UK 1st in Nuclear Fusion - (Not Fission)

Nah they didn't just get all their info from the Yanks. As I said above after the defection of Igor Gouzenko, Canada made over 30 arrests of people within their nuclear industry for spying for the Soviets. Both the US and British were similarly infected with the same Soviet spying problems.
A Royal Commission investigated the Gouzenko affair. A lot of the people they named were members of the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, so your number may be a bit inflated unless you are surprised at the idea that Soviet diplomats spied whenever they could.

The only non-Soviet named as a possible spy who had connections with the nuclear program was Allan Nunn May, who came as part of the British Tube Alloys team and returned to the UK at the end of the war.

Many of the others named were acquitted or were not charged due to lack of evidence. A fair bit of the information provided by Gouzenko was a bit "iffy", as he was trying to make himself look as valuable as possible in order to negotiate as good a deal for himself as he could get.

I've taken the time to compile a list of the suspected agents named by the Royal Commission, leaving out the Soviet embassy staff. I've listed who they are, what they worked on, what the result of their case was (e.g. guilty, acquitted, not charged, etc.), and their country of origin. I have included the latter information in case there was any question in your mind as to whether they had a personal connection with eastern Europe (as many communists of that era did).

  • Eric Adams, Bank of Canada, acquitted (Canada)
  • J.S. Benning, Allied War Supplies Corporation, case dismissed. (Canada)
  • Raymond Boyer, NRC, explosives research (RDX, Canada developed a new manufacturing method), confessed. (Canada)
  • Samuel Sol Burman, civil affairs staff for occupied countries, not charged due to lack of evidence.
  • Agatha Chapman, economist in Bank of Canada, acquitted. (UK)
  • H.S. Gerson, worked on explosives development (don't know if this is connected with RDX). Guilty, then acquitted on appeal, then retried and guilty, BiL to Benning (Canada)
  • Israel Halperin, Army, explosives and artillery research (don't know if this is connected with RDX), acquitted (Canada, Russian parents).
  • Freda Linton, secretary to head of the National Film Board, John Grierson, who was sent from the UK to Canada to advise on the use of film in propaganda. Not charged due to lack of evidence. (Belarus).
  • Gordon Lunan Army Captain, Editor of Canadian Affairs publication, guilty (UK)
  • Ned Mazerall, Radio research, guilty (Canada)
  • M. S. Nightingale, RCAF, communications, acquitted (US)
  • Allan Nunn May, part of British Tube Alloys team. Came to Canada in 1943, returned to the UK in 1945. Spied for Soviets. (UK Tube Alloys team).
  • P.W. Poland, RCAF, Interdepartmental Psychological Warfare Committee, acquitted (US)
  • David Shugar, ASW equipment, acquitted (Poland)
  • Durnford Smith, NRC Radio Laboratory, guilty (Canada)
  • Kathleen Wilisher, UK High Commission Office in Ottawa, guilty (UK)
  • Emma Woikin, External Affairs cypher clerk, guilty (Canada)
Aside from May, the main areas of espionage appeared to be with respect to explosives research (Canada had developed a new manufacturing method for RDX), radio, radar, ASW, and general political and economic intelligence. I've seen no evidence for a widespread nuclear weapons related spy network in Canada, aside from May, who came as part of the Tube Alloys team.


As well as the above named by the Royal Commission, there were the following who were arrested for being dodgy. As you can see these two did a bit of name changing (e.g. Rosenberg to Rose) to appear a bit less "foreign", as was not uncommon at the time.
  • Fred Rose (Fishel Rosenberg), communist and MP. Only communist elected to parliament (1943, and again in 1945, Montreal). Convicted of conspiring to turn over information about RDX to the Soviets. Expelled from the House of Commons. Released from prison in 1951. Returned to Poland where he lived for the remainder of his life. His Canadian citizenship was revoked in 1957. (Poland)
  • Sam Carr (Schmil Kogan), communist, party organiser, publisher of party newspaper, recruiter of spies for Soviets, associate of Fred Rose. (Ukraine). Imprisoned in 1931 when the Communist Party was outlawed. Released after serving sentence of several years. Left Canada for refuge in the US in 1940 when the party was made illegal again. Returned to Canada from the US when the USSR became an ally and the party was legalised again. Fled to the US again when RCMP began arresting suspects in 1946. Arrested in US three years later and convicted of attempting to obtain a false passport. After release from prison he remained involved with running a Jewish cultural organisation.

If you have a list of 30 Canadian spies in the nuclear program who were arrested in connection with the Gouzenko affair, let's see it.

In contrast, if we look at the following list of who the notable "atomic spies" were we get the following:
Atomic spies

Americans
  • Morris Cohen — American
  • Harry Gold — American
  • David Greenglass — American
  • Theodore Hall — American
  • Irving Lerner — American
  • Julius and Ethel Rosenberg — Americans
  • Saville Sax — American
  • Oscar Seborer — American
  • Morton Sobell — American
"Illegals working in the US"
  • George Koval — American, emigrated to the USSR, returned to US as a Soviet Agent.
  • Arthur Adams — Swedish, working as an illegal in the US.
British/German
  • Klaus Fuchs — German, fled to UK when the Nazis took power, part of Tube Alloys.
  • Melita Norwood — British


If you count up who from where was spying for the Soviets, it looks to me like anyone saying it was the British or Canadians rather than the Americans who were untrustworthy seems to be doing a bit of deflection.
 
Last edited:
Immediately postwar, the UK built a large uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst, which then produced the fuel for the initial nuclear power stations, which, being MOD-owned, were used for production of plutonium and tritium.

Uranium enrichment by diffusion was a very inefficient process, which required multiple stages of enrichment, hence the large size of these facilities for relatively small output.
The early UK reactors were of the Magnox type, which used natural uranium and a graphite moderator. Just as with Canadian heavy water moderated reactors, no enriched uranium was required. The Magnox reactors produced both plutonium for weapons purposes and power for commercial sale. Reactors intended to be used to produce plutonium will be designed to cycle their fuel through more rapidly than ones which are intended primarily for electric power, as this helps prevent the build up of undesirable isotopes before the fuel is processed to extract the plutonium.

I don't know what the motivation for building the original Capenhurst enrichment plant was, as the only thing I can readily find out about it is that it was for "defence purposes". I have no idea about the history of UK bomb development, so I don't know if the original intent was to supply U235 for bombs as an alternative to using plutonium, or if they were intended to supply fuel for nuclear submarines (which tend to use enriched uranium).
 
Don't feel guilty about plugging a book Listy
We all gain enough info from your posts here to be more than a fair tradeoff :-D

Fine, fine, you asked for it:
Amazon product
Have you got an author's page on Amazon?

I've got about six, as for some reason my Publisher and Amazon are not able to separate me from the several other 'David Lister's'. Imagine my surprise when I found out this chap is releasing a book about British Spigot weapons this weekend.
 
Fine, fine, you asked for it:
Amazon product


I've got about six, as for some reason my Publisher and Amazon are not able to separate me from the several other 'David Lister's'. Imagine my surprise when I found out this chap is releasing a book about British Spigot weapons this weekend.
I thought this one was one of your better books:

51JVQBCP0WL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
A Royal Commission investigated the Gouzenko affair. A lot of the people they named were members of the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, so your number may be a bit inflated unless you are surprised at the idea that Soviet diplomats spied whenever they could.

The only non-Soviet named as a possible spy who had connections with the nuclear program was Allan Nunn May, who came as part of the British Tube Alloys team and returned to the UK at the end of the war.

Many of the others named were acquitted or were not charged due to lack of evidence. A fair bit of the information provided by Gouzenko was a bit "iffy", as he was trying to make himself look as valuable as possible in order to negotiate as good a deal for himself as he could get.

I've taken the time to compile a list of the suspected agents named by the Royal Commission, leaving out the Soviet embassy staff. I've listed who they are, what they worked on, what the result of their case was (e.g. guilty, acquitted, not charged, etc.), and their country of origin. I have included the latter information in case there was any question in your mind as to whether they had a personal connection with eastern Europe (as many communists of that era did).

  • Eric Adams, Bank of Canada, acquitted (Canada)
  • J.S. Benning, Allied War Supplies Corporation, case dismissed. (Canada)
  • Raymond Boyer, NRC, explosives research (RDX, Canada developed a new manufacturing method), confessed. (Canada)
  • Samuel Sol Burman, civil affairs staff for occupied countries, not charged due to lack of evidence.
  • Agatha Chapman, economist in Bank of Canada, acquitted. (UK)
  • H.S. Gerson, worked on explosives development (don't know if this is connected with RDX). Guilty, then acquitted on appeal, then retried and guilty, BiL to Benning (Canada)
  • Israel Halperin, Army, explosives and artillery research (don't know if this is connected with RDX), acquitted (Canada, Russian parents).
  • Freda Linton, secretary to head of the National Film Board, John Grierson, who was sent from the UK to Canada to advise on the use of film in propaganda. Not charged due to lack of evidence. (Belarus).
  • Gordon Lunan Army Captain, Editor of Canadian Affairs publication, guilty (UK)
  • Ned Mazerall, Radio research, guilty (Canada)
  • M. S. Nightingale, RCAF, communications, acquitted (US)
  • Allan Nunn May, part of British Tube Alloys team. Came to Canada in 1943, returned to the UK in 1945. Spied for Soviets. (UK Tube Alloys team).
  • P.W. Poland, RCAF, Interdepartmental Psychological Warfare Committee, acquitted (US)
  • David Shugar, ASW equipment, acquitted (Poland)
  • Durnford Smith, NRC Radio Laboratory, guilty (Canada)
  • Kathleen Wilisher, UK High Commission Office in Ottawa, guilty (UK)
  • Emma Woikin, External Affairs cypher clerk, guilty (Canada)
Aside from May, the main areas of espionage appeared to be with respect to explosives research (Canada had developed a new manufacturing method for RDX), radio, radar, ASW, and general political and economic intelligence. I've seen no evidence for a widespread nuclear weapons related spy network in Canada, aside from May, who came as part of the Tube Alloys team.


As well as the above named by the Royal Commission, there were the following who were arrested for being dodgy. As you can see these two did a bit of name changing (e.g. Rosenberg to Rose) to appear a bit less "foreign", as was not uncommon at the time.
  • Fred Rose (Fishel Rosenberg), communist and MP. Only communist elected to parliament (1943, and again in 1945, Montreal). Convicted of conspiring to turn over information about RDX to the Soviets. Expelled from the House of Commons. Released from prison in 1951. Returned to Poland where he lived for the remainder of his life. His Canadian citizenship was revoked in 1957. (Poland)
  • Sam Carr (Schmil Kogan), communist, party organiser, publisher of party newspaper, recruiter of spies for Soviets, associate of Fred Rose. (Ukraine). Imprisoned in 1931 when the Communist Party was outlawed. Released after serving sentence of several years. Left Canada for refuge in the US in 1940 when the party was made illegal again. Returned to Canada from the US when the USSR became an ally and the party was legalised again. Fled to the US again when RCMP began arresting suspects in 1946. Arrested in US three years later and convicted of attempting to obtain a false passport. After release from prison he remained involved with running a Jewish cultural organisation.

If you have a list of 30 Canadian spies in the nuclear program who were arrested in connection with the Gouzenko affair, let's see it.

In contrast, if we look at the following list of who the notable "atomic spies" were we get the following:
Atomic spies

Americans
  • Morris Cohen — American
  • Harry Gold — American
  • David Greenglass — American
  • Theodore Hall — American
  • Irving Lerner — American
  • Julius and Ethel Rosenberg — Americans
  • Saville Sax — American
  • Oscar Seborer — American
  • Morton Sobell — American
"Illegals working in the US"
  • George Koval — American, emigrated to the USSR, returned to US as a Soviet Agent.
  • Arthur Adams — Swedish, working as an illegal in the US.
British/German
  • Klaus Fuchs — German, fled to UK when the Nazis took power, part of Tube Alloys.
  • Melita Norwood — British


If you count up who from where was spying for the Soviets, it looks to me like anyone saying it was the British or Canadians rather than the Americans who were untrustworthy seems to be doing a bit of deflection.

The names there struck me as being interesting, more than the citizenships. Taking the “Atomic Spies” link, with the exception of Fuchs and May, every single one of them was of Eastern European Jewish descent.

Maybe there’s absolutely nothing to read into that, or maybe there was some residual pro-Russian family sentiment. Just seems a bit weird.
 
The names there struck me as being interesting, more than the citizenships. Taking the “Atomic Spies” link, with the exception of Fuchs and May, every single one of them was of Eastern European Jewish descent.

Maybe there’s absolutely nothing to read into that, or maybe there was some residual pro-Russian family sentiment. Just seems a bit weird.

You raise a very interesting question, which I think is key to understanding what motivated many of the people in that era. The following is a bit of a long answer, but I think it gets to the heart of the issue.

The two Canadian communists that I mentioned, "Fred Rose" (Fishel Rosenberg) and "Sam Carr" (Schmil Kogan) were both Jewish and had close connections with the Jewish community as well. Some of the other Canadians accused of being spies (for non-nuclear targets) were also of Jewish background.

Fred Rose was the only openly communist MP to have been elected in Canada. He was elected largely on the back of the Jewish vote in his riding in Montreal in a close four-way election.

In Europe, the communist movement had disproportionately large numbers of Jews, including the Soviet Bolsheviks.

There are social and political reasons for this. To understand this, you need to understand the general social ideological background of early 20th century western society and also the contemporary Marxist-socialist world view and how it contrasted with that of other political perspectives. Forget what you know now, just look at things from the point of view that people knew then.

Traditional conservative societies tended to be very nationalist, to the exclusion of others, including Jews. There was extensive discrimination against Jews in those days, which permeated all levels of society. To take Montreal, which had the largest Jewish community in Canada, as an example, the municipal and provincial governments were very conservative in view, and some were openly fascist in sympathy. Although we shouldn't directly equate Fascism with Conservatism, the two often overlap in terms of holding nationalist viewpoints. Fred Rose won his support among Jews largely due to his open opposition to the dominant political orthodoxy which they faced. Jews of eastern European origin would have been particularly familiar with oppression in their home countries, and they also tended to be more of a working class background and less able to shield themselves with wealth.

In the early 20th century, there was a widespread feeling that traditional society had run its course and that something new was needed. I won't go into all the reasons for this, which had to do with the dislocation of urbanisation, the decline of religion, the expansion of literacy and travel, and the general broadening of world views. Let's just accept that there was a widespread political orthodoxy that a fundamental change in how society was organised was needed in order to deal with the changes in the human condition.

This may sound vaguely familiar in terms of today's politics, but while the "feeling" may be similar, the underlying assumptions were different. It's a good analogy to keep in mind in terms of understanding things in a historical context.

This concept for a new and better society was given the general label of "socialism", although few could agree on just what "socialism" was. For our purposes, the early 20th century "socialism" universe could be broken down into three broad groups that really mattered.
  • Those who focused on "country" or nation-state, which we can call true fascists.
  • Those who focused on "race", which we can call "National Socialists" (Nazi).
  • Those who focused on "class", regardless of nationality, which we can call Marxists.
The free market, free trade, liberalism as typified by the UK Liberal Party and it's equivalents elsewhere at the time was viewed as having had its day. They were obsolete, and the only question is what would replace them.

If you were a Jew in that era, your choices were fairly limited. Being a Nazi was not exactly a very viable option. Fascism in terms of ideology was not hostile to Jews, but the extant Fascist governments were friendly with the Nazis for diplomatic and strategic reasons, rendering Fascism unappealing.

Marxism on the other hand was openly internationalist and anti-racist. All people, regardless of origins, were welcome in that camp. As a result of this a disproportionate number of Jews became communists. The large number of Jewish communist members meant that the movement became even more welcoming to them.

So if you were Jewish, and lived in a society that was oppressive towards you in many ways large and small, and there was a general feeling that a new and better society could be built in which you would have an equal standing and the respect of your peers, it was logical for you to support the one political movement who represented this.

Of course we now know that Marxism in practice would not bring about a better society, but that wasn't so readily seen then. While the USSR may have been seen for what it was by those who cared to look closely, many didn't wish to discard their dreams just because of reality. There was also the argument to be made that the USSR wasn't any more representative of "true" Marxism than modern day Russia is of "true" capitalist democracy, and people in those days didn't have the benefit of seeing how Marxism turned out in practice in a wide variety of countries as we have had the opportunity to see from today's perspective.

For Jews there was another way, which was Zionism. That is, to build a Jewish state somewhere where Jews could live as part of a nation state of their own. That was seen as unrealistic in those days however, as there was nowhere on this earth which was unclaimed and could allow this to be brought to reality. That it would actually become reality only a few short years later is not something that anyone could have foreseen at that time however.

So for many Jews of the time, Marxism had an appeal for social and political reasons which they were particularly exposed to. Keep in mind to view this from a pre-Cold War perspective, not from today's. Those social and political reasons are largely gone, and in many cases been replaced by a support for modern day Zionism instead.
 
You raise a very interesting question, which I think is key to understanding what motivated many of the people in that era. The following is a bit of a long answer, but I think it gets to the heart of the issue.

The two Canadian communists that I mentioned, "Fred Rose" (Fishel Rosenberg) and "Sam Carr" (Schmil Kogan) were both Jewish and had close connections with the Jewish community as well. Some of the other Canadians accused of being spies (for non-nuclear targets) were also of Jewish background.

Fred Rose was the only openly communist MP to have been elected in Canada. He was elected largely on the back of the Jewish vote in his riding in Montreal in a close four-way election.

In Europe, the communist movement had disproportionately large numbers of Jews, including the Soviet Bolsheviks.

There are social and political reasons for this. To understand this, you need to understand the general social ideological background of early 20th century western society and also the contemporary Marxist-socialist world view and how it contrasted with that of other political perspectives. Forget what you know now, just look at things from the point of view that people knew then.

Traditional conservative societies tended to be very nationalist, to the exclusion of others, including Jews. There was extensive discrimination against Jews in those days, which permeated all levels of society. To take Montreal, which had the largest Jewish community in Canada, as an example, the municipal and provincial governments were very conservative in view, and some were openly fascist in sympathy. Although we shouldn't directly equate Fascism with Conservatism, the two often overlap in terms of holding nationalist viewpoints. Fred Rose won his support among Jews largely due to his open opposition to the dominant political orthodoxy which they faced. Jews of eastern European origin would have been particularly familiar with oppression in their home countries, and they also tended to be more of a working class background and less able to shield themselves with wealth.

In the early 20th century, there was a widespread feeling that traditional society had run its course and that something new was needed. I won't go into all the reasons for this, which had to do with the dislocation of urbanisation, the decline of religion, the expansion of literacy and travel, and the general broadening of world views. Let's just accept that there was a widespread political orthodoxy that a fundamental change in how society was organised was needed in order to deal with the changes in the human condition.

This may sound vaguely familiar in terms of today's politics, but while the "feeling" may be similar, the underlying assumptions were different. It's a good analogy to keep in mind in terms of understanding things in a historical context.

This concept for a new and better society was given the general label of "socialism", although few could agree on just what "socialism" was. For our purposes, the early 20th century "socialism" universe could be broken down into three broad groups that really mattered.
  • Those who focused on "country" or nation-state, which we can call true fascists.
  • Those who focused on "race", which we can call "National Socialists" (Nazi).
  • Those who focused on "class", regardless of nationality, which we can call Marxists.
The free market, free trade, liberalism as typified by the UK Liberal Party and it's equivalents elsewhere at the time was viewed as having had its day. They were obsolete, and the only question is what would replace them.

If you were a Jew in that era, your choices were fairly limited. Being a Nazi was not exactly a very viable option. Fascism in terms of ideology was not hostile to Jews, but the extant Fascist governments were friendly with the Nazis for diplomatic and strategic reasons, rendering Fascism unappealing.

Marxism on the other hand was openly internationalist and anti-racist. All people, regardless of origins, were welcome in that camp. As a result of this a disproportionate number of Jews became communists. The large number of Jewish communist members meant that the movement became even more welcoming to them.

So if you were Jewish, and lived in a society that was oppressive towards you in many ways large and small, and there was a general feeling that a new and better society could be built in which you would have an equal standing and the respect of your peers, it was logical for you to support the one political movement who represented this.

Of course we now know that Marxism in practice would not bring about a better society, but that wasn't so readily seen then. While the USSR may have been seen for what it was by those who cared to look closely, many didn't wish to discard their dreams just because of reality. There was also the argument to be made that the USSR wasn't any more representative of "true" Marxism than modern day Russia is of "true" capitalist democracy, and people in those days didn't have the benefit of seeing how Marxism turned out in practice in a wide variety of countries as we have had the opportunity to see from today's perspective.

For Jews there was another way, which was Zionism. That is, to build a Jewish state somewhere where Jews could live as part of a nation state of their own. That was seen as unrealistic in those days however, as there was nowhere on this earth which was unclaimed and could allow this to be brought to reality. That it would actually become reality only a few short years later is not something that anyone could have foreseen at that time however.

So for many Jews of the time, Marxism had an appeal for social and political reasons which they were particularly exposed to. Keep in mind to view this from a pre-Cold War perspective, not from today's. Those social and political reasons are largely gone, and in many cases been replaced by a support for modern day Zionism instead.

Interesting reply, thank you. I can’t begin to understand those that put their religion/race first. I was going to say “before citizenship”, but I’m a good example of someone who’s changed allegiance. Not to say I’ve abandoned the UK, but I’m a US citizen now. I haven’t changed my way of life though, I’m still in an English-rooted country with similar views and processes. Much the same if I’d gone to Canada or Australia or NZ.

But I don’t think of myself as a “CofE American”. Or an “American Christian”. Then again Jews are Jews, which is both a race and religion. Arabs much the same, there is little distinction between their race and religion. There are of course many more Muslims than Arabs, but nearly all Arabs are Muslims.

I really can’t reconcile thinking “I’m race X” above “Citizenship Y”. Perhaps that’s at the root of some of the world’s problems - there will be other thinking “I can’t imagine putting my citizenship before my race/religion”.
 
Interesting reply, thank you. I can’t begin to understand those that put their religion/race first. I was going to say “before citizenship”, but I’m a good example of someone who’s changed allegiance. Not to say I’ve abandoned the UK, but I’m a US citizen now. I haven’t changed my way of life though, I’m still in an English-rooted country with similar views and processes. Much the same if I’d gone to Canada or Australia or NZ.
Your point of view is that of the inheritor of a nation of world-conquerors who have left their mark and their people across the globe. As you said yourself, you have multiple places you can go to and still feel at home among a people whom you see as being like yourself. There is no need for you to erase your identity and family ties in order to find a home somewhere.

But I don’t think of myself as a “CofE American”. Or an “American Christian”. Then again Jews are Jews, which is both a race and religion. Arabs much the same, there is little distinction between their race and religion. There are of course many more Muslims than Arabs, but nearly all Arabs are Muslims.

I really can’t reconcile thinking “I’m race X” above “Citizenship Y”. Perhaps that’s at the root of some of the world’s problems - there will be other thinking “I can’t imagine putting my citizenship before my race/religion”.
The Marxists were internationalists. They hoped to build a world where race, religion, and national origin didn't matter. They hoped to build a world where all working class people everywhere could live together in peace, harmony, and mutual respect. That was the appeal that Marxism had to those who faced oppression in their daily lives.

We now know of course that this is not how Marxism would work in practice, but that was less obvious to most people in those days.
 

Blogg

LE
Your point of view is that of the inheritor of a nation of world-conquerors who have left their mark and their people across the globe. As you said yourself, you have multiple places you can go to and still feel at home among a people whom you see as being like yourself. There is no need for you to erase your identity and family ties in order to find a home somewhere.


The Marxists were internationalists. They hoped to build a world where race, religion, and national origin didn't matter. They hoped to build a world where all working class people everywhere could live together in peace, harmony, and mutual respect. That was the appeal that Marxism had to those who faced oppression in their daily lives.

We now know of course that this is not how Marxism would work in practice, but that was less obvious to most people in those days.
My Nephew was incredibly upset to be informed that Karl Marx was born in 1818 and died in 1883, so his theories may be a bit past their best before date
 
My Nephew was incredibly upset to be informed that Karl Marx was born in 1818 and died in 1883, so his theories may be a bit past their best before date
Marx's economic theories were obsolete in the 19th century. They were heavily based on the premise that value was objective, which led to the Labour Theory of Value. This stated that the value of something was determined by the amount of "socially useful" labour that went into it. This leads to all sorts of logical paradoxes which are not solvable. Various other non-Marxist socialists and anarchists fell into the same logical trap.

I should point out that Adam Smith more or less held to a labour theory of value as well, although he of course didn't draw the conclusion that the solution to the problem was revolution.

Later economists came to the conclusion that value was subjective, not objective, and that something was worth whatever someone was willing to pay for it, regardless of how much work was put into making it.

Marx however didn't have the benefit of this insight, and so concluded that as the economy accumulated more capital the class of people who survived by selling their labour would become poorer and poorer. He combined this with his theory of class struggle as the driving force behind world history. Taken together he concluded that revolution and "true" socialism were historically inevitable. Therefore all current political struggle was between the forces of historical inevitability and the reactionary forces seeking to hold back the tide of history.

Marx's das Kaptial however was obsolete within 20 years of publication as the economic theory it was partially based on was overturned by newer developments that led to what we consider today to be modern economics.

Thus at around the time Arthur Conan Doyle began publishing his Sherlock Holmes stories or General Gordon was dying in the Siege of Khartoum, Marx's ideas were provably obsolete.

Marx also died at around this time, so I don't think he ever made a rebuttal to the newer developments. Somehow though I suspect he wouldn't have said "oh, well I guess I was wrong, just forget about all that rubbish I wrote then". I think he started with his conclusions and worked backwards to finding theories that would support them.

For the same reason it's pointless to debate the above with an actual Marxist. It's a religion for them not a science, and they won't stop believing it just because you show them that their holy book is a load of rubbish. Instead they'll just quote scripture at you and sing hymns (or shout slogans) to drown out your heresy.
 
Marx's economic theories were obsolete in the 19th century. They were heavily based on the premise that value was objective, which led to the Labour Theory of Value. This stated that the value of something was determined by the amount of "socially useful" labour that went into it. This leads to all sorts of logical paradoxes which are not solvable. Various other non-Marxist socialists and anarchists fell into the same logical trap.

I should point out that Adam Smith more or less held to a labour theory of value as well, although he of course didn't draw the conclusion that the solution to the problem was revolution.

Later economists came to the conclusion that value was subjective, not objective, and that something was worth whatever someone was willing to pay for it, regardless of how much work was put into making it.

Marx however didn't have the benefit of this insight, and so concluded that as the economy accumulated more capital the class of people who survived by selling their labour would become poorer and poorer. He combined this with his theory of class struggle as the driving force behind world history. Taken together he concluded that revolution and "true" socialism were historically inevitable. Therefore all current political struggle was between the forces of historical inevitability and the reactionary forces seeking to hold back the tide of history.

Marx's das Kaptial however was obsolete within 20 years of publication as the economic theory it was partially based on was overturned by newer developments that led to what we consider today to be modern economics.

Thus at around the time Arthur Conan Doyle began publishing his Sherlock Holmes stories or General Gordon was dying in the Siege of Khartoum, Marx's ideas were provably obsolete.

Marx also died at around this time, so I don't think he ever made a rebuttal to the newer developments. Somehow though I suspect he wouldn't have said "oh, well I guess I was wrong, just forget about all that rubbish I wrote then". I think he started with his conclusions and worked backwards to finding theories that would support them.

For the same reason it's pointless to debate the above with an actual Marxist. It's a religion for them not a science, and they won't stop believing it just because you show them that their holy book is a load of rubbish. Instead they'll just quote scripture at you and sing hymns (or shout slogans) to drown out your heresy.

While I agree with you mostly, I would point to the bit in bold.

Have a look at what is currently happening in the US and tell me he wasn't almost right?
 

endure

GCM
Marx's economic theories were obsolete in the 19th century. They were heavily based on the premise that value was objective, which led to the Labour Theory of Value. This stated that the value of something was determined by the amount of "socially useful" labour that went into it. This leads to all sorts of logical paradoxes which are not solvable. Various other non-Marxist socialists and anarchists fell into the same logical trap.

I should point out that Adam Smith more or less held to a labour theory of value as well, although he of course didn't draw the conclusion that the solution to the problem was revolution.

Later economists came to the conclusion that value was subjective, not objective, and that something was worth whatever someone was willing to pay for it, regardless of how much work was put into making it.

Marx however didn't have the benefit of this insight, and so concluded that as the economy accumulated more capital the class of people who survived by selling their labour would become poorer and poorer. He combined this with his theory of class struggle as the driving force behind world history. Taken together he concluded that revolution and "true" socialism were historically inevitable. Therefore all current political struggle was between the forces of historical inevitability and the reactionary forces seeking to hold back the tide of history.

Marx's das Kaptial however was obsolete within 20 years of publication as the economic theory it was partially based on was overturned by newer developments that led to what we consider today to be modern economics.

Thus at around the time Arthur Conan Doyle began publishing his Sherlock Holmes stories or General Gordon was dying in the Siege of Khartoum, Marx's ideas were provably obsolete.

Marx also died at around this time, so I don't think he ever made a rebuttal to the newer developments. Somehow though I suspect he wouldn't have said "oh, well I guess I was wrong, just forget about all that rubbish I wrote then". I think he started with his conclusions and worked backwards to finding theories that would support them.

For the same reason it's pointless to debate the above with an actual Marxist. It's a religion for them not a science, and they won't stop believing it just because you show them that their holy book is a load of rubbish. Instead they'll just quote scripture at you and sing hymns (or shout slogans) to drown out your heresy.
Thank you for explaining the comments section of the Guardian so well ;-)
 
While I agree with you mostly, I would point to the bit in bold.

Have a look at what is currently happening in the US and tell me he wasn't almost right?
The increasing concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands in the US isn't an inherent result of the accumulation of capital however. It's a result of historical, sociological, legal, and yes, certain economic factors. The US have created a "winner takes all" society, but it's not an inherent feature of market capitalism.
 
Interesting reply, thank you. I can’t begin to understand those that put their religion/race first.
I suspect that bigotry drives allegiance - when someone encounters (even low-level) widespread bigotry because they're a member of a religion, or because of the colour of their skin, allegiance to any nation is going to be damaged.

We saw this a couple of times in the 1980s - if you were a Scot of Asian descent, and you wanted to become a professional soldier, why join the British Army when you could join the Pakistani Army? If a Scottish Jew, why not join the IDF? No chance of being called "Paki" or "Yid" there (or wondering whether your promotion chances were f**ked as a result). Even being the wrong kind of Christian allegedly affected your chances of making RSM in some Regiments...
 
Last edited:

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Having been a research student looking into a then a cutting edge segment of IT and IS application and use, experience tells me it will happen again. The problem is that whilst the UK, and other countries, are pretty good at coming up with new stuff, the reason it does not generally end up making the UK money is due to investment on two counts:

1. The UK fails to follow through on initial developments due to the purse being empty so the idea moves overseas, or
2. The initial research was funded by furriners, or a company linked to furriners, so ultimately the research outcomes belong to them anyway.

For example; mine and 3 other individuals research was funded by F*rd for their own business needs. It was effectively F*rd UK that paid for the research. However, in terms of the eventual volume of usage of our research and work using our research F*rd USA was the largest beneficiary.

Research carried out at UK institutions of higher learning is not done on a whim, or because someone thinks it is a good idea. The research is either funded by corporates, government departments, or jointly with most funding coming from corporates. And, like all corporates they are out to make money so they will take the completed research where the money is, and in the english speaking world that is the USA.
One of the greatest disgraces in the UK (one heck of a competition, BTW) is the negligent way in which taxpayers fund research and research infrastructure (i.e. universities) without putting a lien on any and all IPR generated. Had we had the commercial nous to do that we would have a sovereign wealth fund that might even be able to afford net zero.

As regards making IPR available to save the planet there are well established mechanisms such as licences.

The City of London has evolved (or regressed) from a funder of ventures (including risky ones) to an organisation devoted to making fees from shuffling taxpayer's pension funds from one set of "investment grade" assets to another, taking a clip every time.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Lo and behold, the US swamped the market with free/discount TOW's (Swingfire's troubled development may also have contributed here).
A further factor was no doubt superior technology.
Swingfire was MACLOS - the operator had to track the target AND fly the missile back onto line of sight.
TOW was SACLOS - operator only had to track the target, flying missile back to line of sight was handled by the electronic wizardry
 
A further factor was no doubt superior technology.
Swingfire was MACLOS - the operator had to track the target AND fly the missile back onto line of sight.
TOW was SACLOS - operator only had to track the target, flying missile back to line of sight was handled by the electronic wizardry

But to achieve that you loose your separation. Separation was key, as we felt we'd be experiencing a decent amount of incoming fire, so sitting there with your head up for many seconds with a Giant blast marker saying 'shoot here' was seen as unhelpful. See some of the tactics used by the Israeli's to combat the Saggers in the Yom Kippur war.
With separation even if you saw the missile, you'd have no idea which bush or house was directing it at you. Gathering up required a bit of training was all.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
But to achieve that you loose your separation. Separation was key, as we felt we'd be experiencing a decent amount of incoming fire, so sitting there with your head up for many seconds with a Giant blast marker saying 'shoot here' was seen as unhelpful. See some of the tactics used by the Israeli's to combat the Saggers in the Yom Kippur war.
With separation even if you saw the missile, you'd have no idea which bush or house was directing it at you. Gathering up required a bit of training was all.
Don't dispute re the benefits of separation.

However trickiness of flying Swingfire onto target, particularly at extreme range (4000m) should not be underestimated.

On one annual firing at Hohne we combined the night shoots into a regimental battle run. I was one of the forward Scimitars, just out of arc for the opening act, which was an engagement by two Striker* troops v hard targets about 1000m to my front. Using our II we had a very good oblique view of the (static) hard targets. Many, if not most, of the incoming Swingfire impacted 5 to 25m short, albeit with impressive flashes as the rockets spontaneously combusted. All claimed as hits, but they wasn't.

I have only ever used the Swingfire simulator, but the manual dexterity required was a right bastard.

*For young readers, Striker is/was a CVR(T) Swingfire launcher, usually one troop of four vehicles per squadron. But they concentrated into a quasi squadron because their needs were, unsurprisingly, way different to those of use with 30mm RARDEN.
 
Don't dispute re the benefits of separation.

However trickiness of flying Swingfire onto target, particularly at extreme range (4000m) should not be underestimated.

On one annual firing at Hohne we combined the night shoots into a regimental battle run. I was one of the forward Scimitars, just out of arc for the opening act, which was an engagement by two Striker* troops v hard targets about 1000m to my front. Using our II we had a very good oblique view of the (static) hard targets. Many, if not most, of the incoming Swingfire impacted 5 to 25m short, albeit with impressive flashes as the rockets spontaneously combusted. All claimed as hits, but they wasn't.

I have only ever used the Swingfire simulator, but the manual dexterity required was a right bastard.

*For young readers, Striker is/was a CVR(T) Swingfire launcher, usually one troop of four vehicles per squadron. But they concentrated into a quasi squadron because their needs were, unsurprisingly, way different to those of use with 30mm RARDEN.

Should have stuck with Orange William then, even impacting short would likely have been a Mobility kill! Of course the impossibility the guidance system, or moving it about the battlefield is neither here nor there.
 
Top