personal example, in the way they did their job. There must be no limit to what they produced in the way of munitions of war, and they must produce them in the shortest possible time.”
Not Too Old at 60
Men and women workers have, in peace-time, always had to view with apprehension the oncoming of age. Instead of being able to count on easier conditions as they became older, they had to fear losing their jobs to younger workers. Now there is a shortage of labour, and the Press is full of items like the following : —
“The position is becoming serious, and, in my opinion, could be greatly eased if more of the “over-forty” women would volunteer to become shop assistants.
There are tens of thousands of women between the ages of 40 and 60 who could easily do this kind of work, even without experience.
But they are not coming forward as we had hoped.”— Mr. J. M. Paynton, Secretary of the Drapers Chamber of Trade (Evening Standard, August 23rd, 1941.)
“The employable age limit for women in City offices has advanced at least ten years within the past few months. This is due to the increasing shortage of office staff.
Now, London secretarial employment agencies report that good posts are being given to women up to 45, provided they have had good experience within recent years or have other good qualifications.
One London agency is proud of having placed a 65-year old woman clerk this week.”—(Evening Standard, August 23, 1941.)
What will be the position when the war is over ? Will employers then be willing to ignore the age of applicants for jobs ? Will they and the Government come forward to make provision for workers who are too old in recognition of their services during the war ?
If there were no other evil result of Capitalism than the callous treatment of workers past their prime, it would stand condemned as a system of society.
It is one of the ironies of Reformism that one of the changes demanded by reformers (the institution of pension schemes for clerical, etc., workers, in order to provide a pension on retirement) has actually had the effect in recent years of making things harder for workers no longer young. It is a condition of many of the pension schemes that staff shall not be eligible to join and make contributions unless they are juveniles, with the result that many firms which previously were willing to recruit staff without special regard to age now refuse to take anyone on the permanent staff unless their age is about 16-18. All that is left for them is temporary work.
The Big Trader Calls The Little One “Dishonest”
When the Capitalist system was younger, and the small trader and small manufacturer were typical, it was customary for economists and business men to praise the virtues of the little business man. Now the case is altered, as witness the following from the Sunday Express (July 27th, 1941) : —
“One of the big London stores has, in its annual report, made an extraordinary attack on the small trader.
After a grudging admission that the elimination of the small trader is “certainly regrettable from some stand-points,” the report says:—
“Many a man and woman who as an independent trader would be dishonest or extortionate or a petty tyrant is a far better citizen in a position in which he is under less severe economic pressure or not free to give way to bad tendencies in his own character.” It states also that the small trader “has tended to become a byword for petty knavery and for cringing deference to his customers.” He is “obviously destined to disappear.”
The Express condemns this and assures us that small traders are still the backbone of a free, independent and efficient State; “they keep alive healthy competition and a spirit of comradeship.”
It would seem that the Express has been missing a lot of things going on around it. If the war is, as the Express says, a war against the day “when big business has killed the little man,” many little men would have to conclude that the war, for them, has already been lost.
H.