Czechoslovakia: The Choice Before Us (1938)

From the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Though the Daily Herald paused in its campaign on behalf of Czechoslovakia to speed Mr Neville Chamberlain on his way to Hitler with a “Good luck, Chamberlain!” and congratulated him on taking a course “which will receive general support” (Daily Herald, September 15th), it was as plain as a pikestaff that Chamberlain was quite prepared to abandon the Czechs if he thought that by so doing he could safeguard the interests of British capitalism. Now the Herald says this is a very dishonourable action, but when did any ruling class ever trouble about such trifles? The German ruling class in 1914 never hesitated a moment about violating their guarantee of Belgian neutrality. Nor did the British hesitate to make pledges to the Arabs which they never intended to keep. Then they double-crossed Italy, first bribing the latter to desert its own ally, Germany, and afterwards letting Italy whistle for payment when the time came to divide the loot at Versailles. And when has any capitalist politician ever kept faith with the working class?

Yet the Herald could not think of anything better to say to the workers than tell them, in effect, to trust Chamberlain!

Britain Not Ready for War.

Chamberlain was not thinking about the problems of the Czech ruling class–except, perhaps, that he was wondering exactly how they could be induced to lie down quietly while the sell-out took place. (It is really very wicked for victims to be armed and able to put up a fight; they should be defenceless, like the Abyssinians.) What, no doubt, weighed heavily on Chamberlain’s mind is that Great Britain’s re-armament is a long way from being finished and it would be very awkward indeed if Britain were to be forced into war at such a time as this. Among other things, Chamberlain’s own reputation as a politician would suffer a fatal blow, for he could hardly hope to persuade his masters or the electorate that his Government has efficiently handled the re-armament programme in the two years since he became Prime Minister. The guiding line of British foreign policy in recent years has been to prevent, if possible, any widespread conflict which would be certain to endanger the power and possessions of British capitalism and which would offer little prospect of gain in the event of victory – itself a very uncertain factor. Later on Chamberlain will feel readier to take a strong line, or, of course, events might force Britain into war against Germany in spite of Britain’s efforts to avoid, postpone or localise hostilities.

The Tragedy of the Present Position.

The real tragedy of the present position of the workers here and abroad is that they are hopelessly confused and divided, most of them even unaware that there is a Socialist attitude to war. In Great Britain most of the argument only centres about the two traditional views of ruling-class foreign policy. On the one side is the isolationist view: “let the Empire line up with USA and keep out of European wars”. It is marred for the capitalists by the awkward fact that Empire trade routes are very much bound up with the Mediterranean, and no method has been discovered of taking the Mediterranean out of Europe’s way and turning it into a British lake. The other view is the old Balance of Power doctrine: “keep the Continent divided into two more or less equally strong groups, and help the weaker side in case of need”. Although names have changed, and there are various positions intermediate between these two, not only Britain’s capitalists, but also most of Britain’s workers cannot see any alternative policy; except the Communists, who simply echo whatever from time to time accords with the interests of Russia’s rulers.

Save Democracy by War.

The Labour Party’s view is that the workers should in the last resort be prepared to go to war to save Czechoslovakian territory and independence. It has a strong emotional appeal. It is natural for generous-minded people who do not think clearly to be indignant at what looks to them like the aggression of a big Power against a small one, especially when the existence of democratic institutions and trade unionism are involved. It is the same appeal as was made in 1914 for “Poor little Belgium”, but though the British ruling class were and are very vitally concerned with the independence of Belgium they are not so much concerned about Czechoslovakia, so this time the Government and the Labour Party are at the moment on opposite sides. Socialists say that the workers should not be on either of these sides, but should be thinking about a line of their own.

The first step towards clear thinking is to recognise that a majority of the Germans in Czechoslovakia favour the idea of being inside Germany. They have lived under Czechoslovakian democracy, suffered prolonged misery from industrial depression and unemployment, had to put up with some not very serious disabilities imposed on them by the Czechs, and have finally been swept off their feet by Hitler’s promises and his appeal to their nationalism. Foolishly but fanatically they believe that Paradise awaits them on the other side of the frontier. As a matter of cold fact, Hitler would probably be able to alleviate their economic distress and unemployment a little, at least, for a time, just as he did for the workers in what was Austria. Socialists would tell them that they ought not to take short-sighted views and sell themselves to the capitalist Nazi movement for the sake of some small immediate advantage. But the Labourites, including the Czech Social-Democrats, cannot convincingly tell them that, for is it not the essence of Labourite philosophy that workers should concentrate always on the immediate advantage and the petty concession and look with favour on nationalism?

Capitalist democracy and reformism are not enough. The workers in most lands have tried them and are not satisfied. Along comes some glib talker about the efficiency of dictatorship or some patriotic fanatic who can stir their emotions with talk of racial superiority, and they desert their old democratic allegiance. Now it should be clear why Socialists say that war to save democracy is a snare and a delusion. By huge sacrifice of life, and assuming that Germany lost the war, it might be possible to force the Sudeten Germans to remain in Czechoslovakia. It might be possible to drive out some of the existing dictatorships (but not all of them, because some at least of the countries arrayed against Germany would themselves be dictatorships – for instance, England and France would possibly be able once more to buy the Italian Government). Would that bring Socialism nearer? Would it even “make the world safe for democracy” (remember the old 1914 catch-word?)? No, the workers everywhere would still be poverty-stricken and insecure, still political cannon-fodder for the first Fascist mob-orator who came along promising to rescue some new national minority from alien tyranny and save them from the horrors of capitalist democracy. Whichever side wins, war leaves the real problem unsolved and, indeed, by creating still more national hatred, it makes its solution more difficult than ever. The real problem is that of rallying the workers to something which will hold their allegiance against all spurious appeals and hold it for all time. Only Socialism can do that. Only Socialism is worth struggling for.

Socialism at any other time, but not now.

One final word. The Labour Party and the Communist Party are again preaching the doctrine that everything else must give place to the problems of Fascism and Czechoslovakia. Forgotten are all the other “urgent immediate demands” which filled their programmes in past years. Socialists are not impressed. For one thing, in the eyes of the Labour and Communist Parties, there never was a moment when Socialist propaganda was timely. During war they will want all energies turned to killing “the enemy”. During peace they always want to concentrate on disarmament, the “means test”, old-age pensions, or the “vital” question of pushing out one Government administering capitalism in order to put in another, differing chiefly in name.

The job of Socialists at all times, is to propagate Socialism and organise for the conquest of political power in the country in which they happen to live, in unceasing opposition to capitalism and all its agents and parties. We do not wish good luck to Mr Neville Chamberlain, nor do we seek war to save Czech capitalism or British or any other capitalism. We say, hasten the day when the British workers, along with the workers of all countries, can drive from power Chamberlain and his foreign capitalist friends and enemies, both democratic and Fascist, and establish Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Real Issue in Czechoslovakia (1938)

From the September 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

All sorts of people who ought to be able to remember the way in which fine slogans in the last War were used to cover secret imperialist aims have walked into the same trap again. This time it is Czechoslovakia, the argument being that the way, and the only way, to help democracy is to prevent the Germans in Czechoslovakia from carrying out the desire of the majority of them to come under German rule. Those who hold this view about democracy are prepared to go to war if necessary in order to preserve Czechoslovakia. It is, therefore, interesting to see that the special correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, who wrote up the whole question on August 20th, frankly admits that democracy is not the issue at all.

He shows how the capitalists of Germany are interested in the economic and the military penetration of South-Eastern Europe (the second as a means to the first), and how various countries are likely to act in the event of war, then he adds: —

. . . The true character of the struggle that is going on even now (though as yet without arms) is fully understood in the Balkan countries. It is not a struggle for democracy, but for national independence, an independence imperilled by German “peaceful penetration” and in danger of being destroyed altogether if Germany takes up arms against Czechoslovakia. If Czechoslovakia disappears there will, in time, be no genuinely independent countries left in Eastern or South-Eastern Europe.

It should be noticed that this statement appeared in the Manchester Guardian, which backs the policy of supporting Czechoslovakia against Germany at all costs. Mr. H. N. Brailsford, who takes the same line as the “Guardian," admitted in Reynolds Illustrated News (August 21st, 1938) that what we are witnessing is a clash between two imperialisms, the German trying to dominate Europe, and the French trying to prevent it.

The real issue is whether Hitler shall overthrow or the French retain this barrier that closes the road to the corn and oil of the Lower Danube. As always, since the Entente Cordiale of 1903, two armed Imperialisms are struggling for strategic posts.

Another factor which seriously occupies the minds of the French and British rulers is the possibility of Germany and Russia coming together again. As the Manchester Guardian correspondent says: —

Like the Franco-Soviet Pact, the alliance between Moscow and Prague is chiefly intended to counteract the chances of an alliance between Moscow and Berlin. (Manchester Guardian, August 20th, 1938.)

The Manchester Guardian and Mr. H. N. Brailsford are saying no more than the truth when they admit that democracy is not the issue dividing the rival imperialisms.

The argument, therefore that the British workers should be prepared to go to war for democracy, as represented by Czechoslovakia, needs to be amended to give due recognition to the fact that the British and French and German ruling class are not at all interested in democracy, but in world power as a means of safeguarding profits.

Still the advocates of war on behalf of Czechoslovakia, have a further argument. They say that, no matter what the motives of the ruling class may be, democracy will incidentally be preserved if we resist Germany. The answer to that is that it flies in the face of all experience. Another European war would be the signal instantly for the suppression of democracy in all the war making countries without the least likelihood that the end of the war would see democracy restored even to its present state. The last war was to make the world “safe for democracy." Instead it made the world safe for Mussolini, Hitler and all the other dictators, and in this country it paved the way for the 1927 Trade Union Act, which whittled away the powers of the Unions. '

It can be readily admitted that there is an evil side to the incorporation of independent small countries into large empires, as this invariably involves attempts to suppress local culture, language and customs, with consequent embitterment, but is it worth losing millions of lives to prevent this? If it were then we would be committed to the doctrine that war is worth while to secure the break-up of the British Empire (as the Communists used to argue), and the next step would be the policy of getting the assistance of rival empires in order to do this.

The Socialist answer to all such arguments is that the lesser evils cannot be remedied except by victory in the struggle for Socialism, and this victory is not helped but hindered by war. Our task is to go on preaching Socialism (which includes internationalism), and organising the workers of the world for the achievement of their emancipation. Only then will real democracy be gained, and local culture and language be safeguarded against persecution.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: Can Small Nations Live? (1939)

Editorial from the August 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism only knows the jungle-law of “woe to the weak,” and in the fight for markets advantage is on the side of the big battalions of finance, industry and the armed forces. But the distinctive national characteristics are strong, and they survive in face of every effort to obliterate them. What is the solution to this clash of forces? The apologists for British capitalism put forward two entirely different solutions. Outside Europe they claim that subordination to British rule is the proper fate for Indians, Africans and the innumerable other national groups which make up the colonial empire. Inside Europe they proclaim their belief in small nations. The Nazi Government opposes this and demands freedom of action to bring all central and eastern Europe into the German economic sphere. Outside Europe they, too, are in favour of a colonial empire governed from Berlin.

History shows that no attempt by the big Powers to dominate the smaller ones will work satisfactorily, but it shows, equally, that small nations cannot hope to survive in a world given over to fierce capitalist rivalries. Napoleon’s carve-up of Europe had its brief day and collapsed, as also did the attempt by the Powers to re-settle Europe after 1815. In later years the uneasy rivalry between the Franco-Russian group and the German-Austrian group was only a prelude to the Great War and the break-up of the ramshackle Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Then came the Versailles settlement, which established new small Powers in central Europe. Austria, Albania, Czecho-Slovakia, have gone, and others are in a precarious position, but many people believe that if only Nazi capitalist aggression can be stopped Versailles can be patched up again. M. Jan Masaryk, former Czech minister in London, has, however, pointed to the impossibility of that solution. Speaking at the Park Lane Hotel on July 5th, 1939 (Daily Telegraph, July 6th), he proclaimed his faith in the re-establishment of ”a free nation of Czechs and Slovaks,” but added : ”Little countries were not able to live as units. There must be a federation of sorts.” What he has in mind, no doubt, is that federation would give a home market big enough and a State strong enough to resist encroachments by the big Powers of Europe. Such a settlement might be somewhat better, and could hardly be worse, than those that have failed in the past, but it will not solve the problem. Capitalism is in its nature predatory and aggressive. It will always fight for markets, and in the fight it will always aggravate and exploit the differences of language, religion and custom in order to reap some economic advantage at the expense of rivals. Capitalism cannot but breed national hatreds. Not until capitalism has been abolished will Jan Masaryk's ideal become a reality.

Against multinationals (2008)

Book Review from the February 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Multinationals on Trial by James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer. (Ashgate, 2007.)

The basic thesis of this book is that multinational corporations (MNCs) are not simply capitalist corporations which have investments throughout the world in search of the highest rate of profit, but that they are also agents of the states in which they have their home base, helping them to build up and consolidate an “empire”.

Their argument is that MNCs investing in Third World countries do not benefit them or help them to develop; on the contrary, through various financial devices and unequal contracts, they are vehicles for extracting and transferring wealth from these countries back to the home country. Further, once established in a Third World country, they outcompete or takeover local businesses and corrupt and co-opt local politicians and officials. The local politicians then come to adopt a foreign policy favourable to the home state and the process of the incorporation of their country into that state’s empire is achieved. The “imperial” state in turn helps their MNCs by using institutions such as the IMF and WTO to facilitate MNC entry into other countries through the imposition or negotiation of measures to encourage foreign investment, tariff-free trade, repatriation of profits, denationalisations and the protection of MNC property rights.

There is a certain amount of truth in this. States do support MNCs in this way, but it is not so obvious that MNCs are conscious agents of a state’s “imperialist” ambitions, especially as Petras and Veltmeyer are not always clear which states are “imperial”: The US (of course) but sometimes they speak of “the Euro-American Empire” or the West generally, so avoiding the problem of deciding whose empire a euro-american MNC would be helping to build.

“Imperialism” is a slippery word as all states seek to channel as much of world profits their way as they can. It is just that some states are stronger – some, much, much stronger – than others and so are better at doing this. In which case “imperialist” would just be another way of describing the successful states. But this does not mean that currently weaker states are not striving to do the same.

Petras and Veltmeyer take the side of the weaker states in this world-wide struggle between all states to grab a share of world profits and offer advice to developing countries on how to combat the policies of the stronger, more successful states. The authors tell them not to rely on foreign investment to develop, but to adopt measures such as nationalisation, state monopoly of foreign trade, protectionism and ex- change controls instead. In short, a policy of national state capitalism, although they themselves don’t use this term. They see themselves as “anti-imperialist” and even pro-working class and socialist. Anti-imperialist maybe, but not socialist.

At the end of the first chapter, they grossly distort Marx’s materialist conception of history when they write of “the class and national struggle, which as Marx once pointed out is the ‘motor force of his- tory’” (our emphasis). Marx did indeed see class struggles as the motor force of history, but not national struggles as such. National(ist) struggles are class struggles under an ideological smokescreen, but not of the working class. They are either struggles by an aspiring capitalist class to establish themselves as a new national ruling class or struggles by an established but weak national owning class to gather a bigger share of world profits for themselves. There is no reason why socialists should support them.

Adam Buick

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

50 Years Ago: The Communists and the small nations (1989)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Popular Front was to include "progressives" of all parties, that is, all those who agreed with the Communist Party and their methods of "standing up to the aggressors". They roundly abused Chamberlain for even negotiating with the untouchable Hitler . . .

And now it has all ended, suddenly and without warning. Even the wily political variety artists at Communist headquarters have been caught napping. The Russian Government changed its mind and deserted the Allied group of capitalist Powers in favour of Germany. The Nazi and Soviet gentlemen have arranged a truce in the war of loathing and abuse which they hurled at each other for years, and ingenuous Communists have now had the pleasure of gazing in rapture at the Press pictures of Stalin and Ribbentrop smiling sweetly into each others eyes. Whereas the old policy expressed itself in demands for self-determination for small nations. e g.. Czecho-Slovakia. Spam. Austria, and so on. the new one has to approve the agreement to carve up Poland and to square the "self-determination" propaganda with Russia's efforts to acquire dominance over small nations like Latvia. Estonia and Finland, an effort which she pursued with the familiar Nazi technique of placing an army on the borders of those countries. Military force, the last word in capitalist argument, will decide the issue when Russia seeks to "protect" little nations, not conferences which will discuss democratically the "rights" of "self-determination"

[From the Socialist Standard, November 1939]

Our Allies and Neutrality. (1915)

From the March 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a very strange thing how deeply the average worker of to day is concerned about the independence and neutrality of “Plucky Little Belgium.” One would think to hear some of them talk, that it was the alpha and omega of this country, to protect the smaller and weaker States of the world from the continual encroachments of their larger and more powerful enemies. The capitalist Press is devoting much ink and paper in telling us that the present crisis into which we have been drawn, "to maintain our dignity and honour,” is due to Germany's disregard for the neutrality and independence of Belgium, which had been guaranteed to them by treaty, and Lt. Gen. Imhoff, at Urania Hall, Berlin, is reported by the "Daily Call," of the 8th October. 1914. to have made the following remark: "Foreign policy is the expression of national egoism, consequently every treaty is worthless when national interests demand that they should be broken." This with reference to agreements signed by the capitalist governments of to-day (with which I shall deal later) hits the nail squarely on the head. He then went on to say that "necessity breaks even iron itself.'' and as one of the greatest necessities of the capitalist class is the extension of markets for the expansion of their trade, it is quite obvious why agreements signed one day are broken the next.

We are therefore called upon by our masters to down tools at once and fight for "freedom and democracy" against the tyrannous aggression of Belgium by the Kaiser and his hordes.

Now before accepting the statement that England and her allies are fighting for freedom, it would he advisable to first of all examine a little of the past history of these "champions of the smaller States," to see how they have performed in this respect, in the past, before joining bands with them in the present.

We will then, in the first place, take the noble and liberty loving government of Russia, which in 1911, to show their love of freedom and independence of the smaller States, violently attacked Persia, in collusion with Great Britain, in spite of the fact that they were pledged by agreement signed in 1907, to maintain the independence and integrity of this small country. And her continued encroachments on the liberties of Finland from 1906 to 1911 was, of course, also due to her "desire to defend the smaller States."

France, another of our allies, has by her occupation of Fez, in 1911, overthrown the independence of Morocco, which, by the Act of Algeciras, she and other Powers pledged themselves to maintain.

Japan, another country with which England is allied, and which has promised to support them in maintaining the independence of Belgium, annexed Korea in 1911, thus violating the agreement of 1904, which was supposed to guarantee Korea's independence and integrity.

England, with her anxiety for the "independence" of the smaller States, could not be out of this "good work,” so she absorbed with the aid of blood and fire the Transvaal and Orange Free State Republics of South Africa in 1902. And even now while this war is still raging and while the hirelings of the allied Press are foaming with anger about the broken agreement of Belgium's neutrality by Germany, they themselves are losing no time in snatching colonies from the latter, quite irrespective of the wishes of the inhabitants thereof.

And again, while England has repeatedly promised to evacuate Egypt, she has for more than thirty years continued to maintain her hold on that country, and has finally annexed it — of course, for the good of the Egyptians; and these are the countries which appear so troubled about the broken agreement concerning the independence and neutrality of Belgium.

No, dear reader, it is not the freedom of "Brave Little Belgium” that the allies are so anxious about, but the freedom of the capitalist class of England, France and Russia from the competition of their greatest rivals and pacemakers, the German capitalist class. A government like ours, which could not see its way clear to incorporate a 5s. per day minimum wage in the Miners’ Act 1912 does not suddenly become loaded with the burden of protecting the smaller States, at the expense of (according to "Reynolds,” 27th Oct., 1914) £39,000,000 per month.

De B. Gibbon, in the “Industrial History of England,” tells us that all the wars of the nineteenth century in which England was engaged were fought in the interests of commerce, and the wars of the present century appear to be pretty much the same.

Your enemy is here at home, as the enemy of the German working class is in Germany, consequently we ask you to study the facts, and when yon have analysed them with the same intelligence as you use in your daily toil, yon will join with us in the great struggle, not for Belgium for the Belgians, nor Europe for the Europeans, but of the world for the workers.

H. Barnett.

Poor Little — (1934)

From the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1914 it was “Poor Little Belgium.” Now it is “Poor Little Austria,” “Poor Little Hungary,” “ Poor Little Ireland,” according to taste. Fifty years ago it was “Poor Little Bulgaria,” and fifty years before that “Poor Little Italy” and “Poor Little Greece.” It is always “Poor Little” some country or other. “ Poor Little X—, “Poor Little Y—,” or “Poor Little A B C.”

Always there are sentimentalists ready to respond to this trick of personifying countries, ready to give sympathy and assistance to the weak or small nation bullied or downtrodden by the great and powerful. Yet it is all a sham. Countries are not persons, but geographical units of the all-embracing capitalist system of society. In the small, just as much as in the large, there is oppression of the weak by the strong, coercion of the poor and dispossessed by the rich and powerful who control the State, the organ of coercion. Those who help the Austrian State against the encroachments of neighbouring Powers are helping nobody but the Austrian ruling class. Those who strove to “free” Poland from the Powers which had shared its territory, and who gloried in having helped to reconstitute the Polish State were only giving the Polish workers and peasants a different set of masters. Those who fancied they were fighting for “Poor Little Belgium” were only fighting for the interests of the British and Belgian capitalists, which happened at that time to coincide.

The history of the struggles of subject nations to be free is full of the most ironical changes. The victims of one year are the bullies and assassins of the next. Poland, dismembered and annexed by Russia, Germany and Austria, has been re-created under the Versailles Treaty. Now it is the Germans, Russians, Jews and other minorities imploring help and protection against Polish tyranny. Italy, in the 19th century had all the Liberal sentimentalists shedding tears over her wrongs at the hands of the Austrian tyrants. Now Austria, the pre-war Empire itself dismembered, sorrows for her children, tyrannised by Italy in provinces annexed in 1918. For nearly 50 years, from 1871 to 1918, France mourned her lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. Now Germany mourns the same reconquered provinces. In 1905 all the Labourites in the world sympathised with “Poor Little Japan” in the war with the great imperialist Russia. Now the same sentimentalists side with “Poor Little Russia” against the big Japanese Bully. Sometimes, as in the case of Saar Territory and Austria, the sentimentalists are divided, or forced to perform a quick right-about-face. From 1918 to 1933 the British “Poor Little Nation” busybodies demanded the right of the populations in Saar Territory and Austria to be united with Germany, and roundly condemned French and British Governments for their alleged opposition. Now that Hitler is in power they are demanding that Austria and the Saar be prevented from joining Germany. Germany, of course, is working the same appeal to sentiment, in the reverse direction, and is asking the German workers to shed tears (and, if need be, go to war) in order to bestow on Saar Territory and Austria the honour and privilege of being restored to the great family of Germans.

It is all a gigantic racket, worked by the forces of capitalism, using muddle-headed sentimentalists as their tools and dupes. When the avowed enemies of Socialism, or its false friends, tell you that Socialists have a hand in this business you will know that they are lying. Socialists are not supporters of capitalist Nationalism anywhere or at any time.

Lord Beaverbrook, who supported the last Great War, is now using his newspapers to popularise the policy of isolation from European entanglements. He says that Britain should never again go to war because of the quarrels of Continental nations. If Germany wants to eat up Austria, Poland wants Danzig, and France wants Saar Territory, let them do whatever they please. It is, he says, none of “our” business. So far so good. Socialists will heartily agree. We can also agree with his ridicule of the contrary position taken up by the Labour Party (which Lord Beaverbrook's newspapers, with studied dishonesty, refer to as the “Socialist Party”). But even so, Lord Beaverbrook's own position is every bit as ridiculous and anti-working class, for while telling the workers not to fight in the quarrels of the Continental Governments, his papers are insisting on the maintenance of a “strong central Government" under British control in India. In other words, English workers should not fight to prevent Austria going over to Germany, but should fight in order to prevent the Indian capitalists from obtaining undivided control in India. Why, Lord Beaverbrook? What does it matter to English workers which group of capitalists gets the loot, the wealth extracted from the exploitation of the workers? It is the job of the workers in each country to deal with the capitalist class in that country. The Indian workers will some day deal with the Indian section as we shall with the English. But Lord Beaverbrook, anxious for the investments of British capitalists in India, in effect wants English workers to fight defending those investments against Indian capitalist interests.

An authority on the subject of small nations is Mr. Vernon Bartlett. Writing in the News-Chronicle on October 5th, he told us all about the Saar, all, that is, except the one thing which really determines the issue. He told us what were the chances of Saar Territory going to France, or Germany, or remaining under League of Nations control. He told us that the French and German Governments are pouring millions of marks into the Saar each month, in order to influence the voting. What he did not tell us was what are the chances of Saar Territory going neither to the Germans, nor the French, nor the League of Nations, but to the population who live there. He left it out, if he thought of it at all, because he knows it is not even dreamed of. None of the interests concerned would permit such a thing. If there were any possibility of the Saarland workers! (and English workers) voting for taking over the mines, land, factories, etc., for the use of the community as a whole, and thus dispossessing the French and German and English capitalists, who own them, not only France and Germany, but the whole capitalist world, including Lord Beaverbrook, would be aghast. Whether in the Saar or in England they would all rush forward to stop such infamy.

The capitalist interests, which use patriotism, religion, national independence, and love of the scenes and traditions of particular geographical areas as a means of provoking national hatreds, are not concerned at all with the interests or convenience of the working class, but only with protecting their own property, markets, investments, and so on. Fighting to gain or protect national independence serves no interest, except that of the capitalist class. It solves no problem, not even that of nationality, for each success by one nationalist movement creates other similar problems. Socialism alone can solve the real problem of the working class, the poverty problem, and will in so doing restore national differences to a position in which they will cease to be a danger to the world.

Edgar Hardcastle