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 majority 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

Notes by the Way: The Little Corporal: Then and Now (1941)

The Notes by the Way Column from the March 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Little Corporal: Then and Now

One of the curious by-products of the rise of Hitler has been the revision of formerly accepted views of his predecessor, Napoleon. Typical of this swing-over are the following: —

On August 12th, 1940, the Daily Telegraph published an article by Mr. E. C. Bentley entitled “Hitler’s Mirror can reflect no Napoleon”; with the sub-heading “The Corsican, for instance, was a gifted and constructive despot: To his vassal states he brought order, not a gang wielding whips of persecution.”

Then on December 15th, 1940, 100 years after the ceremonial burial of Napoleon’s ashes brought home from St. Helena, The Times wrote similarly, saying: ”English historians have assessed scarcely less highly than French the value of Napoleon’s contribution to the structure of European civilisation.” The Times finds the following distinction between Buonaparte and Hitler: —

“The difference is that, whereas the opinions that Napoleon’s arms carried across the Continent were in their origin noble, and only became debased by the manner of their propagation ; we fight to-day against opinions that are evil in their very conception.”

If this is true it prompts the two-fold reflection that the British ruling class contemporary with the French Revolution and Napoleon held very different views, and that quite a number of their successors who witnessed the progress of Nazi brutality in our time were convinced that there was a lot of merit in Nazism.

On February 13th, 1941, the Manchester Guardian also explained that “in a great many cases his [Napoleon’s] own ideas were, of course, more enlightened and more just than the arrangements in force in old Europe.”

Now contrast these views with the abuse heaped on “Boney” by all and sundry when he was rampaging across Europe and Russia and threatening invasion of England. Not much then about his “enlightened” views.

Mr. Seymour Cocks, M.P., speaking in the House of Commons on December 19th, 1940, recalled the words applied to Napoleon by the Allied Powers which defeated the French armies over 100 years ago—”having broken every pledge and treaty, had placed himself outside the bounds of civil and social relations and, as the general enemy and disturber of the peace of the world, was abandoned to public justice.” Mr. Cocks wants the British and Allied Governments now to issue a similar declaration about Hitler.

William Cobbett, in his letter written in 1803 urging the Government to issue an appeal to the British public to resist Napoleon’s invasion, used words curiously like those now applied to the Nazis : 

“Now, like gaunt and hungry wolves, they are looking towards the rich pastures of Britain; already we hear their threatening howl, and if, like sheep, we stand bleating for mercy, neither our innocence nor our timidity will save us from being torn to pieces and devoured. The robberies, the barbarities, the brutalities they have committed in other countries, though, at the thought of them the heart sinks, will be mere trifles to what they will commit here … no man, woman, or child would escape violence of some kind or other. . . .”

If the capitalist historians could wash off all those blemishes from Napoleon it looks as if the principal qualification required of them is a capacity to wield a whitewash brush. What will they be doing with Hitler 20 years ahead ?

Merchant of Death

In years past the Communists have been among those who have expressed their horror at the spectacle of munition firms making profit by supplying weapons and materials of war to both sides engaged in a war. Now it seems that circumstances alter cases. The Russian Government is interested in the profits to be made out off international trade, including trade in essential war materials, and when the Russian Government cynically supplies such materials to those whom it denounces as the enemies of the working class and of democracy its apologists can see nothing wrong. A case in point is a letter written to the Manchester Guardian by Mr. Albert Inkpin, Secretary of the Russia To-day Society. Here is what Mr. Inkpin says:—

“Germany is importing oil products, raw materials, and grain from the U.S.S.R. Commenting on the recent new agreement, the official Soviet newspaper, “Izvestia,” states the willingness of the Soviet Union to trade “with other States, both belligerent and non-belligerent,” thus showing its readiness to trade also with Britain.” (Manchester Guardian, January 21st, 1941.)

A somewhat similar line is taken by Mr. Pat Sloan, though he was dealing with the fact that while the Italian Government was destroying Abyssinian troops and civilians by aerial bombardment the Russian Government went on supplying Italy with the necessary oil fuel for their aeroplanes. (It will be recalled that at the time the Communists were very indignant at the suggestion that this was happening.) This is Mr. Sloan’s statement, in a letter to Reynolds News (February 16th, 1941): —

“According to your book review, “Nazi Ways in Russia,” Arthur Koestler has written a novel the U.S.S.R. in which an “Old Revolutionary” goes anti-Soviet because the U.S.S.R. sold oil to Italy during the Abyssinian war and trades with Germany to-day.

As one who was in U.S.S.R. during the Abyssinian war, I may say that the Soviet people were proud that their Government was the first to apply sanctions against Italy, and that it proposed the application of further sanctions. I never met a single individual who advocated unilateral sanctions without the cooperation of the other States.

I may also say that nobody I ever met in the U.S.S.R. objected to trading with Britain so soon as the British Government adopted a reasonable attitude to the U.S.S.R.”

Now it is quite true that the Russian Government offered to support international action to stop oil supplies reaching Italy, but how does the refusal of other states to take action relieve the Russian Government of its responsibility in the matter ? Take the parallel case of the munition firms, they use precisely the same argument and excuse. British and American munition firms have repeatedly excused their action in selling arms (in peace-time) to all and sundry on the ground that if they did not get the trade somebody else would. The one difference between the Russian Government and the munition makers is not in their action but in their professions. The “merchants of death” admitted that they were concerned with trade and profit; the Russian Government affects to be guided by loftier motives.

There was a time when the Communists were demanding a world boycott of the Fascist countries and condemning the international trade union movement for its failure to make such a boycott effective, but we have not heard what reply, if any, the Communists and the Russian Government have given to the appeal made by the Greek trade unions (reported in The Times, November 2nd, 1940) asking workers in Russia and other countries to insist that their governments forbid exports of raw materials to Italy.

A Labour Peer on Profit

Writing to the Picture Post (January 11th, 1941), Lord Strabolgi, a Labour Peer, put in its briefest form the attitude of mind of the Labour Party as a whole on the subject of Capitalism and Socialism. He wrote: —

“I agree with Douglas Jay that monopolies should be broken ; but we are not ripe for the complete abolition of the profit motive.”

It is true enough that the majority of the workers are not yet ripe for Socialism, but whose fault is that ? What has the Labour Party been doing to make them ripe ?

Graziani Flatters Them

When Marshal Graziani, Italian Commander-in-Chief in Libya, retired with his defeated army from a village near Cyrene, he is reported to have told the village priest that the Italian settlers had nothing to fear : —

“The British are gentlemen. . . . They will treat you kindly and leave you to work in peace. . . .” (Daily Herald, February 7th, 1941.)

This was all right but we cannot help feeling that Graziani’s final words betray a slightly wrong idea if they are intended to apply to the British “gentry” as a whole. What he told the priest was: “If you want anything, ask them for it.”

Graziani cannot have seen the stony glare that some of the very best people in this country can put on when their workers ask them for another few bob a week.

“The Niceties of Civilization”

Fears have been expressed that tribesmen in Abyssinia may exact a savage revenge on the Italian settlers in Abyssinia when Italian control of the country breaks down. The tribesmen have bitter memories of the way the Italian invaders, armed with all the latest weapons of the modern arsenal, treated them five years ago. But what exactly did the Daily Mail Services Correspondent have in mind when he wrote (February 5th, 1941) that some of the tribesmen have “little regard for the niceties of civilisation” ? Niceties is hardly the word we would apply to modern war between “civilised” countries.

What is “Economic Democracy”?

The Labour Party has always fought shy of committing itself to any explicit proposal for the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by Socialism. That is why in the last 20 years Labour speakers and writers have made so much use of the term “economic democracy” as a description of their aim. It appeared to say a great deal but was capable of any number of interpretations.

Now comes Mr. J. A. Cecil Wright, M.P., writing to The Times (February 5th, 1941) to say that he, too, is all in favour of it. But before jumping to the conclusion that Mr. Wright is declaring for Socialism read the following: —

“If we are going to retain a capitalist system, and I hope we shall, because with safeguards it is the fullest system of life in an industrialised world (in fact it is economic democracy), then we must see to it that the essential ingredients of capitalism and democracy are there . . . .”

Edgar Hardcastle

Is it a New I.L.P. ? (1940)

From the May 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The I.L.P. was formed in the closing years of the nineteenth century, in the years when the need began to be felt for independent parliamentary representation among the more independent-minded worker in the trade union movement. The I.L.P. was not sponsored by the trade unions, but its formation was in conformity with the mood among many for independence. Before the formation of the I.L.P. and the Labour Party, workers who entered Parliament did so as members of and with the support of the Liberal Party.

From the beginning the “independence” of the I.L.P. was very circumscribed. In the early days when some of its members stood as candidates for Parliament its “independence” did not preclude the electioneering methods of the older capitalist parties. When, in the early ‘nineties, Keir Hardie stood for S.W. Ham, he angled for Liberal votes and received the official support of the local Liberals to the extent that the official Liberal candidate stood down in his favour. The political objects of the I.L.P. were vague. Though it used the term “Socialism,” it had no clear conception of its meaning, nor did it attempt at any time to define it. From its early literature and the speeches of its members it meant all sorts of things or anything according to the taste of the individual. Consequently, it attracted to its ranks a varied collection of intellectual odds and ends, reformers, social uplifters, teetotal and other cranks, and the political opportunist—the latter, usually men, who, because of lack of wealth or other backing could not find political careers in the older political parties. In a letter to Keir Hardie from Mr. J. R. MacDonald, for example, it was clear that the latter gentleman was applying to the I.L.P. for membership because the Liberals had refused to give the backing necessary for him to enter Parliament.

After many trade union reverses on the industrial field the Labour Party was formed with the backing of the trade union movement a decade or so after the formation of the I.L.P. From this time the Labour Party grew rapidly and the I.L.P. became an affiliated body. It should need very little argument to show that, whatever minor differences were presumed to exist between the two parties, there could be no real differences on fundamental questions between affiliated organisations. The Labour Party fulfilled the purpose of giving independent parliamentary representation for the interests of the trade union movement. It assumed this function with powerful financial and numerical backing. Whatever hopes the I.L.P. ever had of becoming this instrument they disappeared with the birth of the Labour Party.

The Labour Party was reformist—so was the I.L.P. When candidates of the I.L.P. fought elections they did so as members of the Labour Party, with the latter’s backing and on its programme. Even those few I.L.P. representatives who to-day sit in Parliament owe their seats to the fact that they originally represented their constituencies as Labour M.P.s. Some of them have not had the opposition of the official Labour Party since the two organisations separated. Neither the Labour Party nor the LL.P. has ever advocated Socialism, that is to say, the abolition of capitalism, which would involve the end of the wages system and all that goes with it. In fact, the most “daring” proposals of the I.L.P. which have appeared in the Party’s programme from time to time have always assumed the continuance of the wages system. Family Allowances and the Living Wage policy are pertinent examples. Like the Labour Party, the I.L.P. has never shown signs that it regards Socialism as meaning anything more than Nationalisation or State Ownership. Thus it has recently referred to Russia’s policy in Finland as being a betrayal of Socialism . . . which, of course, is nonsense. A few years ago the LL.P. had in circulation two pamphlets, typical of many, which . illustrated the Party’s conception of “Socialism.” The pamphlets were “Socialism at Work in Queensland” and “Chunks of Socialism.” In the former the reader was asked to be impressed by the efficiency of the State butchers’ shops in that country and the fact that these shops were able to sell meat at a fraction of a penny less a pound than the capitalist “private” retailer. In the latter pamphlet the simple worker was provided with a very simple explanation of the meaning and working of Socialism. He was invited to observe “Socialism” at work during his everyday life. The roads that he walked on, the trams that he rode in, the post office where he bought his stamps and received his old-age pension, were all, he was told, “chunks of Socialism.” Further, he was informed, Socialism merely meant an extension of these things to other activities and the addition of more “chunks.”

The I.L.P. To-day

But what of the I.L.P. as it exists to-day . . ? Can the mistakes and the misconceptions of the past be laid at the door of the present I.L.P. ? Has the breakaway from the Labour Party really resulted in an “independent” party? Does the I.L.P. now stand for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism as we understand it?

I.L.P. propaganda to-day is largely concerned with the war. It takes a line which, in appearance, seems to be fairly sound and in conformity with the Socialist position. It is an imperialist war, it is argued, fought over the question of trade routes, colonies, and for political dominance. This attitude, upon which the I.L.P. appears to be united, is in contrast to the policy of squaring the circle which it exhibited during the last war. Should we, therefore, relax our opposition to the I.L.P. because of their stand on this particular social problem ? The truth is that, with a major war on the doorstep, affecting closely the lives and the interests of the British working class, it would have been surprising had even the I.L.P. taken any other line. The test of a sound approach, however, is when it is a question, not of a major war on the doorstep, but a minor war, which appears to be more remote from British working-class interests and not so obviously an imperialist war. When Italy attacked Abyssinia a few years ago the I.L.P. were not so certain about the nature of the struggle. Dr. C. A. Smith openly supported the slave-owning potentate, the Emperor of Abyssinia, against Italy. Dr. Smith, now chairman of the I.L.P., then stated :

“I now repeat that, had I been in Abyssinia, only conflicting duties or sheer cowardice would have prevented my fighting against the Fascist invaders.”

McGovern, in a letter to the New Leader (May 29th, 1936), said that Smith was supported in this attitude by Fenner Brockway and C. L. R. James. McGovern, with others on the Inner Executive of the I.L.P., took an opposite point of view. The Executive passed a resolution which said :

“In our estimation the difference between the two rival dictators and the interests behind them are not worth the loss of a single British life.”

The similarity of phraseology to the 1914 War Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. will not escape those who are familiar with it. But what happened as a result of this reasonably sound attitude from these leaders of the I.L.P.? At a later conference delegates of the party moved a vote of censure on the supporters of the resolution on the grounds that this line was in opposition to the official I.L.P. policy! The resolution of censure was carried by 70 votes to 57. A rap over the knuckles for the leaders by the led ! Another example was the Spanish Civil War. In this, as in the case of Abyssinia, the I.L.P. overlooked the over-riding capitalist interests which were involved and which could, quite conceivably, have driven the war into an international conflict.

I.L.P. Peace Terms

The I.L.P. appears to have learned sufficient to enable them to appreciate that the war is basically a struggle between the capitalists of Europe. But its understanding seems to go little deeper than that. Let us quote the “Socialist Peace Terms” which feature as the I.L.P.’s chief propaganda at present. The following is from the New Leader (October 3rd, 1939): —

“The I.L.P. has written to Socialist and Labour Parties of all countries urging- a world agitation for peace based on the following principles :—

1. The liberation of peoples in Europe from German Imperialist domination and equally the liberation of the subject peoples of the British and French Empires from alien domination.

2. The recognition that, whilst peoples should enjoy autonomy in social and cultural life, the world has become so closely knit that national sovereignty must be subordinated to international unity.

3. The removal of the economic causes of war by whole-hearted recognition that the abundant resources of the earth make the struggle for markets and raw materials unnecessary, and the establishment of an international economic organisation for the distribution of the world’s resources according to the needs of all peoples.”

There are just one or two essentials in that statement that are amazing for their omission. It talks of the “peoples” as though the fact that the world is divided into an owning class and a dispossessed class, the capitalist class and the working class, just does not exist. It is the jargon of the deliberately vague and opportunist politician. And look at point three: “… the abundant resources of the earth make the struggle for markets and raw materials unnecessary.” Quite. But the strangest omission is a recognition of the fact that whilst the earth’s abundant resources are owned and controlled by the capitalist class different sections of that class will struggle for possession of it. We repeat, a strange omission from a “Socialist” statement on war. And how the I.L.P. proposes that the liberation of the peoples in Europe from German imperialist domination should be effected it leaves to be guessed. The truth is that the problem of peace and war is one for the capitalist class. Socialists cannot even remotely affect the issue. It is sheer moonshine to talk of a “Socialist peace” in a world where there is a non-Socialist working class. More, it is fantastic delusion. In whatever way peace will come it will certainly not be a Socialist peace. Socialists can only continue to express their opposition to war.

The Old Reforms Again

War is only one of the social problems thrown up by capitalism and though the I.L.P. appears to have learned a little of that problem it is still the old I.L.P. where other social problems are concerned, and no nearer an understanding of them than they were forty years ago. Some points from the election address of the I.L.P. candidate in the Stretford bye-election indicate this. They are : —

“(1) Introduce a national living wage, with family allowances, to be paid as a minimum to workers in industry and the armed forces alike.

(2) Conscript wealth by transferring industry, transport, land and banking to public ownership.

(3) Suppress all profiteering by fixing a price for raw material and goods in all stages of production.

I am pledged to fight for these demands. The National Government could—

(4) Immediately increase old-age pensions to 20s. per week and increase unemployment benefit and sickness allowances, widows’ and blind pensions in accordance with every increase in the cost of living.

(5) Stabilise working-class rents within the reach of working-class incomes.

(6) Requisition the mansions of the rich, whether in town or country, for evacuation centres, homes for the aged and infirm.”

Note that family allowances occupies first place. The danger of this proposal to the workers’ standard of living by reducing the income of unmarried workers completely escapes the attention of the I.L.P. Or perhaps it is regarded as just good electioneering. Observe also the old-time favourite vote-catching expedient—minimum wages and increased old-age pensions. Votes given for the candidate were claimed to be anti-war votes by the I.L.P. A little exaggerated in view of the bait. And about that minimum pay to “workers in industry and the armed forces alike.” (Italics ours.)

Does this mean that the I.L.P. is now voting for war credits in Parliament? If they are voting against the annual financial appropriation granted by a vote in the House of Commons, without which the Army could not continue, then it cannot logically ask for increased pay for soldiers. The Army can only get its increased pay if the Army gets its appropriation. Logically, to give increased pay for soldiers, the I.L.P. should support war credits in opposition to its “anti-war policy.”

Take another example of muddled thinking from the New Leader (November 10th, 1939) : —

“On Wednesday the Labour Party demanded in Parliament juster and earlier rationing of food.

The principle of the equal distribution of necessities is sound.

The best way to secure it. however, is not rationing of what money can buy, but rationing the money itself.

The I.L.P. demands the equalisation of all incomes so that there is neither luxury nor want.

It proposes that a national minimum on a living scale should be established and that no worker or soldier should be paid less than this scale.

At the same time there should be a maximum beyond which no income or salary should go.”

Ordinary, simple folk who do not know much about economics would incline to believe that a minimum and a maximum income cancels equalisation. They would, of course, be quite right. But wishy-washy politicians have standards of their own. “Demands” should sound “bold” and be calculated to provoke approval among the unthinking. It is the sort of nonsense that came very easily from the Labour Party in the days when the possibilities of becoming a government were remote. In short it is political peddling.

Time to Define Socialism

The I.L.P. is still the same old party; muddled, reformist and with no real idea of what Socialism really means. Two recent issues of the New Leader show this. In a long article on January 19th the following appeared: “The time has come for us to stress the positive side of our policy. Not just against the war . . . but for Socialism. This will require careful discussion of the meaning of Socialism, of the political and economic structure of the society we want, and of the steps and methods by which to achieve it.” On March 14th, Dr. C. A. Smith, chairman of the I.L.P., said: “Clearly it is high time for Socialists to get down to the job of definition, and make quite clear to themselves what they mean by the term.” After nearly fifty years of existence they are going to start doing something which an organisation claiming to be Socialist should have known from the start! At the recent I.L.P. conference Dr. Smith illustrated his complete inability to do this. He said: “Socialists who value democracy have therefore to consider what they can learn from libertarian doctrines, such as those of the Anarcho-Syndicalists, to study the reason for the success and the destruction of the Soviets in Russia.” What could more illustrate intellectual bankruptcy than this pathetic grasping at the discredited doctrines of the Syndicalists. After the I.L.P. broke away from the Labour Party they began to play with the doctrines of Bolshevism in a similar way. The Party has no real understanding of the problem of capitalism. I.L.P. conference also carried a motion permitting its members to join the Co-operative political party.

Another back door into the Labour Party, a party with whom it would have recently re-affiliated if a sufficiently face-saving formula could have been found, a party with whom it has no fundamental differences, but merely tactical differences on questions of policy.

The I.L.P. has attempted to foster the illusion that its breakaway from the Labour Party eight years ago produced a party of revolutionary Socialism. It has only succeeded in showing that mere discontent with the Labour Party cannot make revolutionaries or Socialists Understanding of the nature of capitalism is required for that. And is what the I.L.P. lacks.

The S.P.G.B. is still the only political party in this country able to apply a revolutionary approach to the problems of capitalism, because it is the Socialist Party.

Harry Waite

Italy in Abyssinia and Britain in Arabia: A contrast in methods. (1938)

From the May 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

All the world has heard about the Italian conquest of Abyssinia, but few of the readers of British newspapers have heard about Britain’s acquisition of new territory in Arabia. This contrast between doing the thing openly and doing it quietly is, however, about the only difference.

Among the Annexes to the Anglo-Italian agreement (see text in Manchester Guardian, April 18th, 1938) is one which gives an Anglo-Italian guarantee of the independence and integrity of Saudi Arabia and the Yamen, warns off all other Powers from this area, and recognises British rights over certain Arab lands in South Arabia. Italy and Britain have been sparring for position in these areas, which, naturally, bodes ill for the independence of the Arabs.

Mr. H. St. John Philby, the authority on Arabia, wrote on the subject in the January issue of World Review in an article aptly called "British Bombs over Arabia." Below are some extracts:—

  In the same month (July, 1937) the British Government announced its decision to reserve a strategic position for itself at Aquaba. . . . Only four months earlier, by Order in Council, it had annexed 100,000 square miles in South Arabia to the British Empire in defiance of treaties of long standing with the various Arab rulers and princes of that territory. Italy countered by renewing her treaty with the Yamen.

He refers to stories of British bombing, and comments:—

 If it is true that the Royal Air Force at Aden has been bombing Arab tribes and villages, which cannot retaliate in the same way, that is in my opinion an atrocity. . . . The Arabs do not want to be ruled by Great Britain or any other great power. . . . That aerial bombing is freely used by the Aden administration is not denied by the Government. It is actually defended by those responsible for it as a rapid and humane method of keeping peace in the outposts of Empire.

It is true that the Arabs are warned in advance so that they can escape before their homes are destroyed, but, as Mr. St. John Philby points out, they do not want British penetration and control:—

  Their resistance is merely in defence of their liberty and independence, recognised by Great Britain until within the last 12 months. 

The desire for a strong strategic position is not the only attraction. An expedition has gone out in search of geographical and archaeological knowledge, but, as Mr. Philby adds,

   . . . it will not be alone in the field. The quest for antiquarian data will be accompanied by a quest for oil, the existence of which at Shabura and other localities has been established as the result of my. own journey to those parts last year.
  The oil expedition has not been advertised. The company responsible for it has been fortunate to obtain the exploitary rights for this interesting territory without payment. That also is a new departure. What has happened is that the British Government has given away for nothing certain rights .. . . . in territory which does not belong to it. It is conceivable that the owners of that territory may object to, or even resist, such unauthorised encroachment on their property. The aeroplanes of Aden will be there to argue the point with leaflets and bombs.

It is perhaps not surprising that Mr. St. John Philby was not able to interest the British Press in what the British Government is doing in Arabia. Their columns were too full of material on the wickedness of the Italian, German, Japanese, and other Governments.

P. S.

This Month's Quotation: A Catholic Archbishop (1937)

The Front Page quote from the April 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The masses are ignorant and will always be so in regard to the fundamental problems of social life."

— A Catholic Archbishop

This Month's Quotation
The passage quoted is taken from a pastoral letter issued by the new Spanish Primate, Cardinal Isisoro Goma, Archbishop of Toledo. (See News Chronicle, March 16th, 1937.) The Archbishop also praises the Italian capitalists for their conquest of Abyssinia—"A work of civilisation"—and declares that "It is Spain's providential mission to save Christian civilisation from Marxism."

Here and There: New Words for the Old (1939)

The Here and There column from the December 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

New Words for the Old

It is a cynical world, a brutal world, particularly for idealists. A few years ago millions placed their hopes for peace in the League of Nations and all that it was supposed to stand for: the “rule of law” in disputes between the national capitalist groups and the "independence” of small nations. The great hopes which were centred in the League have foundered on the rocks of reality. The test of experience showed that the "rule of law” was applied in a quite arbitrary fashion; that it was interpreted quite differently in different cases. Abyssinian "independence” was apparently a small matter compared to the ‘‘independence” of Poland. The latter, to the British capitalists, is worth incalculable risks in money and working-class lives. The truth is, of course, that the suppression of Polish “independence” expressed a growing dominance of German capitalism and a threat to the dominance of France and Great Britain. Hence the importance of Polish “independence” to the latter powers. Circumstances alter cases. And the circumstances which influence the greater powers of the world are those which affect their own interests. The fact that Germany swallowed certain small powers which were set up by her enemies under the Versailles Treaty is in itself evidence that the independence of those small powers was part of the defence policy of the powers who imposed the Versailles Treaty. It suited the interests of Franco-British capitalism to support "independence” for these small powers. The constitution of the League of Nations gave the appearance of support for the equality and independence of all nations as a general principle. The strain which the rivalries of the various capitalist groups imposed upon the League in recent years exposed that myth. Consequently, the “idealists” who pinned their faith in the League suffered bitter disillusionment.

Some show signs of having learned from the events of the past twenty years: others are chasing new panaceas. One such is the proposal for Federal Unionism. Several prominent people are toying with it. The basic proposals are world government on a federal basis. One writer (W. B. Curry) instances the Federal Government of the U.S.A. as an example of the form the proposal might take. If the governments of the world could enter a federal union and accept the authority of the Federal Government much in the same way as the states which comprise the U.S.A. accept the authority of their Federal Government, then world peace would be secured. The limitations to the application of the idea are enormous. And to do them justice many of the authors of it are not unaware of some of them. The baffling task, for example, of persuading nations with different traditions and in varying stages of development to be. bound by Federal decisions is met with the suggestion that the Federal Union should at first include Great Britain and its self-governing dominions, France, the U.S.A., and the smaller “democracies.”

What the supporters of Federal Unionism do not realise is that the proposals contain no principle which has not already broken down very pathetically in the League of Nations. It would not be difficult for all capitalist governments to accept “the rule of the law” as a form of words. It would be in the interpretation and application out of which the conflicts would arise. There could be no guarantee that those nations which refused to accept the “Federal Government’s” decisions would not break away and form alliances opposed to it, as happened in the League of Nations.

To expect the capitalists of the world to accept the judgments of a Federal Government regarding their rivalries is romanticism. What decisions would a Federal Government make different from those the League of Nations made on the Manchuko, Abyssinian and Spanish disputes? None whatever. What law would compel a nation in the Federal Union to go to the assistance of a “victim of aggression” when that nation sympathises with the aggressor and not the victim? Advocates of Federal Unionism would argue, of course, that these difficulties would not arise. That the markets of the world and raw materials would be open and available for all capitalists, that the resources of colonies would be pooled. In short, those capitalist powers who have the dominance and the power to use it would share their advantages with the weaker powers.

We can imagine the great capitalist powers accepting a form of words which gives the appearance of that rosy picture. But giving reality to the fiction is as conceivable as Unilever sharing its advantages with a village soap-boiler.

The authors of the Federal Union proposals suggest that Great Britain should take the initiative in starting the new Federal era. Unconscious humour? Perhaps. Anyhow, Mr. W. B. Curry, in particular, might try his arts of persuasion on the gentleman who recently broadcast for the British Government and boasted that Great Britain had been at peace for only a few weeks in the past three hundred years!

An easier task for him would be to get to grips with the implications of the Socialist case: that the rivalries and wars between the various groups of capitalists in the modern world are conflicts which arise out of the competitive private property basis of capitalist society and can only finally disappear with the abolition of capitalism and the introduction of common ownership in the means and instruments of production and distribution.

Mr. Brockway Learns

 “The Labour Party are defending capitalist interests in this war, not working-class rights. They are failing completely in their duty to the nation now and to the memory of the men who, in the past, fought, were imprisoned and banished, and who died to secure us the right of democratic representation.
 “This Bill (Government Bill, suspending local elections) is thoroughly reactionary. rockwTwenty years ago I would not have believed that I would live to see a Labour Party agreeing to a measure for the defence of the ruling class in war.
  “The right of the electors is a safeguard that ought to be retained, unless the Government wants to drive the people and their discontent into channels of insurrection.”

Life must be full of painful surprises for Mr. Brockway. We should hate to add to them deliberately. But we must remind him that the Labour Party did agree to measures for the defence of the ruling class little more than twenty years ago. And little less than twenty weeks ago the I.L.P. were negotiating with the Party that does not defend “working-class rights” the conditions for the re-affiliation of the I.L.P. and Labour Party.

Nasty? Well, Mr. Brockway, it somehow does not seem to square.

The “Real” War

Mr. Alexander, City Editor of the Evening Standard, has no illusions about the cause of war: —

   How goes the war behind the war? Most of us know that real wars, with their gunfire and bombs and bloodshed, are due largely to the breakdown in our commercial arrangements to secure a proper exchange of goods and services between nations. Normal trade itself is not war.
   It is only when the failure to exchange persists for a considerable time that trade takes on the nature of war. . . .
    More than that. We must carry the trade offensive into the enemy’s former territory . . .    Where shall we strike with this weapon, deadlier than any secret one that Hitler holds? Let us go through those German trade returns! Let us find out where they sent their chemicals and their machinery, their iron and steel goods, and then go into those markets in such a way that every ship that leaves these shores will be packed with British goods—and if needs be under a merchant captain who also knows how to sell. (Italics are Mr. Alexander’s.).—Evening Standard, November 2nd, 1939.

Enthusiasts in the fight for democracy and against aggression might do worse than letting the implications of the above really sink well in.


Squaring the Circle

The following, reproduced in the New Leader (October 27th), is a copy of a memo, issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party dealing with that Party’s recent support of the war policy of the Government: —

   Actual practice proved that the “struggle on two fronts” was a contradiction in terms. The only way of carrying on the struggle on the front against Hitler was by supporting the military measures of the Chamberlain-Churchill Government. How could we support those military measures and at the same time fight Chamberlain?
  Those contradictions quickly landed us in difficulties which resulted in the weakening of the fight against Chamberlain, shown markedly in the fact that (a) the Party lagged behind in the struggle of the workers against the capitalist offensive in Britain which quickly assumed enormous proportions; (b) no fight was waged against the Imperialist aims of the Chamberlain Government and the Party propaganda even tended to support the Churchill group, the exponents of the war to the knife policy.

We like that “ . . . even tended to support the Churchill group, the exponents of the war to the knife policy.”

Very delicately put. But it was the Communist Party which, only six months ago, wanted Churchill in the proposed Popular Front Government.

Anyway, most observers would say that it was the Communist Party who set the pace, not Churchill. In Communist Party propagandist jargon it is always they who formulate the correct line; others merely follow.


Mr. John S. Clarke on Revolution

Mr. Clarke, in Forward (October 14th), brings Marx into a controversy in support of the British capitalist class. The Labour Party, he says, "has followed the dictum of Karl Marx—to fight side by side with the bourgeoisie when it acts in a revolutionary way” (Mr. Clarke’s italics).

With Marxism and Christianity to inspire them, the British ruling class certainly appear to have a wide moral support.

However, Mr. Clarke amplifies his argument: —

   When the late Herbert Spencer wrote his memorable attack upon Socialism, "The Servile State,” even he did not foresee the full horror of a Nazi regime. He did not foretell the utter malignancy of the “Socialist” bureaucrats—the padlocked tongue, the family divided against itself, the imprisoned conscience, the tortured body, the concentration camps with their electrified barbed-wire entanglements, and the hangings, shootings and beheadings for political peccadilloes.

One can understand the point of view, though it is difficult to understand Mr. Clarke sharing it.

Mr. J. S. Clarke might ponder the question: Will the sacrifice he and others call upon millions of young workers to make achieve its purpose ?

At least he ought to be sure!

Harry Waite