<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Freeman &#124; Ideas On Liberty &#187; Alastair Segerdal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thefreemanonline.org/author/alastair-segerdal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thefreemanonline.org</link>
	<description>Ideas on Liberty</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:43:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Jack the Radical</title>
		<link>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/jack-the-radical/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/jack-the-radical/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 1996 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alastair Segerdal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack the Ripper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack-the-Ripper newspaper campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labour Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[progressivism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[serial murders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[socialist propaganda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whitechapel murders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefreemanonline.org/uncategorized/jack-the-radical/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Segerdal resides in Glendale, California, where he is a writer. In the late nineteenth century, despite fabulous wealth, gracious living, and an industrial revolution that had reached the far corners of her empire, Britain was also an island of social unrest. Working-class discontent with poverty and disease was fueling the rise of socialism, and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Mr. Segerdal resides in Glendale, California, where he is a writer.</em></p>
<p>In the late nineteenth century, despite fabulous wealth, gracious living, and an industrial revolution that had reached the far corners of her empire, Britain was also an island of social unrest. Working-class discontent with poverty and disease was fueling the rise of socialism, and new doctrines were calling for revolution and an end to the monarchy. Parliamentary controversy over the age-old “Irish Question” was bitter as rioting from the Emerald Isle spread to the not-so-United Kingdom. Its capital, London, was a city of great commerce, high fashion, and sophisticated culture—a city of wealthy gentlemen and gentle ladies, their children attended by nannies as they played in Hyde Park.</p>
<p>London was also a city of unfathomable poverty. Its East End housed nearly a million hungry and impoverished souls living in cramped filth. Although working conditions had improved in Britain since the early days of the Industrial Revolution, working-class discontent in London had been building up since the late 1870s. Inspired by Karl Marx, who lived and wrote in London, the growing voices of socialism were eager to boost this discontent, and by 1886 things turned violent. In early 1886, one of the coldest winters on record caused such hardship that, despite the subnormal temperatures, thousands of out-of-work men and women from the East End docks gathered in Trafalgar Square to hear violent speeches from eminent socialists. Meanwhile, thousands more protesters went on a rampage of property damage and looting as rioting spilled over into the residential environs of upper-class Mayfair and the upscale West End shopping districts of Oxford Street, Regent Street, and Piccadilly.</p>
<p>On November 13, 1887, Queen Victoria&#8217;s Jubilee year, a battle known as “Bloody Sunday” erupted in Trafalgar Square when 100,000 demonstrators, including George Bernard Shaw and the poet William Morris, fought with four thousand police constables. Three months later, another Trafalgar Square riot prompted Queen Victoria to write to the prime minister, William Gladstone: “The Queen cannot sufficiently express her <em>indignation</em> at the monstrous riot which took place the other day in London, and which risked people&#8217;s lives and was a <em>momentary</em> triumph of socialism and disgrace to the capital.”</p>
<p>London&#8217;s East End was vilified and ignored, yet despite the anger and disruption, Britons of all classes possessed an inbred distaste for revolutionary ideas designed to overthrow the established order. No matter how poor and impoverished, British working men and women cherished their freedom of speech and right of assembly. Continental-style government regimentation was anathema to this island race. Violence, when it did take place, was not seen by the Left as enhancing the road to reform. They realized that fear of the mob would never inspire the middle and upper classes to comprehend the plight of the poor. The socialist-minded and their brethren in the press knew that education via speeches and the written word was the only viable means of impingement. By 1888, London&#8217;s radical press, aware of its growing power to focus attention on the capital&#8217;s social problems, was constantly on the lookout for a new socio-political drama, preferably one guaranteed to increase circulation and vindicate their left-wing rhetoric. Little did their editorial offices know that before the year was out, a gruesome saga was to present them with the campaign opportunity of a lifetime.</p>
<p>It began as the hot English summer of 1888 drew to a close. Police Constable John Neil, a London policeman with badge number 97 and tired feet, trudged his night beat along Buck Row, a dirty little side street in Whitechapel in the East End of London. Most of the drunks, drifters, and ladies of the night had disappeared as dawn approached on this last day of August, and the only sound along Bucks Row was the slow, steady gait of Police Constable Neil. The assurance of a London bobby&#8217;s footsteps gave way to an eerie silence as he stumbled on the body of a woman. She had been murdered, but this was no ordinary killing. Mary Ann Nichols had been savagely disemboweled. Poor Annie Chapman met a similar fate on the night of September 8 and three weeks later, on the night of September 29-30, two more wretched souls, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were added to the chain of death, horribly mutilated and displaying similarities to the previous victims.</p>
<p>On October 1, the newspapers ran the story together with the complete text of two letters which had been posted to the London Central News Agency. Both were written in deep red ink and signed under a name that activated the strangest left-wing campaign of all time.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #003399;">“Dear Boss”</span></strong></p>
<p>The first letter was addressed to “The Boss, Central News Office, London City,” and opened with: “Dear Boss, I keep on hearing the police have caught me, but they won&#8217;t fix me just yet.” The text continues to boast and taunt, ending off with: “Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight. My knife is nice and sharp. I want to get to work right away if I get a chance. Good luck. Yours truly, Jack the Ripper.” Part of a postscript read: “Don&#8217;t mind me giving the trade name.” The letter is well written and a careful study of words like “won&#8217;t” and capital letters after a period show proficiency in punctuation. The phrase “give it out straight,” an Americanism used by newsmen on both sides of the Atlantic, is the first hint that the writer might have been a journalist. Both letters used the word “Boss,” another Americanism familiar to those with close ties to the United States and the internationally minded London press, but not to the broad population and working classes of nineteenth-century England.</p>
<p>The second letter (sent as a postcard) was particularly daunting because it referred to the September 30 double murder in great detail, apparently before these details were fully known to the police and released to the press: “I was not codding [sic] dear old Boss when I gave you the tip. You&#8217;ll hear about Saucy Jacky&#8217;s work tomorrow. Double event this time. Number one squealed a bit. Couldn&#8217;t finish straight off. Had not time to get ears for police. Thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again. JACK THE RIPPER.” Once again, observe the correct punctuation as in “You&#8217;ll” and in the possessive “Jacky&#8217;s.” Note the capital S and J in “Saucy Jacky.” And note the clipped newspaper-style giveaway in “Had not time to get ears for police.” It was written in the same handwriting as the first letter, and because it recounted the contents of that letter, both were obviously penned by the same person. Yet details of these crimes were not publicly known until October 1, when newspapers published them. So, it was argued, both letters were not only from the same person (which was true), but must have come from the real killer.</p>
<p>What was not published was the fact that a barely visible “OC 1” postmark existed on the address of the second letter. (The postal service in Central London was very fast, and a letter mailed early in the morning was guaranteed delivery by lunch or early afternoon.) In other words, it was posted after details of the double murder were already in the newsrooms. It also suggests that the writer might have worked at the Central News Agency since the letters themselves were not handed around for other publishers to inspect physically, with the possible exception of the radical <em>Star</em>.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the function of the news agency was to deliver news items to newspapers and magazines who subscribed to its service (rather like today&#8217;s Associated Press), and it is highly unlikely that a serial killer in a working-class district would have known of this function, or even have heard of the agency. Like most serial killers, he would probably have written to one paper only, or taunted the police with notes which might never be made public. On the other hand, a journalist would understand that spicy information addressed to the news agency would generate maximum publicity. Once the name had appeared in print, hundreds of crank “Jack the Ripper” letters were sent to the press and police, and all were rejected as genuine with the possible exception of a note addressed to a Mr. George Lusk, the Marxist head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. It was written “From Hell” and, interestingly, not signed with a Ripper signature, but simply as “Catch me when you can Mishter [sic] Lusk.”</p>
<p>More than any previous endeavor, creating the trade name “Jack the Ripper” forced a spotlight on London&#8217;s destitute and poor, and <em>what</em> a creation! Two of London&#8217;s top-selling radical newspapers, the <em>Star</em> and <em>Pall Mall Gazette</em>, realized that dramatizing the murders would focus the story directly towards the squalor of “Outcast London.” The first two murders had certainly generated publicity, and the next two murders, both on the same night, would normally have proven even more newsworthy, but publishing news of the “double event” with the macabre and threatening text of two “Jack the Ripper” letters was nothing short of masterful public relations. And it worked.</p>
<p>Within hours of the papers hitting the streets on October 1, 1888, Jack the Ripper—and the social conditions in which his victims lived—stole the show for months on end as a conversation piece. From the stately homes of the aristocracy down to bawdy working-class pubs; from London&#8217;s Alhambra Theater and Gaiety Music Halls to New York&#8217;s vaudeville, this unknown killer even spawned mirth over murder. Ripper-mania drifted far from the pathetic rat-infested hovels of Whitechapel and landed on page one of the world&#8217;s press. The day the double murder story was released in London, “Dismay in Whitechapel” headlines ran on the front page of the <em>New York Times</em>. Queen Victoria herself cultivated an unusual interest in what were more politely referred to as the “Whitechapel Murders,” and she demanded action. In an age when the Queen&#8217;s orders were dutifully obeyed, nothing happened. The Ripper was not apprehended, and Victoria was not amused.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #003399;">A Vehicle for Socialist Propaganda</span></strong></p>
<p>The “double event” now brought the total number of victims to four, and from this point on, the murders became an important vehicle for socialist propaganda, replacing homicide as the central issue. For instance, a petition with 5,000 signatures was sent to the Queen, but it didn&#8217;t mention the need to apprehend the killer. It dwelled instead on women “living sad and degraded lives” in the slums of Whitechapel. The <em>Star</em> in particular gave extensive coverage of the murders and unashamedly blamed them on “such economic systems as that of unrestricted competition, backed by the devil&#8217;s gospel of <em>laissez-faire</em>.” This London daily was well known for its biased socialist crusades, its inflexibility on “Home Rule” for Ireland, and its denunciation of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren and his allegedly inept, heavy-handed police force.</p>
<p>The <em>Star</em>&#8216;s large circulation covered a wide cross-section of readers, including those of a more conservative outlook, and this induced other less radical papers, who were also criticizing Warren, to echo the <em>Star</em>&#8216;s rhetoric, albeit with less rebellious versions. The result was a multi-media push for both the Ripper&#8217;s arrest and an exposé of the environment in which he operated. Even the staid gentlemen of the Fourth Estate relished the Ripper saga when, almost by default, the highly respected <em>Times</em> of London drew attention to the social conditions where the killings took place. As for sensationalism, few could compete with either the <em>Illustrated Police News</em> or the <em>Penny Illustrated Paper</em>, as issue after issue ran lurid descriptions and artist sketches of the killings.</p>
<p>However, nothing surpassed the publicity that followed the murder of Mary Kelly, the fifth victim. Reports about “Another Whitechapel Horror, More Revolting Mutilation Than Ever” shocked the civilized world and prompted the Queen to telegram her prime minister: “This new most ghastly murder shows the absolute necessity for some very decided action.” Led by the socialists, press attacks on the harassed and despondent Sir Charles Warren became so intolerable that he was forced to resign as head of Scotland Yard. It so happened that the attractive Mary Kelly was the last of the Ripper murders, but this was not known at the time and Ripper fervor continued for months on end after her death.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #003399;">A Radical Campaign?</span></strong></p>
<p>That the brilliantly conceived “trade name” was part of a socialist campaign against the established social and economic order seems all the more likely when we inspect other aspects of this drama. For instance, Sir Melville Macnaughten, Assistant Chief Constable at Scotland Yard in 1889 (whose notes are the best known of all documents on the case) wrote in his memoirs: “In this ghastly production I have always thought I could discern the stained forefinger of the journalist—indeed, a year later I had shrewd suspicions as to the actual author! But whoever did pen the gruesome stuff, it is certain to my mind that it was not the mad miscreant who had committed the murders.” And in his book, <em>The Lighter Side of My Official Life</em>, Sir Robert Anderson, head of Scotland Yard&#8217;s Criminal Investigation Division during the investigation of the murders, commented specifically on the second letter when he wrote: “So I will only add here that the `Jack the Ripper&#8217; letter which is preserved in the Police Museum at New Scotland Yard is the creation of an enterprising journalist.”</p>
<p>Quick to spot what was going on, George Bernard Shaw wrote: “Whilst we conventional Social Democrats were wasting our time on education, agitation and organization, some independent genius has taken the matter in hand.” In a series of interviews with this writer, former police chief and pioneer of the FBI&#8217;s serial crime profiling unit, Pierce R. Brooks, said that, in his opinion, the two letters were almost certainly the work of someone in the media with a social axe to grind. (Brooks also felt that the “From Hell” note might have been genuine in view of the killer&#8217;s handwriting style, which displayed domination fantasies, cruelty, and inner rage.) One of today&#8217;s noted historians, Martin Fido, said that the murders became famous because the very first elections to the new London County Council were taking place, and the extreme leftists saw their chance of winning the East End—a tailor-made opening for the radicals.</p>
<p>Until 1888, unified administration of the rapidly growing areas beyond the old City of London was completely neglected. Known as Greater London, its population of five million was governed by a complexity of overlapping authorities and the result was administrative chaos. A long overdue solution to this dilemma was set in motion by the Local Government Act of 1888, for it not only created the London County Council, but established urban self-government throughout England. (The Council did not cover the ancient city itself—the financial district known to this day simply as “The City.”) At the time, left-wing proposals and convictions were more or less represented by the so-called “Progressives” who had very close ties with the Liberal Party and the emerging Labour Party. The Progressives were represented at council elections, but not at parliamentary elections, and although most voters in 1888 voted for Conservative Members of Parliament, many London conservatives were so keen on democratic reforms for their city that they voted Progressive in the Council elections. (It was in this spirit of “Progressive London” that the Fabian Society flourished.)</p>
<p>As for the radicals and socialists, their Jack-the-Ripper newspaper campaign worked like a dream. The Progressives won a 73-seat majority out of a total of 118 seats on the new council, including radical theosophist Annie Besant, who won a seat for the East End. In one Council election after another, the Progressives gained a majority of seats, and from its onset the new council burst into life and quickly introduced new programs involving welfare, sanitation, baths, education, and, to a lesser extent, housing. Their influence on the council also curtailed the operations of unrestricted laissez-faire.</p>
<p>In many ways, the Progressive Movement added an aura of “respectability” to the radical cause. Ominous revelations about urban conditions necessitated the involvement of the ruling classes, notably those with vast estates and holdings which were being leased out to meet the demands of urbanization. The newly assertive London County Council demanded and achieved a large increase in such leasehold enfranchisement, and, as the century drew to its close, more and more of the social elite found themselves in demand as urban celebrities. In fact, the London County Council was the prime example of this “titular association of the aristocracy with the new civic democracy” when the Earl of Rosebery was elected as its first chairman in 1889.</p>
<p>We may never know the author of the first two “Jack the Ripper” letters—some documents relating to the Ripper case are missing, and may have been destroyed in the air raids of 1940-41. Nevertheless, these serial murders would never have generated such enormous publicity if the nightmarish name had not been invented. As for the new Council, its enacted reforms became a symbol for continuing social reform, both in London and the rest of the country. The stirring of “Liberal Socialism” fully surfaced in the 1880s and 1890s and gave birth to the new Independent Labour Party, founded in 1893 by Keir Hardie, and renamed the Labour Party in 1906 when 29 of its candidates won seats in the general election of that year. Its backbone was the growing trade union movement and, together with the Fabian Society founded in 1884, Labour became one of the two major political parties from 1922 onward.</p>
<p>Britain&#8217;s recurring love affair with socialism has extended well into the twentieth century. Although the British Left was never taken by Soviet Communism, notable exceptions in the 1930s such as the “Bloomsbury Set” and the secret Cambridge society, The Apostles, and its spymaster Kim Philby, certainly left their mark. British socialists were more than impressed when the American journalist Lincoln Steffens returned from Russia in 1919 and told Bernard Baruch that, “I have been over into the future, and it works.” These words certainly resounded in British (and American) politics, but neither the Labour Party or those who voted for them wanted a revolution against the prevailing British way of life. Not even he who created the trade name “Jack the Ripper” could have foreseen how thoroughly the old Victorian order would be overthrown.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/jack-the-radical/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Experiencing Socialist Britain</title>
		<link>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/experiencing-socialist-britain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/experiencing-socialist-britain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 1995 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alastair Segerdal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefreemanonline.org/uncategorized/experiencing-socialist-britain/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Segerdal resides in Glendale, California, where he is a writer. On September 2, 1945, World War II ended. Yet, on the economic front, Britain had little cause for celebration. Six years of war had left the country&#8217;s productive capacity in a state of near collapse. In a general election earlier that year, the majority [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="2"><em>Mr. Segerdal resides in Glendale, California, where he is a writer.</em> </p>
<p>On September 2, 1945, World War II ended. Yet, on the economic front, Britain had little cause for celebration. Six years of war had left the country&#8217;s productive capacity in a state of near collapse. In a general election earlier that year, the majority of Britain&#8217;s so-called working class shattered the election hopes of Winston Churchill and his Conservative Party and produced a landslide victory for Britain&#8217;s Labour Party under its leader, Clement Atlee. When the final results came in, voters gave the Labour Party a majority of 145 seats over all other parties. Churchill, still flourishing his famous cigar, drove to Buckingham Palace and offered the resignation of his government to the King. </p>
<p>Why did the British people embrace socialism in such vast numbers? Why, for almost the next 30 years did they continue to vacillate between socialist and conservative administrations, albeit lukewarm conservatives who proved themselves incapable of breaking the power of the trade unions and the bureaucracy of Britain&#8217;s cradle-to-grave welfare state? As one who worked in three widely differing occupations during this time period, two of which&mdash;coal mining and dentistry&mdash;became the targets of socialist doctrine by virtue of being nationalized, I should like to offer some insight into these questions. </p>
<p>The new socialist government faced many critical tasks, and central to addressing these tasks was the doctrine of public ownership. Hence, the Labour Government&#8217;s program was nationalization on a massive scale: hospitals, medical, and dental professions, the Bank of England, gas and electricity, iron and steel, road haulage, railroads, civil aviation, Cable &amp; Wireless and, at the top of the list, Britain&#8217;s coal mining industry. Coal production was the key to economic and industrial recovery. Therefore, as an alternative to conscription in the armed forces, young men had the choice of serving their country for two years by enlisting as coal miners. I decided to do just that. We were known as &ldquo;Bevin Boys,&rdquo; named after the Minister of Labor and National Service, Ernest Bevin. </p>
<p><b><font color="#003399">In the Mines</font></b> </p>
<p>My personal tale of those shabby yet stimulating years begins in early 1946, in my hometown in Leicestershire, a county situated in Britain&#8217;s semi-rural, semi-industrial Midlands. Despite its otherwise agricultural background and only one colliery in the town itself, the late Victorians gave it the somewhat misleading name of Coalville. There were, of course, other small collieries nearby, and one of these, Whitwick Colliery, was where I worked for two years. At that time, the views of the coal miner, though influenced by his own unique grievances, were those of most labor trade union leaders and, to a lesser extent, those of Labour voters in general. </p>
<p>Towards the end of the war, there was a vigorous, though subdued, word-of-mouth campaign directed at the millions of men and women in the armed forces (many of whom would be voting for the first time at war&#8217;s end) urging them to &ldquo;Vote Labour and keep out the Tories!&rdquo; Furthermore, there was the convincing influence of the older population who had filled the minds of their offspring with pre-war memories of deprivation, hardship, and hunger under &ldquo;the bosses&rdquo; and &ldquo;private enterprise.&rdquo; Working-class resentment of the upper class, overlooked during the war, reappeared with the collapse of Hitler&#8217;s Third Reich in May 1945. To this day, many workers tend to resent financial success. </p>
<p>In the 1930s, times were certainly very bad for many (though not all) working people. For coal miners in particular, things were really grim. Miners constantly reminded me, the doctor&#8217;s son, of their pitiful pre-war existence, though oddly enough, our Leicestershire coal industry was the one industrial region that suffered least of all, mainly due to its agricultural setting and the cultivation of small land allotments by the miners. Even so, my fellow workers were quick to point out the deplorable conditions of their &ldquo;comrades&rdquo; in the north of England, Scotland, and that dominant symbol of stagnation and distress, the coalfields of South Wales. </p>
<p>At my colliery, there was always some miner with enough perception of history to remind me of their lost hero&mdash;the &ldquo;socialist&rdquo; Duke of Windsor who, before he abdicated and married &ldquo;that woman from Baltimore,&rdquo; visited the South Wales coal fields and uttered those memorable words: &ldquo;Something must be done.&rdquo; This statement from the uncrowned Edward VIII bolstered the hopes of every coal miner in Britain. For a future king to talk like this in the 1930s was unheard of, not to mention a royal guarantee that things would improve. </p>
<p>There is no question that Britain&#8217;s coal industry <i>had</i> been neglected over the years, and miners had endured far greater hardship than any other segment of society. Although a good number of incoming Labour Party parliamentarians held capitalism responsible for this sort of pre-war economic instability, it never dawned on any of their more philosophical brethren that maybe, just maybe, something on the other side of the Atlantic called the Smoot-Hawley tariffs might have had a hand in decimating world trade. </p>
<p>Against this backdrop of lost promise, the miners always cherished an enduring vision&mdash;nationalization of their industry. The Coal Mines Act finally fulfilled the miners&#8217; dream on January 1, 1948. The official transfer from private to public ownership was at 11 a.m. that day, and down below at Whitwick Colliery, the anticipation was like a countdown to a moon landing. Seconds before the hour arrived, the coal-carrying machinery and electric power stopped, and started again on the dot of eleven o&#8217;clock as miners cheered and placed colored bunting on the coal tubs on their journey on to the surface. Prime Minister Atlee said, &ldquo;The day would be remembered as one of the great days in the industrial history of our country.&rdquo; At one colliery in South Wales, whole families were up before dawn as miners and their pit lamps formed a cavalcade of light over the Welsh valley. A brass band played the Last Post as the night shift arrived at the surface, and when the blue flag of the new National Coal Board was raised, the whole valley cheered as someone shouted into the microphone: &ldquo;Private enterprise has had it!&rdquo; </p>
<p>Similar celebrations took place all over Britain on that winter&#8217;s day, and reveal, as no economic treatise could reveal, the commitment, not only of miners but of millions of other unionized workers to the socialist agenda. They also give a clue as to why Britain&#8217;s coal industry was lifted out of the doldrums and into high production during the first few years of public ownership: it wasn&#8217;t socialism that was working, but the miners&#8217; dedication to both their own success and that of the Labour Government. In striving to reach daily production targets, they would say to me, &ldquo;Come on lad, we&#8217;re doing this for Labour!&rdquo; </p>
<p><b><font color="#003399">Worker Shortages</font></b> </p>
<p>In 1947, and for years afterwards, most of British industry was undermanned. With employment vacancies everywhere, one could leave one job and walk right into another, prompting <i>The Economist</i> to write that socialism and the welfare state had removed both &ldquo;the stick and the carrot.&rdquo; The three most powerful and devoted Labour Party leaders of that time were Prime Minister Clement Atlee, Ernest Bevin, and Sir Stafford Cripps. Ernest Bevin, who became the astute and perceptive Foreign Secretary, was markedly anti-Communist, and worked exceptionally hard, as did the church-going Minister of Economic Affairs and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps. Cripps, with his unbecoming stern features, unjustly nicknamed &ldquo;Britain&#8217;s Economic Dictator,&rdquo; was an extremely compassionate man with high moral values. In fact, looking once more at why so many Britons embraced socialism, it is important to realize that the post-war leaders of the movement nursed a sincere though misguided desire to improve the lot of working men and women in Britain. Unlike various politicians in other lands, they never sought self-aggrandizement or enrichment at the expense of the population. With its background of Nonconformist Methodism, corruption and greed were not hallmarks of the Labour Party. </p>
<p>The first post-war Labour government held office from 1945 to 1951, but by the end of this period people were starting to question socialist policies. I recall one little episode which poignantly symbolized the offensive and dreary nature of this doctrine. A very successful local haulage company had always proudly displayed the owner&#8217;s name on the front of its building. The day after nationalization of all road haulage companies in 1947, a cheap-looking sign with the words &ldquo;British Road Services&rdquo; was crudely nailed over the company&#8217;s elegant lettering, a melancholy message to capitalism that, in the socialist maxim of the period, &ldquo;We are the masters now.&rdquo; Even so, with the exception of the extreme left, many in the Labour Party were concerned about Communist influence in the trade unions. Arthur Homer, for instance, as General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers was a prominent Communist Party member. Although there were only a handful of Communists in the Labour Party itself, Labour Members of Parliament always sang &ldquo;The Red Flag&rdquo; on official occasions! Due to funding of the Party by the unions (an arrangement legalized by the Trade Union Act of 1913), a unique institutional feature existed which, perhaps even more than Labour&#8217;s inherent socialistic creed, was to inhibit Britain&#8217;s economic growth for the next 30 years after 1945. </p>
<p><b><font color="#003399">Health Care</font></b> </p>
<p>Prior to the introduction of Britain&#8217;s National Health Service on July 5, 1948, no one went without health care. Patients paid only a few pence per week for this benefit and, as the eldest son of a busy medical practitioner, I was able to observe decent care firsthand. For example, my father made house calls every day (as did other doctors) and during my late teens I would often accompany him on such visits. He would also be called out in the middle of the night, no matter what the weather, handling emergencies and delivering babies. Would faceless bureaucrats of a government-run scheme be likewise capable of delivering benefits superior to my father&#8217;s service? They would not. Medical practitioners were dedicated, and often underpaid, but the system worked. </p>
<p>The medical profession had always supported the concept of health care for all, but the majority of its members did not like the restrictions outlined in the government-run scheme (such as a ban on the sale and purchase of practices).<sup>[<a href="http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3350#1">1</a>]</sup> They liked even less the scheme&#8217;s overlord, the Minister of Health, Aneurin Bevan. In 1939, this former Welsh coal miner was expelled from the Labour Party for eight months for seeking a Popular Front with the Communist Party, and expelled from the Parliamentary Labour Party in 1955 for breaches of party discipline. Though self-educated, intelligent, and a very persuasive speaker, Bevan was so far to the left that many Labour MPs wanted him expelled from the Labour Party itself. Such was the nature of the man the British Medical Association had to reckon with, and they arranged several meetings in order to hear what he had to say. My father attended one of these meetings, and told me how members of his profession sat in silent contempt as Bevan waved his hands over the panorama of fine furnishings and silver tableware, boasting, &ldquo;I&#8217;m going to do away with all of this.&rdquo; </p>
<p>The fiery Welshman may not have done away with fine furnishings, but he did pound into reality what was probably the most revolutionary social program ever undertaken in a modern democracy. With enormous public support for the health scheme, resistance from the medical and dental professions dwindled. Finally, the British Medical Association reluctantly recommended that its members deliver themselves into socialist bondage, and by the time the day of inception arrived, most doctors had signed up into the service. On that warm July Monday morning, Britain&#8217;s top-selling <i>Daily Mirror</i> proclaimed: &ldquo;The Day is here!&rdquo; From this moment on, all adults had to pay their weekly National Insurance contribution which entitled them to free medical and dental treatment, hospitalization and surgery, artificial limbs, wheelchairs, hearing aids, and other medical appliances, eye-testing and spectacles, even free wigs! Doctors continued to work as they had always worked, but now they were doing so by permission of the government. </p>
<p>However, dentists in the National Health Service did not continue to work as before. There was an insatiable demand for both &ldquo;free teeth&rdquo; and &ldquo;free glasses,&rdquo; and the rush for dental treatment was exceptionally great. By the time I graduated from dental school in 1955, and for many years afterwards, there was no let up in the demand for dental treatment. &ldquo;The British are well known for their bad teeth,&rdquo; Hitler once said, a regrettable truism made worse by an ongoing shortage of dentists, a fact not unnoticed by young Australian dental surgeons who flocked to the mother country by the hundreds. I, like the rest of the dental profession, continued to be booked weeks in advance, and late night appointments were not uncommon. As servants of the state, we were also kept busy with form-filling, but unlike the medical practitioners who received a fixed salary for the maximum-allowed 4,000 patients, whether seen for treatment or not, dentists were paid per item of treatment completed. In fact, the government set no limit on the number of patients a dentist could take on. </p>
<p>As a result, dental incomes started to rise beyond the socialist acceptance level and by 1949, incomes over and above a certain sum per year were cut in half, and further fee-cutting continued well into the 1950s. When new dental innovations such as the revolutionary high-speed air-drill arrived, more dental restorations done in less time became grounds for cutting fees once again. Increased production lowers prices in a free market, but with the state ordering price cuts for all dentists, this was no free market. </p>
<p>When a patient arrived for examination, the dentist was required to fill out a chart detailing all treatment required, and this was then submitted to an official body, the Dental Estimates Board, for their approval. In other words, government-appointed officials would decide if a gold inlay was necessary or not. Unlike today, very few people chose to pay privately for dental or medical services. Administrated by regional Executive Councils, dentists were required to follow rules such as posting notices in their office telling patients how to complain about their dentist! Another factor which dentists had to endure was that of random inspections by a Regional Dental Officer. In signing for treatment, patients automatically agreed to possible inspection on completion of that treatment. The officers were dental surgeons themselves, of course, but if they decided a dentist&#8217;s work was unsatisfactory, it had to be done again at the dentist&#8217;s expense. However, the dentist could request a visit from the dental officer if he or she didn&#8217;t agree with some aspect of the Dental Estimates Board&#8217;s decision. Quality control is desirable in any type of work, but in the dental health service it was often used to question the clinical diagnosis of the dentist. In many cases, it forbade an operative procedure in favor of some cheaper, less expensive treatment which was not necessarily clinically sound. I remember one instance where a young girl was refused a porcelain crown, and though clinically required for this particular case, she was told she must make do with an acrylic crown. The dentist in question had his medical defense lawyer defend the case to a successful conclusion. This and similar cases were then presented to Parliament by the Medical Protection Society, resulting in favorable changes to the relevant regulations. </p>
<p>British hospitals and doctors&#8217; offices were dreary places, but up to the early fifties, most of British life was dreary anyway. Throughout that time, we envied the affluence on the other side of the Atlantic as socialism continued to inhibit an expansive private sector. Rationing of candy, clothing, and fuel continued for a varying number of years, and food didn&#8217;t come off the ration until 1954, nine years after war&#8217;s end. When complaints were made about the standard grade of rationed cheese, the Minister of Food, Dr. Edith Summerskill, retorted: &ldquo;Cheese is cheese. What do <i>you</i> want with variety.&rdquo; I remember going on a day trip to Belgium in 1953, and was amazed at the unrationed availability of consumer goods. As for health care, it certainly improved, but I did not see socialism as the source of this betterment. Great strides were made in diagnostic and laboratory facilities, but this was the result of medical progress, not Labour Party embellishments. The dramatic fall in cases of diphtheria, pneumonia, and tuberculosis my father had to treat was due to the advance of science, not the advance of socialism. </p>
<p>Although the Conservative Party was elected to office in 1951, they only had a 17-vote majority, not enough to dismantle the vast implementations of socialism, many of which had become an integral part of British life. In 1953, they did succeed in denationalizing iron, steel, and road transport, and in 1955 the Conservatives won again by a slightly larger margin. From here on, alternating with Labour governments under Harold Wilson, the Conservative Party tried to dismantle socialist programs, but tended to assume that their legislation might be dismantled by the next Labour government. However, by the late sixties, damage to Britain&#8217;s economy was less to do with the Labour Party, and everything to do with the trade unions who were now initiating strikes on the slightest pretext. Because of the geographic nature of the British Isles, a rail strike, a coal strike, a fuel strike, a dock strike, any one of these could, and did, bring the country to a halt. The Conservative administration of Edward Heath from 1970 to 1974, had to call an election in order to offer the Labour Party the chance of winning and thus handling the devastating &ldquo;three-day week&rdquo; which the unions had brought about. One essential service after another was shut down as employees in one industry were intimidated by the unions to strike in support of strikers in another industry. If workers didn&#8217;t oblige, noisy unemployed youths were recruited as &ldquo;pickets&rdquo; and rushed to wherever they were needed. </p>
<p>Unemployed youth? Socialist doctrine had established a new category in Britain&#8217;s class system, namely thousands of overwelfared and under-educated youngsters from which was spawned a subculture of untalented youth, personified at their worst by beer-swilling soccer hooligans. And by the early seventies, we had another fad to contend with, the so-called &ldquo;New Left,&rdquo; a strange amalgam of hippies, nihilistic intellect, political crackpots, and their cult-like guru, Herbert Marcuse. Endless protest marches for vague, undefined causes created traffic chaos week after week in London. </p>
<p>By 1979, the British electorate had had enough. Margaret Thatcher was elected on a platform that promised privatization and the reversal of most Labour&#8217;s policies. The lessons of socialism must have run deep in the minds of the electorate, for they have continued to elect Conservative administrations to this day. What of the Labour Party? Under their new leader, Tony Blair, they have decided to drop the party&#8217;s constitutional commitment to nationalization, thus affirming their claim that they have finally broken away from their traditional socialist past, a past now lost on the winds of history. [] </p>
<hr width="80%" size="1"/>
<p></font><a name="1"></a><font size="2">1. &nbsp; Ed.: See the interesting discussion by David Green, <i>Reinventing Civil Society: The Rediscovery of Welfare Without Politics</i> (London: IEA, 1993), pp. 88-120, on the crowding out of private-sector medical institutions and medical aid because of government policies in Britain.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/experiencing-socialist-britain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: www.thefreemanonline.org @ 2012-02-14 13:58:35 -->
