THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome, Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 p. o. Box 618
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER ..Editors
S1.S0 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAR
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoffice
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Wednesday, June 9, 1948.
WHAT IT MEANS : -
MOSCOW RAZZLE-DAZZLE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS
_ By Robert E. Geiger
T™ NEW RUSSIAN "Peace Offensive," is it sin
cere? Many Americans are nuzzled and con
fused by this question and the cool reception Stalins
proposals have received here. Why didn't American
officials jump af this opportunity to talk things over?
A House foreign Affairs subcommittee which anal
yzed Russian tactics predicted weeks ago there
would be frequent shifts in Russian policy. Reports
like the recent one, and other knowledge of Russian
tactics, help explain the American attitude. The
committee decided that "razzle dazzle" is an im
portant feature of Communist policy and thumbed
through 100 years of Communist history to support
this decision.
On the football field razzle-dazzle is the quick
and hidden shifting of the ball from player to play
er amid so much confusion that the opposing team
is dazzled. The committee said the Russians attempt
to do the same thing in international affairs. Its
report said if Communist policy seems headed to
ward cooperativeness at one moment, toward un
cooperativeness at another and nowhere in partic
ular at a third it's only to hide one truth:
"Economic and political policy and action, col
laboration on the surface and subversive under
neath, a swing to the right in one period and a
swing to left in another, are meant to serve a single
end, the world revolution." The State Department's
attitude toward Stalin's statement that U.S.-Russian
differences could be settled along lines suggested
by Henry Wallace is this, in brief:
These points of difference that Stalin mentioned
are old ones. There has been plenty of opportunity
to settle them in the United Nations. Russia knows
this. If she really wants to settle them the way is
always open. The subcommittee's analysis of Rus
sian policy is more blunt and explains why many
government officials look with skepticism on Stalin's
proposal. It says:
A zig-zag line of advance and retreat, called the
"Leninist line," has been a basic policy explaining
Communist strategy for the past 30 years, since
the Russian Revolution. This zig-zag line is the cause
of most of the confusion as to ust what the Com
munist policy is. The subcommittee traces the zigs
and zags this way:
1. After tl ~ revolution came three years of war
Communism, when the party in Russia drove to the
left, nationalizing industries, requisitioning goods
and drafting manpower.
2. Then came six years when free enterprise was
encouraged, to revive production.
3. Next came the five-year-plan. The drive to the
left brought socialization of agriculture, famine in
the Ukraine and the slaughter of so many cattle
that livestock never have come back to their former
numbers.
4. Hitler's rise to power in 1933 brought a shift to
the right in foreign relations. There was an alliance
of Communism with Socialism in France and other
countries .Purges 1937 and 1938 showed how Russia
could intensify leftism at home and at the same time
cooperate with capitalism abroad.
5. Then came the war. The Russians took what
they could on their own. They discussed world revo
lution with the Germans but set their price too high
for the Nazis. The failure to make a deal with Hitler
brought the German attack on Russia in 1941. The
United Kingdom accepted Russia as an ally. The
United States moved swiftly to include Russia under
lend-lease. Thus began a new "right" period of co
operating with Democratic forces.
6. Until repudiation of the Marshall Plan in June,
1947, there was cooperation with the Democracies.
Then Russia began her period of expansion and
of "radical leftism."
7. Now there is evidence Russia may be setting
on a new "zig" or "zag" possibly touched off by the
defeat of Communism in Italy. Is she sincere in
wanting world peace?
Committee members say they see no reason for
altering a conclusion they reached before the pres
ent Soviet peace drive. They concluded:
"They (Communists) know when and how to em
phasize the line of sweet reasonableness, resorting
to appeasement tactics, strictly on the psychologi
cal level where it costs least."
LET THE-PEOPLE VOTE
(Science Monitor
The most practical legal resource available lor
dealing with today's abuses attendant upon the
legalized sale of liquors lies in voting such sale
out of localities.
Under the principle of local option, which origin
ated in Maine in 1829, it has been the practice in
many states to allow the population in small po
litical subdivisions, varying in size from a county,
city, or town to wards and precincts in some cases
in some of the larger cities, to vote upon whether
they favor granting the form of license for the sale
of liquor or certain classes of liquor licenses.
Repeated experiments with many types of liquor
legislation have been tried, ranging from minor
regulations to complete prohibition, from high li
cense to low license, as a means of minimizing liquor
abuses. Out of these experiments, the one point
upon which there would probably be the most ag
reement is that so far as enforcement of the law is
concerned the best results are had when the law
conforms to the majority sentiment. That is, where
the people who determine the policy of the law
also have the immediate responsibility for electing
the officers who are to enforce it.
Long before national prohibition, local option on
the question of granting license was prevalent in
large areas of the United States. Since repeal, local
option has again come into vogue in many states
in which some form of option is allowed.
At a time when America is preaching Democracy
abroad and the right of self-determination, it would
seem the part of political wisdom to undertake to
bring the subject of liquor sales more generally in
line with the sentiment of the people of the commun
ities who have to live under the law.
Let the people votel
LOOKING
[ AKKAD
v GEORGE & BENSON
tPretideMt—JitrdlKf CrtUft
Set rtf. Jkrktm / ,
DO PROFITS ROOK YOU?
Profit is a word that folks
must utter today only in whis
I pers. In fact, it is a nasiy word,
the way most people use it. And
this is a pity. Ac.ually ,the word
j has in it a great measure of
progress and once meant the re
i suits of that which was “pro
ficient,” or usefully productive.
! But folks today have twisted their
1 ideas on profit around so that
the word indicates to them the
ability of business to take ad
vantage of somebody, especially
the worker.
Our economic processes are in
teresting and exciting when you
understand them. Without prop
erly understanding the ways of
money, trade, and commerce, an
unthinking person can become a
dupe for every "iim" that Dr. U
topia has to offer. It is amazing
to me that I find young people
and a few old ones, too, so taken
in by glamorous ideas that have
no basis in fact. Some of these
folks dream that profit is loot.
They look at profit as lacking
in morals and as the worst kind
of sin.
WORK AND PROGRESS
The thing that is directly re
sponsible for human progress and
human welfare is work. Work is
human energy. Without work, and
without the pay that people get
for their human energy, progress
would be at a standstill. But,
there is something else. The tools,
the factories, the land, the build
ings—all the things men use in
drawing upon their human energy,
these things are simply human
energy stored up for use.
Look at this a little further,
we see that wages and payrolls
represent that part of the selling
price of an article which must
be used for human energy. That
part goes to the worker. But there
is another part of the selling price.
This part goes to the owners for
use of the tools belonging to the
business. This latter part is known
as profit.
WORKERS LIKE PROFIT
Payrolls and profits: these two
items are vital to the well-run
business enterprise. Nearly every
body understands already how im
portant payrolls are to the wel
fare of our economic community.
But not nearly so many people
understand that profits also are
necessary. In fact, it would be
impossible to have good wages
without correspondingly high pro
fits. Then, a worker whose comp
any makes a profit is well-blessed
indeed.
Why is that so? Only a business
that makes heal:hy profits can
offer steady, good-paying jobs to
the community. Only a company
that makes sufficient profit can
buy modem tools and replace
worn-out ones. What worker does
not like to operate good mach
inery? Only a business that makes
good profits can afford to plan
and to expand its facilities. In
other words, all workers who
think right about it would want
an employer to make good pro
fi s.
HOW TO PROSPER
Many workers think that wages
are paid out of profits. This is
not so. Money for the work comes
j right out of sales and goes dir
ectly to payrolls, just as money