Trade Union Leaders in Confusion (1935)

From the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Sixty-seventh Annual Conference of the Trade Union Congress met in the shadow of war, and its President, Mr. Kean, opened the proceedings with a touching, if incoherent, appeal for peace. Italy, he said, must be coerced into keeping the peace, by means of economic and financial embargo and, perhaps, by closing the Suez Canal, even if such action led the League Powers into a war with Italy. That is, we must have peace at all costs, even if we have to go to war for it. The logic is shaky, but the meaning is clear enough. Another war to end war! And the T.U.C. and the Labour Party are as blandly ready to send the workers to the shambles as if the last war had never happened.

Mussolini, cries Mr. Kean, "knows no moral principle”—so “we” should bring out “our” poison-gases and long-range guns, to convince him how much loftier are “our" principles. Mussolini has made an “unjust and rapacious assault” on Abyssinia; so Great Britain, upheld by the comfortable conviction of moral superiority, given her by the tale of her just and generous acquisition of world empire, must teach him to play the game according to the rules. The subject races of the British Empire might inquire eagerly just what those rules are; but, of course, ignorant black men cannot be expected to comprehend civilised society. The British T.U.C. apparently does not comprehend it either. They spent days reading the riddle: “When is a war not a war?” and reached the solution, “When the other side call themselves Fascists.” Thus the Fascist is being used to fill the place occupied by the “Hun” in 1914; and the T.U.C.—together, be it noted, with the Communists, with whom they refuse to associate—tell the workers that it is their interest to take up arms against Fascism.

Leaders Mislead the Workers

What a highly convenient catchword is this “Down with Fascism” rallying-cry! Just the slogan needed to disarm the “Left-wing” resistance to war, and transform anti-militarist campaigns into frantic clamouring for the defence of Abyssinia. And these “leaders of the working class” are so muddle-headed in their principles and policy that they are voluntarily playing the game of the National Government—the very Government they have in the past so often and so bitterly attacked. Give them a war they can condone, a slogan obscuring the basic issue, and they readily, unreflectingly, follow the example of the Social-Democrats and others whose 1914-1918 war record will not bear examination.

The S.P.G.B. maintains that the “Fascism” aspect of the matter is the superficial excuse necessary to render war acceptable. The underlying issue is an economic one—the workers of all the countries involved are to be used as tools to make possible the extraction of profit from Abyssinia. Great Britain is inextricably concerned, since Abyssinia is surrounded on almost all frontiers by British territory; since the Blue Nile, source of Egypt’s essential floods, rises in Lake Tana; and since Eritrea and the Somalilands are on the route to India. The British capitalist group are not anxious for war at present; but neither do they want Italy to corner all the profits they foresee in the development of Abyssinia. Therefore, the politicians at Geneva and elsewhere have been treading the knife-edge of diplomacy, endeavouring to give Italy concessions large enough to stave off war, without actually giving Italy a monopoly of Abyssinian exploitation. The workers of the world have no interest in these jugglings. What reason is there for them to support one section of their exploiters against another? Whichever side wins the wage-slaves will still be wage-slaves; the basic problem of present society will remain unsolved.

The S.P.G.B. maintains, as it has done consistently throughout its thirty-one years' existence, that the workers' interests are inescapably opposed to those of the capitalists, whatever political and national trimmings the latter may use to mask their ends. When the workers open their eyes to the facts of their exploitation, and cease to be taken in by the multifarious propaganda of the capitalists and their tools, they will see that their own interests lie simply and only in an entirely new system of society—Socialism—and will struggle indefatigably to establish it. Under Socialism the entire absence of the profit motive will once and for all eradicate the cause of war. When the workers have set up Socialism, then, and only then, will war be impossible.

Equality for Women Workers

Not a word of this did we hear from the T.U.C., and equally indefinite and non-socialist was their attitude on Britain’s internal problems. The economic position of women, the plight of the depressed areas, and the battle for shorter hours were all discussed from a purely reformist standpoint. All these problems are inherent in capitalism, but the T.U.C. conveys the impression that they can be solved piecemeal, without touching the basis of society. This impression is false: some improvements may benefit sections of the workers for a time, but the working class as a whole can never escape from exploitation by such painting the sores of capitalism. The first essential of capitalist society is an army of wage-slaves, people dependent for their lives on the sale of their energies in the labour-market ; and the commodity labour-power commands only the price necessary, for the labourer to continue his existence and reproduce his kind. That is, the workers as a whole—whatever differences and fluctuations may occur in particular sections at particular times—receive as the price of their labour-power little more than enough to keep them alive. This is an integral part of capitalism. Suppose women succeed, as the T.U.C. hope, in obtaining equal wages with men. Are they any the less exploited wage-slaves? By all means let them, in common with all their class, fight against the encroachments of their masters, but let them not be deluded into believing that their principal task. They must realise that these encroachments can be made impossible only by doing away with the private ownership of the means of life, which produced their enemy, the master class.

The Workers a “Depressed” Class

The T.U.C., with penetrating insight into social cause and effect, further disclosed to an astounded world that “the stricken areas owe their lamentable position to the decline in their main industries.” We have heard also that the circular movement of the globe on its axis may be explained as being due to the rotation of the earth. The T.U.C. was full of warm-hearted sympathy about the “shame and pity" of the depressed industries' situation, but spent no time analysing its true causes, or pointing the obvious way out. We state that these areas are “stricken" simply because the capitalists of this country cannot at present envisage making profits from them, owing to foreign competition and to more attractive investing fields elsewhere. Moreover, the whole working class all over the world is ”stricken" and lives in a state of permanent “depression.” The difference between these areas and others which receive less publicity is one of degree, and not of kind. It has been often and authoritatively stated that most workers, whether employed or not, have neither sufficient food, adequate clothing, nor sanitary homes. Such conditions are an integral part of capitalism.

Similarly, the question of hours is one which can never be solved so long as the human race is divided into two opposing camps, one owning the means of life and the other divorced from ownership, the one buying and the other selling labour-power. The buyers and sellers of labour-power have irreconcilable interests, and until private ownership and the buying and selling of labour- power is stopped for good, the haggling and wrangling over its price and time of its use must inevitably continue.

Down with all the War-makers

Finally, the T.U.C. decided to exclude Communists from holding official positions in Trades Councils. At about the same time the Communist Party announced its readiness to affiliate with the Labour Party. The T.U.C. officially stigmatised the Communists as a disruptionist element. Yet on the Abyssinian issue the Communist and T.U.C. policies are identical. So they blow hot and cold and make confusion worse confounded. The S.P.G.B. has indeed every logical reason to claim that it alone, in this maze of capitalist politics, is treading the direct path to Socialism. The Communist Party’s attitude in the Abyssinian crisis must have demonstrated unmistakably to many of its erstwhile supporters how capable that Party is of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. Why further the declared policy of a capitalist Government? Why differentiate between national sections of the world capitalist class? To dam up Italian colonial expansion in Africa, which is so attractive to Italian capitalism, is merely to bring a European explosion so much nearer. To defend Abyssinia against Italy is merely to hand it over for capitalist exploitation by the native ruling class in alliance with Britain or France, or to split it up among various Powers. Abyssinia is due to be “civilised” by some capitalist group in any case. But the Communist Party is willing to lead British workers to slaughter Italian workers under the banner “down with Fascism and war." They remind us of Butler’s “Hudibras,” whose

    "Brain 

Outweighed his rage but half a grain, 

Which made some take him for a tool 

That knaves do work with, called a fool.”

Once again we must reiterate that these internecine squabbles, for all the fine phrases used as top dressing, are no concern of the working class. The paramount issue in the world to-day is the struggle for Socialism. The S.P.G.B. calls on the workers throughout the world to realise their class position, and to determine to end class-society and all its evils by organising consciously and politically for the one end, of establishing Socialism.

D. S.

Notes of the Month: Labour Party Problems (1935)

The Notes of the Month column from the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour Party Problems

 

Whilst the Labour Party has officially declared for sanctions against Italy should the latter carry out its threat of attacking Abyssinia, this attitude has met with disapproval from many of its own members, including several prominent officials. Mr. Lansbury has threatened to resign his position as Leader because the application of sanctions may involve the use of armed force. He is now opposed to all wars, because "they are against the teachings of Christianity.” He has now evolved a plan which will, in his opinion, put an end to all possibilities of wars in the future. This is nothing less than the “sharing of all the raw materials, markets and unoccupied territory of the world.” He wants the League of Nations to appoint a commission of economic and scientific experts to draw up a scheme for carrying out these proposals.” They could quite easily tell us how to meet the insistent demands of Italy, Germany and other nations for expansion, and how to pool natural resources, develop the markets, and satisfy the demands of the millions of people starving and sick in Asia, Africa and Europe.” (Daily Herald, September 16th, 1935. Italics ours.)

That Mr. Lansbury can hope that the present owners of territory, mineral resources, etc., will relinquish or share their property unless forced to do so is sheer madness. That he expects such a scheme, even if carried out to “satisfy the demands of the sick and starving millions,” is equally illusory. The “sick and starving millions” are the propertyless workers and peasants, and they are as much a feature of the countries already in possession of raw materials, territory and markets such as Britain, France and the U.S.A. as they are of Germany, Italy Abyssinia, or any other country. The world now belongs to the capitalists and not to the workers, and if it is parcelled out in different proportions or pooled among the present owners, how can that benefit the proletariat?

* * *

 

“Pious ” Enemy No. 2.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is also a Christian. Nevertheless, he can foresee circumstances in which a war may become “Christian." In his broadcast on September 1st he made it clear that, in his opinion, a war fought with the blessing of the League of Nations had also the blessing of the Church. We would add that history does not tell us of many wars in which the Church has withheld its “blessing.”

* * *

Where Does he Stand?

Sir Stafford Cripps is the Chairman of the Socialist League, an organisation affiliated to the Labour Party. He is opposed to Labour’s policy of sanctions, and does not agree with its support of the League of Nations. In an article in the Sunday Referee (September 15th, 1935), entitled ”Where I Stand,” he says: “While capitalism controls our national, and imperialism our international life, the actions of our Government will be determined by capitalist and imperialist interests.” Correct, Sir Stafford, but how do you square that statement with your membership of the Labour Party, which plainly holds the opposite point of view?

* * *

United Front at Last

The Communists seem to have achieved their hearts' desire, that much-sought-after "United Front." And it is of a magnitude that must exceed their most sanguine hopes. For on the Italian-Abyssinian dispute they are solidly behind the National Government (or should we say in front of them?). "The League's Covenant must be upheld by all means at our disposal," declared Sir Samuel Hoare, British Foreign Minister, in a speech at Geneva. And he has the solid support of the bulk of the Labour Party, the whole of the Liberal Party, and most certainly the Communist Party, who have issued impressive-looking proclamations, urging the public to support the League. As their sponsors at Moscow are now members of the League this is not surprising. But their attempts to explain their "policy" are ludicrous. Lenin's condemnation of the League as a “Thieves' Kitchen" still holds good with us, though the disciples of Lenin grace its functions. And what has become of their erstwhile boast, to "turn every imperialist war into a civil war " ?

* * *

Where we Stand

"The people who do not own a country and its resources have nothing to fight for excepting Socialism "! That is our policy. The workers of Abyssinia, many of whom are still chattel-slaves, should not be inveigled into fighting for the property of Abyssinian princes. The workers of Italy have nothing to gain by fighting to secure more territory and raw materials for their masters. And the business of the workers the world over is not to take sides with either of the two Governments, or any other Government or League of Governments. Their business is to take the world out of the hands of the present owners and make it the possession of all. That is not the attitude of any other political party in this country.

* * *

Another Mining Disaster

Seventeen miners died as a result of an explosion in a coal mine near Barnsley (Yorks.) on September 12th. There have now been three big mining disasters this year, all claiming a heavy toll of life. These tragedies emphasise the conditions of workers who, for a pittance of less than £2 per week, have to risk their lives. And we often have to answer questions like: "Do not the capitalists have to risk their money in order to make a profit?" The miners are now preparing to struggle for an increase in their wages. Whilst we commend such struggles, we must at the same time point out that such a struggle, even if successful, will only mean a few more shillings a week. And we ask you miners: "How can you be satisfied with that when, by organising into the S.P.G.B., you can help obtain the Means of Life, including the mines, for society as a whole." Then the risk to human life would be lessened and, in return for less arduous and unpleasant work, all the comforts of life would be yours.

* * *

A “ Corrective ” for Capitalism

"Capitalism is your servant and must never be your master—but it must be treated fairly. When it goes wrong, as it has gone wrong, it must be corrected." (Mr. Bennett, Canadian Premier, Daily Herald, September 13th, 1935.) We propose that the working class makes itself "master" of the political machine, and then administer one stroke—the appropriation of the land, factories, means of transport, etc., in the name of society.

* * *

“Men of Action ” at Work

The German "Men of Action," Hitler and Co., assembled at Nuremberg, where the German Reichstag was called to deal with problems alleged to be of vital importance to the German workers. General Goering presented the first Bill, which provides that the Swastika flag shall become the State flag of Germany. Thus a tremendous victory was won for the German working population! Further evidence of the Nazi Government's concern for the conditions of the German workers was shown by the following new laws (Daily Herald, September 16th): —

For the protection of the German blood and honour, this law forbids the marriage between Jews and Germans or related lines.

Jews cannot hire German maid's in their household under the age of 45.

The joy of German working people should be boundless. How different from Socialists, who are merely concerned with the solution of the problem of poverty!

* * *

Without Trimmings

The agenda of the Labour Party Conference, held at Brighton this month, contains several interesting items. A resolution submitted by the Southport Trades Council and Labour Party reads as follows: "That the next General Election be fought without trimmings, on the policy outlined at the Southport Conference, under the title of ‘For Socialism and Peace,' special stress being laid upon:—

1. The immediate nationalisation of the land and all minerals.
2. The immediate establishment of a 40-hour week, with no reduction in economic circumstances.
3. The immediate raising of the school-leaving age to 15 years, with full maintenance during the last year at school.
4. General retirement from industry at the age of 60, with pension, such pension to be raised to £1 per week for a single person and £2 per week for married couples.

“ It is urged that this general and specific policy be a ‘Stand or Fall' programme, and declares that it is the lowest minimum of policy as Socialists this Conference is prepared to tolerate.”

So now you can “stand or fall” for “Socialism and Peace” with or without “trimmings”—and get “trimmed". 

A further resolution submitted by the Warrington T.C. and L.P. reads as follows: —

“That this Conference, believing that there is a limit to the possibility of Social Reform legislation within the capitalist system, and realising definitely that the Labour Movement of this country has declared for a Socialist policy, agrees that the Movement should centre the whole of its propaganda and educational activities on making Socialism and Socialist Policy its only objective” 

”The Conference further declares that the concentration of the Party on the support of the policy of doles and palliatives has become inimical to its Socialist objective, and that the next Labour Government should set out immediately to adopt such Socialist measures as will render such doles and palliatives unnecessary.”

Everything depends upon what the people at Warrington mean by “Socialism” and "Socialist measures.” But if they mean to change the Labour Party from a reformist organisation to a Socialist one their task is hopeless. The bulk of the Labour Party membership is not Socialist, and the job of converting them cannot be done from within. And why trouble to change the Labour Party if there is already a party in existence whose only objective is Socialism, namely, the S.P.G.B.

Labour Party headquarters have shown what they think of the above resolutions by putting it at the tail-end of the agenda, under the heading of “Miscellaneous.”

* * *

S.P.G.B. and the B.B.C.

Last year we approached the B.B.C. with a view to obtaining permission to put our case over the radio. We received a polite letter, informing us that arrangements had already been made for a representative of “Left-Wing Socialism” to broadcast. As we are not “Left-Wing,” but Socialists, as, in fact, we belong to “no wing” of the Reformist Movement we repudiated the right of anyone to speak on our behalf, unless appointed by ourselves. Now we have again approached the B.B.C. and hope that these gentlemen will grant us the privilege that has not been denied to the other political organisations. If and when we get our turn we hope to be able to make it quite clear to the listeners that as the S.P.G.B. is the only party in this country that does not recruit support on questions of day-to-day legislation under capitalism but gets its backing solely on the issue of Socialism versus Capitalism, we have nothing in common with those who, calling themselves “Socialists,” are, in fact, nothing of the kind. Scientific, revolutionary Socialism in Great Britain is represented by the S.P.G.B.

Sid Rubin

Notes by the Way: What Mussolini did for Italy (1935)

The Notes by the Way Column from the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

What Mussolini did for Italy

 

Here is a brief description of the lofty principles on which the Fascist Government has trained its boys and young men, under the guise of “education."

There minds have been saturated with bellicose sentiments. The word Fatherland has lost for them its meaning, apparently obsolete, of love for the native land and its inhabitants, and has come to signify a proud and pugnacious attitude to the foreigner. While they were still boys the rifle and the machine-gun were put into their hands. All their Sundays were spent in military exercises. In their elementary school they were taught from a State text-book in which the martial virtues were exalted as the best virtues of a citizen. Indeed, later on they were taught that the citizen in Italy is from 6 to 60 a soldier, and that Italy, in the words of the chief of Fascism, must be a “military, militaristic, and warlike nation." (Times, September 5th.)

* * *

 

Capitalist Crisis and Capitalist War

 

Sir George Paish, in a letter to the Press, recently drew attention to an aspect of the Abyssinian conflict which has received little notice, that is the similarity between the condition of Italy now and in 1896, when also war was waged on Abyssinia.

"At that time the world was suffering from a severe economic and financial crisis, and the distress of Italy caused her statesmen to seek relief in a policy of conquest. The world to-day is suffering from a crisis more severe than 40 years ago, and Italy is in even greater distress than she was then. In consequence, Italy desires a colony to give her a market for her products, to which her people can emigrate, and from which she can obtain food, raw material, and gold .... economic and financial distress is the real cause of the difficulty.” (Times, August 31st.)

Here we have from a world-famed economist, who hopes and believes that capitalism can and should be saved, a fairly frank admission that capitalism is at the root of modern wars.

* * *

 

The Rate of Increase of Output in Industry

 

The rash speculations of Douglasites and others about a supposed vast and rapid increase of output in industry, due to the introduction of improved machinery and processes, have received additional refutation in a survey of output in the Economic Journal (September, 1935), by Ely Devons, of the Economic Research Section, Victoria University of Manchester. Basing his survey on the census of production and other material, he finds that the increase of output per head of the workers in all manufacturing industry in this country increased by at least 14 per cent. in the six years from 1924 to 1930. He thinks the actual figure will be somewhat larger than 14 per cent. for reasons given in the article. Making a reasonable allowance for this, it will be seen that the increase per annum is rather less than 3 per cent.

Taking the smaller range of industries which are covered by the Board of Trade’s index of production he finds that the increase of output per head of the workers actually in work was 20 per cent., or a little more, in the nine years 1924—1933. This gain is well below 3 per cent. a year.

These estimates agree with others given in the Socialist Standard from time to time.

* * *

 

The Output in Mining and Iron and Steel

 

A writer in Forward (August 24th), who shares the misconception that productivity increases at a “tremendous” rate, gives figures relating to coal-mining, an industry in which a great deal of machinery has been introduced. He claims that after allowing for the big reduction in the total output of coal, for the decrease in the number of miners, and for the greater amount of short time, output per head has increased by 30.4 per cent. in the ten years 1923—1933. Even if this were the whole story the increase each year would still be less than 3 per cent. of the previous year's output. Actually, however, it leaves out of account any additional labour used up in the manufacture and maintenance, etc., of the machines, also the fact that, the output per head in 1923 represented a big decrease, as compared with 1913 (from 260 tons a year to 229 tons).

 

On the other hand, miners’ hours of work are shorter than before the War.

 

If these modifications are allowed for it will be seen that miners’ output per head now as compared with that in 1913 has increased at the outside by not much more than 2 per cent. a year. The rate of increase in recent years may have been somewhat larger, but much of this has merely made up for the previous decline in output due, among other causes, to the fact that coal becomes more difficult to get at as the mines become more worked out.

 

An estimate of the increase of productivity in engineering, shipbuilding and iron and steel, based on the index of output published by the Royal Economic Society, and on the number of workers actually at work in these trades, shows that output per head between 1924 and 1930 increased by about 3 per cent. a year.

 

* * *

 

Major Douglas puts his Cards on the Table

There is certainly one thing for which Major Douglas deserves praise, that is for his very definite statement of his attitude towards the Alberta Social Credit Government. He might, had he wished, have expressed vague and qualified approval without committing himself to anything definite. Instead, in an article in the Sunday Express, he stated in plain language exactly what he believes the Alberta experiment will produce. As we know that the application of the Douglas theories will fail to achieve the results Major Douglas anticipates, it is a suitable occasion to place on record what he wrote in the Sunday Express on September 1st, 1935. The following passages are extracted from the article in question:

Mr. Aberhart, the new Prime Minister, is a man of magnetic personality and a magnificent orator. In the heat of the election he went rather beyond any proposals that I have made, but it is entirely false to say that I am in disagreement with him, I admire him greatly (Italics ours.)

He promised during the election to pay every Albertan five pounds a month. I hope and believe that once his plans are in full operation that figure will be substantially increased.

If the credit of a rich province is made fully available to its people without artificial restrictions of any kind, there will be no poverty. Everyone will have enough to eat, a decent home, opportunities for recreation and adequate leisure.

That, I believe, will happen in Alberta if the new Government sticks to its policy. It will probably take fifteen months before the plan is in full operation, and that fifteen months will be a period of great difficulty and bitter strife. The vested interests of the bankers and financiers will not relinquish their monopoly without a hard struggle.

In 15 months from now, I believe that Alberta will be a blessed land. Unemployment will no longer be a menace to its citizens. No wheat will rot in its elevators. Fine new roads will enable tourists to appreciate its magnificent scenery and bring further wealth to its people.

It will become one of the show places of the world.

 

* * *

 

Capitalism and Superior Brains

 

Ousted from one position after another, defenders of capitalism finally fell back on the “superior brains." The capitalist, we are told, provides all the brain-power, the ideas, the organising skill and directive ability. His was the creative genius, without which the wage and salary earners would be floundering about in muddle and chaos.

The creative geniuses of capitalism finally produced the world war and the world crisis and, in passing, they turned whole counties of Great Britain into distressed areas, where idle men and idle mills rotted together. And what about the "superior brains" meanwhile? Having produced the chaotic conditions, are they setting to work to produce a remedy? By no means. Instead, the Chairman of the Whitehead Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., of Newport, Monmouth, is offering a prize of £1,000, with additional prizes of £200 for practical suggestions for “permanently and substantially reducing existing distress in South Wales and Monmouthshire (Daily Telegraph, August 31st).

You send your answers to the Industrial Development Council of South Wales. We know the answer, but we fear nobody will receive a prize for sending it in.

 

* * *

 

"200 Companies Own Half U.S."

 

Under the above heading the Star (August 3rd) publishes a report from Reuter's Agency, stating that, according to the American Bar Association, about 200 Corporations, managed by approximately 1,000 directors, own one-half of the wealth of the United States. These 200 corporations do not include banks.

“A small number of corporations exercise a dominant influence over price control and trade practices, and virtually control the production and distribution of the country,"  a report by the Association states.

Edgar Hardcastle

50 Years Ago: Bandits or Patriots? (1988)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Patriotism has been described as “the last refuge of a scoundrel’’; but everybody does not take that view. Some of those who do not are the London newspapers, also the Liberal, Labour and Conservative parties. They all say that patriotism is a very fine and noble thing, and that we should honour the courage and devotion of the patriot who fights to defend the land he was born in against foreign invaders. There is Abyssinia, for example. The Manchester Guardian reports that widespread guerrilla warfare is still bring waged against the Italians, and the writer in the Guardian (September 8th, 1938) goes to some trouble to explain that the Abyssinian patriots are not just “bandits." But if we turn from Abyssinia to Palestine, where the Arabs are trying by force of arms to overthrow the detested British rule and oust the Jewish settlers, we find a remarkable difference. All the London daily papers, with hardly an exception, habitually report the efforts of the Arabs as the activities of “bandits." Actually the Arab fighters talk the same kind of language as all the other patriots. Here is a sample:—

Were it not for the justice of our cause, the holiness of our demands and the victory promised to us by God, the enemy would have succeeded in its intentions. —(Daily Telegraph, September 8th, 1938.)

Not that we wish to idealise the Arabs, but it would be more fitting if the gangs of patriots in all countries recognised that they are all worshipping the same barbarous ideals in the same bloodthirsty way.

[From the Notes by the Way column by Edgar Hardcastle, Socialist Standard, October 1938.]

Pawns in Abyssinia (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is evident that the Italian Government is determined, at whatever the cost in men and money, to force big concessions from the independent State of Abyssinia, including, no doubt — if things go according to the Italian plans — the annexation of a large part of Abyssinian territory and the establishment of some form of close control over the remainder of the country. Why Mussolini’s Government is prepared to go to war can be explained on the usual grounds. Notwithstanding the Fascist promise of a new economic system, Italian industry is carried on for profit in competition with the rest of the capitalist world, and Italy’s lack of raw materials in her own territory or colonies places her capitalists at a disadvantage in the scramble for profit. Abyssinia is coveted because, among other attractions, it would provide a market for Italian goods and cheap supplies of raw cotton, which would free Italian capitalists from the need to import from America.

The excuse is often used by the Great Powers when annexing the territories of native races that the backwardness of the latter is withholding from the civilised world much-needed sources of supply, without any advantage to the natives themselves. In the war to conquer Abyssinia that excuse cannot very well be used. Nobody can argue that the outside world is being hampered by scarcity of cotton. On the contrary, one of the outstanding features of the depression has been the vast over-production of cotton in many parts of the world, and the expensive official schemes for destroying and restricting cotton crops. In short, the motive which sends a gigantic military force into Abyssinia is not economic, in the sense of a genuine need of the human race, but is purely capitalistic, the lust for profit in a world divided into antagonistic capitalist-national groups. So, if Italy wins and further develops cotton-growing there, the next world economic crisis will very probably see the Italian Government restricting the production of that article, after sacrificing lives innumerable to make the development possible. Other attractions in Abyssinia are gold, rubber, copper, potash, and platinum.

Unrest in Italy

There are other reasons also. The early enthusiasm for Fascism began long ago to wear off, and there have recently been reports of strikes and demonstrations, including some against the threatened war. Poverty and unemployment for the workers are the order of the day under the Fascist flag, as under all others, and faced with discontent, Mussolini, like many a doomed dictator before him, is grasping at military glory as a means of regaining popular support. Naturally, he pretends otherwise, and claims that all but a tiny minority of the Italian population are behind him. Nevertheless, according to the Geneva correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (July 17th), he takes the precaution of imposing a much more drastic control of the frontier passes leading into Switzerland, with the two-fold object of preventing the escape of men who do not want to fight and of preventing the importation of anti-war and anti-Fascist propaganda leaflets and journals.

From a military point of view, while all the advantages of money and armaments are with the Italian forces, the deserts and mountainous country will be comparatively easy to defend, and the weather will be against the invaders. While opinion generally is that in time Abyssinia would be crushed, the task may prove so slow and costly that the Italian capitalists may well come to regard Mussolini as an expensive luxury. According to Mr. Vernon Bartlett (News-Chronicle, July 25th), “It is true – even though it be denied – that exactly a year ago important Army officers were alarmed to learn that Signor Mussolini contemplated an Abyssinian campaign …. They advised against it, a commission on the spot advised against it. . . .”

The defeat of an Italian force by the Abyssinians at Adowa in 1896 led to the overthrow of the then Italian Premier, Crispi. Will history repeat itself ?

Something Rotten in the State of Abyssinia

Mussolini’s appeals to the Italian workers to sacrifice their lives in a quarrel which does not concern them are paralleled by those of Emperor Haile Selassie. Although the country has made only small advances towards capitalist industrialism, and that only in limited areas, it has its evils no less than those of the capitalist Powers. Chattel slavery still exists, and is only slowly giving place to wage-slavery. There is desperate poverty on the one hand, face to face with the wealth and power of the ruling class on the other. It is true, as the Emperor says, that “throughout their history they have seldom met with foreigners who did not desire to possess themselves of Abyssinian territory, and to destroy their independence,” but independence means no more to the subject class in Abyssinia than it does elsewhere. Moreover, much of the tribal territory held by Abyssinia was grabbed by the Emperor’s predecessors, and is now held by force against the wishes of the local population. It is one of the ironies of the situation that just as Mussolini is afraid of discontented workers at his back, so the Emperor has to take extreme precautions that the arms he imports do not on the way fall into the hands of his own unwilling subjects, who would use them to revolt against him.

Haile Selassie’s command over the kind of phrases to delude his subjects into fighting their masters’ wars is hardly less than that of Mussolini himself: “He who dies for his country is a happy man” – ” It is better to die free than live as slaves” (a little inappropriate perhaps in a country where there are many slaves) – “God will be your shield. United with God, our ramparts and our shields will face to-morrow’s invader with confidence. . . . Your sovereign will be in your midst and will not hesitate to shed his blood for Ethiopia. If no peaceful solution is found, Ethiopia will struggle to the last man for existence.”

The religious note will be better understood when it is remembered that the Abyssinian priesthood are said to own as much as one-third of the total land, and are immensely influential.

The Attitude of the Powers

Many of the other Governments have direct or indirect interest in the situation. The Abyssinian Government has for many years tried to insure itself against occupation by one Power by giving contracts and concessions to companies belonging to several different countries. America, France, Japan, England, Belgium, Germany and Egypt are among the countries with trading or other important interests. Owing, however, to the complications of the European situation — in particular, the aim of keeping Austria apart from Germany, for which Italy’s aid is essential — England and France would no doubt not be much disturbed at the idea of an Italian conquest of part of Abyssinia, provided that their own interests were safeguarded, along with Egypt’s interest in Lake Tana, from which the Nile flows. However, not only has America indicated hostility to any Italian conquest, but the Japanese Government has taken the same line, and is allowing influential Japanese organisations to work up an agitation against Italy for the proposed “violation of international law and justice.” The Japanese Government, which used the same methods in Manchuria and is now using them in China proper, is horrified that Italy should do this in Abyssinia.

A factor which may cause misgivings in many capitals is that any Abyssinian success may cause increased unrest throughout all the colonies in Africa.

It is worth remembering that Sir Samuel Hoare, British Foreign Secretary, has laid it down that Italy has a right to “expand,” i.e., to conquer the territory of other nations (Hansard, July 11th, col. 517).

It is also worth remembering that, in order to buy Italy off, the British Government offered to give away some British territory in Somaliland, without asking the local inhabitants or the population at home.

What the final outcome of the complex clash of interests in Abyssinia will be, it is impossible to foretell.

A Crusade to Stop Slavery

One argument which generally plays a prominent part in the wars of annexation waged by the European States against the coloured races — that the war is a Christianising war — cannot be urged here, because the Abyssinian ruling class are Christians and have, indeed, themselves played the game of Christianising the Mohammedans. Mussolini has had to content himself with another noble-sounding slogan. He is going to rid Abyssinia of slavery, and impose by force the very doubtful advantages of Italian capitalist civilisation. The Pecksniffian leader writer of The Times (July 15th), while chiding Mussolini for his “obstinacy," tells us of some of the evils existing in the ancient empire of Abyssinia, or Ethiopia: “It is known . . . that conditions of squalor and extreme crudeness exist among the greater part of their quarrelsome tribes, some of whom still retain the belief that a man is no man until he has killed his enemy.” The Abyssinians might retort that if there were no squalor already, conquest by any of the Powers would soon introduce it in large measure. Are not the notorious slums of the Italian towns squalid? And has The Times never heard of Britain’s army of paupers, and the shocking conditions of the depressed areas? As for the ferocity of the tribesmen, who is Mussolini to complain? Has he not for years bellowed of the glorious uplifting qualities of war?

The Labour-I.L.P. Attitude

With their incurable weakness for sentimental phrases, the I.L.P. and Labour Party have discovered here another “poor little Belgium” being attacked by a big Power, and want to take sides with the Abyssinian ruling class against the Italian. The I.L.P. New Leader (July 19th) wants the British workers to refuse to make or transport arms or munitions for Italy. Nothing is said of arms for Abyssinia, so, presumably, the I.L.P. has no objection to the making of war material for the ruling class of that country. The Labour Daily Herald is more explicit, and printed an article from their correspondent in Abyssinia (July 24th), containing the following :

“It seems as if all that remains for the Abyssinians to do now is to sharpen their spears, clean their rifles and hope that Europe will let them buy ammunition, so that it may be a fair fight” (italics ours).

Could anything better illustrate the hopelessly non-Socialist attitude of the little gentlemen of the Daily Herald? Here is a war about to take place between the exploiting class in two countries, one of which is more developed industrially than the other, and the organ of the Labour Party hopes that the slaughter of workers about a question which is not worth the life of a single one of them, shall be conducted on a “fair” basis, the only possible result of which would be that the killing would be prolonged !

The Socialist attitude is quite unlike that taken up by the Labour Party and I.L.P. We do not take sides in ruling class quarrels. A story told of the Viennese during the battle of Sadowa is more in line with what should be the working class attitude. At that battle, which occurred in 1866, the Prussians and the Austrians were fighting out the issue which of the two ruling class groups should dominate the German States and Central Europe. It is said of the Viennese that, while the battle was in progress they went on dancing, “as if it did not matter which side won.” They were right, and it would tax the ingenuity of all the assembled historians and apologists for war to show any tangible loss suffered by the mass of the Austrian population through the defeat.

The progress of the world, and the abolition of war can only come through Socialism. The duty of the working class is to press forward on that road, and not to be diverted by I.L.P.-Labour Party propaganda for this or that section of the ruling class.

Edgar Hardcastle

People in Glasshouses (1937)

From the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Manchester Guardian (April 7th, 1937) published a letter appealing for its help and influence in securing the release from a German concentration camp of Anton Hausladen, a German social-democrat, who had been interned for four years without a charge being brought against him. If the Manchester Guardian can help Anton Hausladen it will be doing something useful. It could do something else just as useful. In its issue for the same day the Guardian reported a speech by Mr. Carl Heath at Friends' House, in which it was stated that between 1,500 and 2,000 people were detained in Bengal prisons without charge or trial. They are chiefly trade union and political leaders.

Another Press report, Daily Telegraph (March 10th, 1937), shows how embarrassing criticism of the policies of foreign governments can be to the British Government. The Telegraph quotes from the Italian Giornale d'Italia about:—

Atrocities committed by the British quite recently on the Afghan frontier. There the tribes were bombed by British air squadrons well supplied with poison gas.

The Italian statements were in answer to the British Government’s concern about the massacre of Abyssinians in Addis Ababa by the Italians. The Italian allegation that the British used poison gas on the Afghan frontier was denied by Mr. Eden in the House of Commons. A minor point really. The Italians can teach the British very little in the business of Empire building.

Notes by the Way: What goes on in Abyssinia (1954)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

What goes on in Abyssinia

Outwardly the visit to Britain of Haile Selassie, King of Kings and Emperor of Ethiopia, may have the appearance of a courtesy call between two of the few remaining monarchies of the world. But it is an open secret that there are matters of more serious interest than renewing old acquaintance and revisiting Bath, where the Emperor lived during his exile after the Italian conquest of his homeland. The Sunday Express (17/10/54) reports that behind the scenes “a new treaty of friendship and alliance” is being negotiated. More information is given by the Manchester Guardian (12/10/54). According to this report the economic and political situation in Abyssinia is critical and the visits to Washington and now London are designed to obtain financial aid for development of resources in return for which strategic advantages can be offered to the Western Powers.

“The future of Eritrea and the Somalilands is the most important question affecting Great Britain and Ethiopia. Eritrea, uneasily federated to Ethiopia for a temporary period, has Red Sea ports of strategic significance for the Western Powers, faced with a revolutionary Middle East and an unpredictable East Africa. French Somaliland remains the only rail outlet to the sea. Italian Somaliland is under United Nations trusteeship until 1959. For the Emperor these lands with their large Somali, Dankali and Tigrean populations are a source of danger, and their future is of great importance. In 1953 an American military mission arrived to replace the Swedish mission training the Ethiopian army.”

“There is oil in the northern provinces and the American Sinclair Oil Company is prospecting in the Somali desert in the east. The existence of uranium was confirmed in 1947. Ethiopia urgently needs loans, aid and capital investment. In return she can offer oil and mineral concessions.”

In the meantime the Emperor, who is “at once king, dictator and government,” has such problems to face in maintaining his rule that it was at first thought that he could not safely leave the country.

Where the other capitalist Powers are busy furthering their interests Russia is not missing and would have its opportunity if the present regime collapsed.

“Soviet Russia, with an Embassy, a very fine information service, the best-equipped hospital in Addis Ababa and the ear of some of the best-educated men in the country would not be slow to build a bridge to Africa. Poverty and ignorance are widespread and the Coptic Church, the official Church with great temporal power, has old ties with the orthodox Church in Russia.”

Those who have wondered why the allegedly anti-Christian Russian rulers have propped up the Church in Russia will see here one of the reasons. The religious link has already been useful to them as a means of approach and influence in the Balkans and may now prove to be useful for getting a foothold in Africa. For Russian capitalism as for the others trade and the gun may follow the Bible.

Are Strikes due to Communists ?

Scoffing at the idea that the bus and dock strikes are caused by Communist agitation, the Sunday Express, always pleased to turn the attack against the Transport and General Workers Union, lays responsibility on the latter.

“The fact is that Mr. Deakin’s huge union, nearly a million and a quarter strong, is totally unmanageable. Contact between its leadership and the rank and file seems almost non-existent even at local level.” (Sunday Express, 17/10/54.)

Be that as it may the Express have an unanswerable point when they ask: “does Mr. Deakin really believe that ordinary working-folk with family responsibilities will risk their whole livelihood simply because hot words are spilt by a handful of agitators?”

Another point is overlooked when this charge is levelled at the Communists. They do not always support and encourage strikes. When the Russian Government’s policy requires no strikes the Communist parties all over the world fall into line. After 1941, when the Russian Government was forced into the second world war, the British Communists were at the forefront of the drive to get the workers to work harder, and to refrain from striking. Strikes were denounced by the Communists as sabotage “against the nation”—just the same sort of language that is now directed against the Communists. The interesting point to notice is, however, that the number of strikes and strikers in the years when the Communists were the loudest mouthed patriots and were telling the workers not to strike were just as high as when the Communists changed to the new line of encouraging strikes.

In 1951, 1952 and 1953, there were just over 1,700 strikes each year and the number of days work lost by strikers rose from 1,710,000 days in 1951 to 1,797,000 in 1952 and to 2,142,000 in 1953.

This was a period when Communists were supporting strikes. But in the years 1943-1946, when the Communists were denouncing strikers, the number of strikes each year was greater than in any of the years 1951-1953, as also was the number of days work lost each year through strikes.

From which it may be concluded, as we might expect, that the workers strike against the effects of capitalism and it does not make much difference to their actions whether the Communists are for or against.

Troops and Dock Strikes

The following is from an article in the Daily Mail (19/10/54) in which Mr. Roland Hurman explains why the Tory Government has been able to avoid the hasty use of troops in dock strikes.

“Three times during the reign of the Socialist Government, under Mr. Attlee, the Cabinet sent troops into the London docks. Now, for the first time in three years of Sir Winston Churchill’s Administration, the Government are pondering the problem of how long they can wait before ordering the men of the Armed Forces into action in defence of our peace-time front line.

“That Sir Winston has been able to wait for more than a fortnight before deciding on this drastic step is itself silent testimony to the growth of the country’s prosperity since he took office.

“In the immediate post-war period of shortages, controls, and rationing, most cargoes had to be moved quickly to keep the nation fed and occupied. To-day we are much belter off, but a trading country like Britain cannot continue indefinitely in the vacuum created by the dock strike.”

The Motive behind Capitalism

Economists and City editors have a double line of propaganda against Socialism. One is that you can’t do without the profit-motive because that is what makes the wheels go round. The other is that it is unfair to charge the capitalists with being money-grabbers for their real incentive is disinterested service in the community.

But last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer told business men that they should pay out less profit in dividends and devote more of it to developing their factories to meet foreign competition. This stung the City Editor of the Daily Express to the following:—

“Nonsense, Mr. Butler. Dividends are the life-blood of a free-enterprise economy.

“It was the promise of dividends that led the Adventurers of England to Trade Into Hudson’s Bay. To-day it is a national asset worth £29,000,000.

“It was the promise of dividends that brought Mr. Rolls and Mr. Royce together. And it is the hope of dividends that encourages the investors of Britain to risk their money in industry.

"There is nothing wrong with high dividends provided they come from justifiable profits. Any more than higher wages are wrong if the workers deserve them.

"Both are high-degree marks on the barometer of a nation’s prosperity.” (Daily Express, 16/10/54.)

Mr. Morgan Phillips on Russia

Mr. Morgan Phillips, Secretary of the Labour Party, wrote for the Daily Telegraph about his impressions during the recent Labour Party delegation’s visit to Moscow on its way to China. From the article in the Daily Telegraph of August 21, 1954, we discover that Mr. Phillips still holds the view he has expressed in the past, that British Labourism and the Russian Government have a common objective but differ about methods. He writes:—

“It may provide food for thought that the apparently sterner Stalin said to us in 1946 that both Britain and the Soviet Union were moving in the direction of Socialism— the Russian road shorter and more difficult, the British longer and involving no bloodshed. It can hardly be said that under a Conservative Government Britain is still on the road to Socialism; yet Malenkov was at least no less friendly.”

Writing further of the difference between his talks with Malenkov and the talks in 1946 with Stalin, Mr. Phillips says of the earlier talks:—

“As I have said, we talked then of the two roads to Socialism—the Communist way and the Democratic way to which we in the British Labour Party are committed and irrevocably dedicated. Wc gained the impression that notwithstanding ideological and other differences, it might be possible for the Communist and non-Communist world to live peacefully and prosperously side by side."

Mr. Phillips gives us a fascinating example of the way one confusion of thought is bound to lead to others and make understanding impossible. He early imbibed two ideas, one true the other false; the first that the Socialist idea involves international co-operation and harmony, the second that Socialism means State control of industry or State capitalism.

Having taken this initial leap in the dark Mr. Phillips' further progress in error and confusion was as certain as the sunrise. As both the Russian and the British Labour Governments had leanings to State capitalism they must, thought Mr. Phillips, have a common goal; they must be fellow-travellers on the way to Socialism. They ought also to be able to live in mutual peace and harmony. Since, however, they were not in harmony but in a state of cold war the cause might be, perhaps, a difference about method, the long and the short, the bloody and the peaceful roads to Socialism. Happy in his explanation of the problem Mr. Phillips is now convinced "that there are grounds for a renewal of optimism" in the matter of Anglo-Russian relations.

The cold truth is that Russia and Britain are parts of the capitalist world, trying to survive and expand in the cut-throat scramble. They do indeed differ about method, Russia relying more, and Britain less, on State capitalist methods of organising industry.

The reasons for their rivalries and hostilities now have no more to do with controversies about Socialism than the Crimean War of 100 years ago had to do with Russian and British controversies about who were the proper guardians of Christians of the Greek Church under Turkish rule.

Mr. Morrison dissents

Mr. Herbert Morrison evidently does not share Mr. Phillips' illusions about mutual harmony between Britain and Russia and he wrote caustically in the June “Socialist Commentary" about those who think they can see Socialism in Russia :—

“We cannot delude ourselves into thinking that revolutions in other countries are deserving of our sympathy and support just because they are revolutions. . . . The idea still prevails that Russia has a Socialist economic system simply because so much is nationalised and planned; the existence of a dictatorship and the loss of individual freedom are regarded as unfortunate but irrelevant. As a result her every action—and the same now applies to China—is viewed with special indulgence.”

 

New Naval War

Nearly 50 years ago the growth of the German navy led to the campaign in Britain to build more battleships to counter the threat. It is different today. Germany is only just about to begin re-armament and this time, so the British Government hopes, Germany will be an ally. But the British Government is still building warships, and three new cruisers are to be completed. But against Russia not Germany!

Mr. Noel Monks writes in the Daily Mail (16/10/54):—

“They will be the navy's answer to Russia's Sverdlov-class cruiser. This was revealed last night by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, in a speech at the R.N.V.R. club in London.”

Edgar Hardcastle

News in Review: Summerskill speaks (1965)

The News in Review column from the April 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Summerskill speaks

The indignation of Lady Summerskill was on public view recently when on television she accused the Tate Gallery of pandering to a "pseudo intellectual snobbery” when it paid £60,000 for a painting by Picasso which she claimed was “ quite meaningless.” The money, she claimed, would have been much better spent on a hospital or a new operating theatre.

We don’t doubt that Lady Summerskill sincerely feels that she has lined up her social priorities in the right order, but then choices of this kind don’t really have to be made. There is no reason why either art or hospitals should carry a price tag at all. Her indignation is diminished by the fact that she herself accepts the phoney economic limitations that Capitalism places on the provision of both these necessary facilities.

30 years after

The recent Royal visit to Ethiopia, which was front page news in the British Press for a few days, carried the mind back vividly, exactly 30 years, to the days when Abyssinia filled not only British but world newspapers. This was in 1935, when Italy launched its brutal war of conquest against this strange survival from the ancient world. The news of bombing raids and poison-gas coming over the radio, provided a sickening curtain-raiser for the world-wide tragedy that was to follow.

For a year or more Abyssinia was the centre of passionate political debate, and the subject that dominated all street-corner meetings. It was the rallying point for the “Popular Fronters’’ until the Spanish Civil War pushed it back into the shadows. One can also recall the mass of misinformation, about Abyssinia, that poured from Communist and Fascist platforms alike—from speakers who one suspected, had only just heard of the place. Perhaps the crowning irony was the spectacle of the Emperor Haile Selassie, autocrat, with a system of government that made the late Tzar look like a revolutionary, becoming the idol of the Left and a champion of Liberty.

Can it be only 30 years since these events took place? The face of Africa has changed so rapidly in the last generation, that it is difficult to realise that Abyssinia was once the only independent state left in Africa, after the great European powers had carved up the continent. Mountainous and land locked, nobody particularly wanted it but Italy, desperate for glory to impress its proletariat, and for land to dump its surplus production.

Today Africa is covered with newly independent States, and it is those which are still under European control that make news. Capitalism is advancing, behind the rash of new flags, smashing tribal economics in its path, and producing the pattern of life so familiar to us. Ethiopia, with Italy’s old colony of Eritrea thrown in to give it a sea coast, has emerged as a kind of centre for the Pan-African movement, with Addis Ababa as an African Geneva.

Perhaps the greatest irony of all is the fact that the new African leaders, loud in their condemnation of Imperialism, are prepared to accept “ His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie, King of Kings, Elect of God, and Conquering Lion of Judah,” as one of themselves.

Wilson's chat

It was on the evening of 24th. February last that Mr. Harold Wilson, his silver hair carefully flattened into place, spoke to us all on television.

First, there was the little joke about Madame Tussauds, to prove that the Prime Minister is human. Then the smile, faint though it had been, vanished and Wilson piled into us.

We need, he said, a revolution (how many other politicians have said that, without actually meaning a revolution, nor perhaps even realising the import of the word?) in industrial techniques and national attitudes.

No more of the attitude that “what was good enough for grandfather is good enough for me.” No more “strikes arising from some real or imagined grievance."

No more “arguments about which of two men shall bore a hole in a sheet of metal... when "—and here Mr. Wilson's eye was level, his voice threatening— “waiting in the wings there are automative hole borers whose designers have not programmed them to argue about demarcation disputes."

The Tories watched and studied this broadcast very carefully. If the Prime Minister had said a word out of place, if he had been in the slightest bit “controversial," the Opposition would have claimed the right to reply.

But Mr. Wilson cut the ground from under their feet. The Conservatives could find nothing in his broadcast to argue with. The reason for this is plain.

No employer, no Tory, would disagree with the Wilson strictures on strikes, industrial disputes, —clock watching—even the sideswipe at expense account lunches. Indeed, some of them probably realised that Wilson attacked strikers much more effectively than the tweedy, remote fourteenth Earl could ever hope to.

In fact, Wilson ignored the minor differences between his party and the Conservatives and concentrated upon their grounds of fundamental agreement—upon their united support of the interests of the British capitalist class.

It is true that the broadcast gave the Tories one cause for concern. Wilson assiduously engaged himself that evening in building up the image of himself as what they call a national leader and therefore was, perhaps, winning votes from those workers who like to have a Big Brother at the head of their master class.

This is an apt comment on the standing of the Labour Party today. They have come a long way since the times when they professed to stand for the interests of the working class and in Harold Wilson they have found the man to bring them to the inevitable end of their journey. For now they are openly a national party of British capitalism, trying to boost British technology, British exports, British influence with no more nonsense about the class struggle.

Wilson himself made the point when he went for “ ... men pinching a few minutes here, an hour there ..." The significance of this is that men can only “pinch” time from their employer because they have already sold it to him—because they have sold to him their working ability, measured in minutes and hours.

Into Europe?

Anyone who has his nose to the ground cannot have failed recently to detect a familiar scent.

The British capitalist class is once more showing interest in joining the European Common Market.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home, addressing the Young Conservatives last February, spoke of cementing “an agreement with Europe . . . economic and political and in due course it will cover security..."

Mr. Wilson, while outwardly he cannot so quickly discard his anti-European hat, is showing signs that he is attracted by its opposite. If he decides to wear this particular hat there will be, of course, no heartburning as a result of yet another abandonment of what were once presented as inviolable principles.

Foreign Secretary Mr. Michael Stewart has recently said that Europe should be "... an equal and influential member of the Atlantic partnership."

These friendly noises could mean that the British capitalist class are once more seeking other ways out of their immediate difficulties than national and Commonwealth ones. In this, of course, their hopes are illusory; the Common Market has not solved the economic problems of its members.

If Britain does try again to join Europe, there will follow the old battle between those interests (agriculture, for example) which see their economic fortunes safest in a massive tariff wall against foreign competition and those (motor cars, for example) whose mouths water at the prospect of penetrating the European market on tariff terms equal to the German and French industries.

Then there is the brooding figure of de Gaulle, who has fashioned French policy on the resolve to build a Europe independent, as far as it can be, of American influence, with France as the dominant power. 

This policy has no place, at present, for powerful competition from Britain. Here, once more, will probably be the biggest stumbling block to any British attempt to sign the Rome Treaty.

If Britain should sign, nobody should be deluded about the motives for it. An attempt to join the Common Market will doubtless be heralded by numerous politicians as a step towards human unity and the brotherhood of man.

When we have discarded this frill of lies, we shall see that a revival of interest in Europe is due, as The Economist put it, to ". . . realities, not sentiments . . . powerful pressures . . ."

They might also have added that the realities and the pressures are those of the balance sheet. The British capitalist class will try to get into Europe only if they are convinced that their general interests, in terms of profit making and maintaining, are safer that way.

Whether they are right or wrong in such assessments is beside the point. What is very much to the point, however, is that the people who make the profits, and who are exploited and degraded in the process—the working class—should for once not be misled by the frills and should face the realities.

Malcolm X

According to his autobiography, Malcolm X expected to die violently, but probably most people expected that, if this happened, it would be by the hand of a white man.

The assassination provoked an outburst of hysteria and apprehension—even regret from people who were only recently denouncing the doctrines which Malcolm X had expounded.

The murdered man moved in a world of violence. His mother, he said, was conceived after a white man had raped his grandmother. His father was also murdered, his skull smashed in and his body flung under the wheels of a street car.

It was only after the seemingly inevitable career of crime and drug addiction that Malcolm X became interested in the Black Muslims—an event which, he wrote, gave him “a little feeling of self-respect."

He soon became prominent in the movement, attracting a lot of publicity with his teachings that the Negro should be strong, disciplined and ready to answer violence with violence. A few months ago he came to the Oxford Union to defend his own interpretation of Barry Goldwater's famous remarks on extremism.

It is perhaps surprising that there was not a Malcolm X before. The oppressions and indignities to which the American Negro are subjected are so extreme that it was predictable they should develop their own, counter-extremist, organisation.

If history is any guide, it was also predictable that this organisation should split, and that the struggle between the two factions (the Black Muslims and Malcolm X’s Organisation of Afro-American Unity) should be as bitter and as ruthless as that against their common adversary.

We have seen this before. We have seen it in Cyprus and in Algeria and many, many times before that we saw it in Ireland, in the days when Michael Collins was shot down on the far South road from Skibbereen to Cork.

In many ways, the United Slates today is a cauldron of savagery and hatred. In an ugly situation, the Negroes themselves offer scant hope. The summit of their ambition is in fact to be exploited on equal terms with the white wage slaves who now stand just a little above them on the social scale.

There is no reason to believe that, if the Negroes got the vote, and won full civil fights in the United States, they would use their new opportunities to end the social system which degrades workers of all colours all over the world.

The Negroes are desperate, and in their desperation they have turned to organisations which sometimes are little better than a black Ku-Klux-Klan. They show little interest in the fact that race prejudice is only one part of the monstrous wall of ignorance which shields and supports the oppressive capitalist system.

As long as this continues, there will be small comfort in the American future. The shots which killed Malcolm X signalled that the Negro movement in the United States has served some sort of apprenticeship, and is now ready to go out into the world and shed blood in earnest

Prophecies on the Outcome of the War (1942)

From the January 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

To call forth a display of dialectical acrobatics among certain sections of the “Left” it is only necessary to ask the question: “Is this an Imperialist war?” The replies would arouse memories of youthful hours of immature speculation spent pondering such propositions as : “No straight line is so straight that in certain circumstances it could not be considered crooked. . . . No circle—in certain circumstances, an oval,” and etc. Supporters of the war, particularly those apologists whose political activities have been “anti-Imperialist,” would qualify their answers with something like this: “Well, it is not merely … or only … or solely an Imperialist war.” Aside from the Communist Party, which has long since ceased to deny that it stands for the interests of the Russian Government, there are few among the “Leftists” who would deny categorically that this IS an Imperialist war—whatever else might be involved, whether they support or oppose it.

The facts are inescapable. What does “an Imperialist war” mean if not that the outcome determines which group of powers will possess the world’s most fruitful imperial possessions? The chief concern of the British and American capitalists in the Far East is the defence of Imperial interests. The loss of strategic positions and the loss of political influence and control of key trading centres would destroy or considerably restrict the freedom to trade in the markets of the teeming millions in China, Asia and India. The chief concern of the British, American and Dutch capitalist class is to maintain and defend its existing privileges: the chief concern of the German, Italian and Japanese capitalist class is to wrest these privileges from them for themselves. Upon the outcome rests the power to derive profit and exploit the workers to the advantage of one group or to the disadvantage of the other. That is the simple position. This war basically is an Imperialist war. That much would be agreed, though not without qualifications, by many political opposites who support the war. But that does not dispose of the difficulties of those who seek logical grounds for their support. Indeed if support or opposition to the war were governed merely by the fact of its being demonstrably capitalist or Imperialist then there would be considerably less intellectual dyspepsia and acrimonious dispute in “Left” political circles.

F. A. Ridley and C. A. Smith in a Huddle

Take, for example, the controversy in the October issue of Left, between F. A. Ridley and C. A. Smith, both members of the I.L.P., which claims (1) that it is opposed to the war, and (2) that it is Imperialist. The controversy is narrowed to the question, “Is this solely an Imperialist war?” which Ridley affirms and Smith opposes. Ridley outlines the half century struggle between German and British capitalism and argues effectively that the present war is a culmination of that struggle. He allows for no other interpretation of his case than that there is no ground for support for war. To this point the issue is clear. From this point he becomes somewhat bogged by the Russian issue; “Socialists are justified,” says Ridley, “in advocating the (qualified) support of the Soviet Union.” Ridley defends this line because of “the undoubted possibilities of revolution and revolutionary war which the fall of Hitler . . . discloses.” Ridley’s approval of “(qualified) defence of the Soviet Union” logically should lead him to support the war. Russia is not fighting an independent war but as an ally of Imperialist Powers. On this point Smith has an easy task and scathingly replies to it. Perhaps Ridley’s attitude here is a concession to the I.L.P., whose policy, as far as it can be understood, is “opposition to the war,” and “defence of the Soviet Union.” But that is no excuse for Ridley.

C. A. Smith, in taking the negative on the question, “Is this solely an Imperialist war?” excels Ridley in the opposite direction. He argues that when “one side is engaged in a purely defensive struggle for freedom—such a struggle, other things being equal, has always been regarded by Socialists as progressive.” He quotes, and endorses, George Padmore’s statement in September Left that “China is fighting a progressive war of national liberation.” Further, he says: “. . . But what matters in politics is not motives but consequences [Smith’s italics], and while the attempt to clamp Nazism on the whole of Europe is reactionary, the endeavour to prevent the extension of Nazism to areas enjoying any [our italics] measure of political democracy, civil liberty, cultural freedom and national independence is politically progressive—even when waged by Imperialist powers.” “If there is nothing progressive about any phase of this war, then there is nothing in it for Socialists to support.”

It would not be unfair to Smith to say that he supports the war on the ground that it is “progressive.” The difficulty is to imagine any war in which Smith could not support one side or the other.

The Issue for Socialists

It is necessary to discount Smith’s statement that Socialists regard war as progressive when “one side is engaged in a purely defensive struggle for freedom.” It cannot be doubted that Mr. Smith so regards this war as do others in the Party of which he is a member and outside of it.

The first and fundamental fact about this war which has to be recognised is that it arises against the background of private ownership in the means of living and the world capitalist competitive struggle which flows from it. Without private ownership (and the only alternative is Socialism) it would not have arisen. It is, therefore, first, a capitalist war; not because of the “motives” of the ruling groups engaged in it, but because the objective world in which we live is a capitalist and competitive world. It is also an imperialist war because the object of the capitalist groups engaged in it is the defence of politically protected foreign capital investments (Imperial interests). Capitalism and Imperialism go together, and though conceivably wars could arise in the modern world which were not Imperialist the likelihood is small. The Spanish Civil War is an example where the struggle would not have arisen at all, or if it had, would have been of short duration, but for the Imperialist ambitions of the powers outside Spain who intervened.

This war is both capitalist and Imperialist.

It is certain that the British and American capitalists would not have engaged in it had it merely meant a threat of the extension of Nazism without the threat to their Imperialist interests. Whilst for Ridley the outcome of the “(qualified) defence of the Soviet Union” holds the possibility of the downfall of both Hitler and Stalin, and for Smith support for the war holds the (only?) possibility of the retention of political democracy and freedom and culture against the spread of Nazism, events might prove both to be wrong, and from their point of view the horrible sacrifice in life and devastation would have been in vain. A really terrifying prospect. Is it not possible that the reaction against Hitler in Germany and against Stalin in Russia might not hold the possibilities of the kind of “revolution” that Ridley anticipates? And even if the things Smith wants to see retained are retained, is it so certain that this alone will guarantee the world against years of bitter and exaggerated nationalisms among the world’s workers which are likely to arise out of years of fighting. Hitler, after all, managed to persuade German workers twenty years after the last war that their problems were due to the defeat of Germany in the first world war. Would anyone have anticipated that twenty years ago? Would Smith? Whatever the outcome of this war it cannot be guaranteed that the “consequences” will be “progressive” for the world working-class movement. Incidentally it was Smith who supported the Abyssinians against Italy. Whilst Socialists supported neither, there were many who, accepting “progressive” standards for judging the issue, argued, like Bernard Shaw, that the defeat, even by Fascist Italy, of those who composed the slave-owning ruling class of Abyssinia was “progressive.” To the Socialist the issue, of course, did not affect working class interests.

In the world to-day, neither Socialists nor even those who masquerade under the title, control events. They are remote from the time when they can. The fact has to be faced that events might produce setbacks, real or apparent, despite their will or desire. Whilst the workers are in the main not ready for Socialism this is unavoidable. It is in line with the logic of things. There is, however, no proof to be adduced that Socialism is necessarily delayed by such setbacks, or that the reactions to them would not be followed by such neutralising factors as circumstances which would favour’a corresponding acceleration in the spread of Socialist ideas.

The time has not yet come when Socialists can consciously plan to overcome events. In the meantime, however, we reject any evils which the world offers as choice. The Socialist does not have to choose which is the less of the evils. In a world where the majority are dispossessed of the means of living and where the minority who own quarrel between themselves over possessions which should belong to society, working-class independence should remain among the first and fundamental of Socialist principles.

Harry Waite