New Party Pamphlet: War and the Working Class (1936)

Party Notice from the November 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Do you know why modern wars occur?

Do you know what is the Socialist attitude towards war?

Do you know that the S.P.G.B. was the only political organisation in Great Britain which proclaimed its Socialist opposition to the Great War immediately it broke out and kept to that attitude throughout the War?

Do you know what attitude you as a worker should take up towards war?

For answers to these and other questions read

"WAR AND THE WORKING CLASS” .

36 pages, 2d. Post free 2½d.

Blogger's Note:

The text of this pamphlet is available on the SPGB website.

Reproduced below is the preface from that pamphlet.

War and the Working Class

The Socialist Party States the Case

Preface

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, like a voice crying in the wilderness, has always maintained that capitalism and war are inseparable.

There can be no capitalism without conflicts of economic interest. From these arise the national rivalries and hatreds, the fears and armaments which may at any time provoke war on a terrifying scale. Most people do not take the Socialist view. Even when faced with the Great World War of 1914-18 human hopefulness everywhere refused to accept what appeared to be a doctrine of despair. To say that capitalism must produce tense international situations from which war may burst at any crisis seemed like the passive acceptance of a series of wars, each more horrible than the last. So in the midst of the last Great War the peoples of all lands cherished a belief in a new world freed from fear and from war. It was left to the S.P.G.B., in its official organ, the Socialist Standard, in November, 1914, to insist on the bitter truth: “… the facts point irresistibly to further great wars. They indicate that no sooner will the present struggle have ceased than diplomats will be at work forming new alliances, and the Krupps and Armstrongs busy evolving fresh ‘surprises’ and mightier means of war. . .”

Nobody will now deny that the world is as ripe for war as in 1914. The diminishing number of those who can believe in the League of Nations since the Abyssinian fiasco carry on a disheartened struggle. The Conservatively-minded preach armaments and still more armaments, “to ensure peace and security”, while those who claim to stand for progress can think of no solution more hopeful than to restore Colonies to German capitalism – in other words to return to the state of affairs out of which the last war arose!

Only the Socialist can look realities in the face and not give way to despair. Our message is one of hope—of coming triumph. You have the choice of roads, a choice which all humanity must make. The one road is the road of blood and tears, of capitalism and war. The other is the road to Socialism. Only by ending the exploitation of man by man can we strike at the roots of war.

Executive Committee, S.P.G.B. August. 1936.

Who Pays for the War? An Examination With Assistance. (1916)

From the November 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Workers’ Error.

“Who pays for the European War is a question that needs a definite answer, in accordance with facts. The workers everywhere blindly hold the belief that it is they who are paying to-day, and for generations to come will continue to pay. They ignore facts. They do not reason. They reach their conclusion by leaping from a condition of mind to an inference that has no logical connection with it. Because the working class suffers, self-pity is generated and suffering is somehow translated into terms of cash.

But suffering will not receipt bills or meet liabilities. The war machines have to be paid for in cash.—which the working class do not possess. It is a physical impossibility for them to pay : they are too poor. The deep and ever-growing poverty of the working class, in peace or war time, is admitted on every hand; but only the Socialist can explain its cause. In that explanation is to be found the answer to the question : “Who pays ?”

The means of wealth production are owned by the capitalist or master class, to whom the members of the working class have to sell their labour-power, which they have to expend in the factories and mills, producing wealth that is owned by the masters. The price of labour-power is determined, as is that of other commodities, by its cost of production. Like other commodities, too, labour-power has its market, where the prices are raised or depressed in accordance with supply and demand. The supply being always greater than the demand, and the aim of the masters being to secure cheap labour-power, the price of labour-power is easily kept down to the level which insures for its owner just sufficient to feed, clothe, and house himself and his family—that is the minimum price at which labour-power can be produced and maintained in efficiency. Even this minimum is only arrived at as an average. The vast majority of the workers are forced to sell their energy at a price which does not replace it, their physical powers wearing and wasting away in the labour process long before the period of their fullest development is reached.

The Workers’ Share is Wages.

The workers’ share in the total wealth produced is wages, and wages so low that they barely satisfy his material wants. Wages are spent as soon as they are paid—often before— the necessaries of life being obtained on trust. Every occupation has its army of unemployed, always on the increase. Competition for jobs intensifies, and with the return of the “piping times of peace,” will intensify a hundredfold. The labour market has been flooded with female and child labour, and the wealth-production of pre-war times has been exceeded. With this added competitive element how is it possible for the workers to sell their labour-power above its cost of production ?

As wages must always be spent on necessaries, and wages always tend to fall to the level of a mere subsistence, the working class will never be in a position to pay for anything beyond the necessaries of life. If the cost of living falls, their wages fall. If it rises, they are compelled to struggle hard for an increase, failing which their toil and semi-starvation means for them a more rapid physical decay.

The wages that constitute the worker’s share are only a fraction of the total wealth of society. By their labour the working class produce, not only the wealth they themselves consume in the shape of necessaries, but also the vast wealth owned by the ruling class. The worker sells his labour-power for a mess of pottage—adulterated and served in a cracked basin—but his labour-power, expended under normal conditions, brings into existence fabulous wealth, which he neither owns nor controls. His claim on that vast wealth was relinquished when he placed himself at the disposal of a master at the current price for labour-power. He is between the devil and the deep sea. He must either accept the current price and become a wage-slave or starve.

The One Long Stocking.

The robbery of the working class takes place in the factories and other places where they are forced to sell their labour-power. They continue the labour process long after they have produced the equivalent of their wages. The surplus thus created constitutes revenue of the master class. From this the sum the cost of every collective action undertaken by their executive must be paid. They know better than to expect anything more from the workers after the process of exploitation is completed.

When a war loan is floated it is the capitalists who take it up. The silver bullets subscribed by a minority of the workers, out of their overtime, is a mere drop in the ocean. The dollars would not be worth the time expended in printing and collecting were it not for the opportunity it offers for the cult of patriotism.

The capitalist class finds the money to carry on war. A portion is paid in taxation ; the rest is loaned by individual capitalists at a stipulated rate of interest, which is to be paid from future taxation. It is an arrangement confined to the master class and its executive, the workers, of course, being outside the scope of taxation because the machinery of capitalist society is adjusted to give a living wage, and no more, to the vast majority.

The government of each belligerent country, looking forward to military success, hope to impose an indemnity to cover their expenditure, in which case the successful country, pays off its debt while the losing country tax itself heavily to pay the indemnity.

Plans for Plunder.

The governing class of the conquered territory, however much it begrudges the wages necessary for the maintenance of its wage-slaves, can hope for little from that source. By squeezing the skilled and better paid workers an insignificant sum might be obtained; but the inducement to acquire skill would suffer as a consequence. Efficiency has become a fetish with the capitalist, who, in general, realises that he must pay for it if he wants it.

There is an old proverb, applicable to others than poultry farmers, which says, do not count your chickens before they are hatched. But that does not deter patriotic writers from assuming the supremacy of the allies, and constructing a plan for collecting the indemnity. Thus, Francis Gribble (“Daily Chronicle,” 15.9.16) outlines a scheme wherein

“Germany will have to assume a liability, and put up security for the interest and the gradual amortisation of the debt. That security must take the form of a transfer of the mortgages. The Allies, in a proportion to be agreed among themselves, must become, instead of the German State, the universal mortgagee, with a lien on all German property, public and private, real and personal.”

The beauty of this plan is, according to Mr. Gribble, that those responsible for the war will have to pay. He divides Germany—the German people—into two classes, wage-workers and property owners. He does not assume for one moment that the former have the power to contribute anything whatever. They are propertyless; they have no property to mortgage. But the real property owners, those who own the means of wealth production, can be bled. It is a case of the robber being robbed.

“The proper plan will be for the Allies to become mortgagees in possession. In the case of the land and houses, they can either draw the rents or institute some system of purchase, enabling the occupants to buy back the holding by instalments. In the case or industries, they can put in receivers to carry on the business for their benefit, just as debenture holders do in the case of insolvent joint stock companies.”

No Delusions Here.

This, then, is the contemplated plan to make German capitalists pay for the war. The results of their exploitation of the German working class are to be appropriated by the allied capitalists,

“and no German shall be allowed to own any property, or to handle any money that he does not earn, from day to day, by the sweat of his brow.”

Mr. Gribble, faithful servant that he is of the allied capitalist groups, throws the whole blame of the war on the German capitalist group. According to his plan they are able to pay and should be made to pay, and suffer as well. He freely exonerates the working class from any complicity in the crime. They had no voice in the councils that declared war. They had no promise in a share in territory that might be won, or markets that might be gained. Neither will they be permitted to aspire to the honour of paying. “The common people,” says Mr. Gribble, “will have in the future, to work, and to work hard.” Of course the workers in the countries that are going to win are being told they will have to work, and work hard to beat their rivals in the world’s market; but that is only a detail.

“But that work will not be punitive. It will be done under normal conditions, and for reasonable remuneration. The men engaged in it will be earning their living, in accordance with their capacities, as of old. They will no more be slaves than are other workmen in other countries.”

From these quotations we are justified in drawing the conclusion that the working class of the conquering and conquered territories will not have changed their status. They will have to work, and work hard, as they did before August 1914, for what the capitalist is pleased to term a “reasonable remuneration.” Mr. Gribble makes the position quite clear. He says:

“The first charge on the businesses will naturally, and, indeed, necessarily, be the wages of the employees. They—the working classes of Germany— will suffer no detriment from the change. Whether they work for foreign or German capitalists, their position will be the same.”

“Naturally and indeed necessarily” wages must be paid. Thus Mr. Gribble recognises the inability of the workers to pay. It is natural and necessary they should have a living wage. Neither does it matter to them who pays the wage, German or foreign capitalists. By the same token it matters nothing to the workers of Belgium, France or any of the allied countries, of what nationality the capitalist who pays their wages. Further, and this is the logical deduction from Mr. Gribble’s reasoning, as the workers of all the belligerent countries continue to produce fabulous wealth for a parasitic capitalist class in return for a bare living wage, they stand neither to gain nor to lose from the struggle; they have no possible interest in the result.

The capitalist class in each of the belligerent countries own all the means of wealth production, and all the wealth produced by the working class over and above the workers’ necessaries. To realize in hard cash the value of that wealth they need markets. When the different groups of capitalists, with this object in view, come into collision, they drag in the working class to fight it out. The victorious group or groups of capitalists impose an indemnity which reimburses them for their outlay ; and if some cunning neutral does not step in while the quarrel is on and get the market, they get that too. The indemnity is taken by the executive or government, on behalf of the capitalist class, and the latter deliver their goods in the markets they have won, realizing in cash the results of their exploitation. And the working class, where do they come in ?

They play the same role they have played ever since feudalism gave way before a triumphant capitalist class. They drag their weary bones through the factories and slums allotted to them by their masters. They beg for work when it is rest they need. They build the spacious palace for their idle masters and crowd themselves into hovels, without regard to health or decency. They ransack the earth for rich delicacies to tickle their masters’ palates, and plead for a cheap loaf for themselves. They weave rich fabrics for the playthings of their exploiters and in rags and tatters they slouch, in thousands, to the workhouse.

War only adds to their suffering while they stand to gain nothing by it. They have no share in the plunder, for which war is made. They have no more interest in the settlement of the quarrel than has the ground they tear up by artillery barrage.

“For whichever side wins they will suffer no detriment from the change Whether they work for foreign or “native” capitalists their position will be the same.”

While capitalism lasts, they, the working class, will be wage-slaves. The wage being the cost of necessaries for the slave, when there are obtained the wage has vanished. How is the working class to pay for a war waged with all the extravagance and profligacy of the irresponsible ruling class? Millions of the workers cannot afford the few coppers required weekly, to fight their own battles against the masters. Yet every strike that takes place is of greater import to them, from an economic standpoint, than, a dozen European wars. By their trade-union activities, they resist the depression of their standard of living. But capitalist wars and capitalist victories leave the workers’ position untouched in any essential.

But though the capitalist class can and will pay for the war waged in their interest, their paying will not mitigate their crime against the workers of the world, who, if they would prevent its repetition, must understand Socialism, and organize to strip the master class of its power, in peace and war, as a preliminary to the establishment of a sane and healthy system of society, wherein property will no longer be owned by a class, but by society.

F. Foan

Letter: Holier than thou? (1990)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

Holier than thou?

The following report of the same meeting appeared in the October 1990 issue of "World Revolution".

On 11 September the Socialist Party of Great Britain held a public meeting on the Gulf crisis. This meeting was called on a working class terrain, since the SP denounces both sides in the conflict as equally obnoxious from the standpoint of the workers.

The ICC comrades present at this meeting affirmed our agreement with this basic class position. Or rather, attempted to affirm it, because our efforts to do so were drowned in a cascade of objections from the praesidium. Normally at SPGB meetings we are not obstructed from putting forward our positions. We can only assume that this sea-change occurred because this was a big meeting with the ‘gentlemen of the press' present, and the SPGB wanted to present itself nationally as the only force in British (parliamentary) politics to be taking a stand against the war. The SPGB was clearly embarrassed that the 'Leninists' of the ICC, who they like to lump in with leftist groups like the SWP, were taking an even more intransigent stand than they were. This sectarian attitude, which is based on the idea that the SP alone in the entire world defends the interests of the working class, is moreover rooted at the very heart of the SP's politics.

However, all the provisions made by the praesidium to run a tight ship at the meeting did not prevent them from clashing against the rocks when the simple and obvious question was posed to them by a member of the audience: what should workers do about the situation?’

The point is not that this is an easy question to answer in a detailed fashion, but that the SP cannot answer it even in principle. They had no answer in the First World War, nor in the Second, and they still don't have an answer today.

This is because they have no conception of the working class as an active force in history. They are completely lost in a fantasy in which the working class comes to power through the mechanisms of bourgeois democracy, through elections and such-like. Therefore, they cannot answer the question of how the mass of the working class can act to avert war.

And the only ’answer' they could give to the questioner was to tell her, essentially, to join the SP—and hope that this would be as individually fulfilling for her as it was for them!

Reply:
We are heartened that we are not alone in taking up the position that the threatening war in the Middle East is a capitalist conflict over oil and trade, routes-and that no issue is at stake, on either side, justifying the sacrifice of the life of a single member of the working class.

What to do? When war threatens or breaks out, all that Socialists can do is to denounce this as yet another manifestation of the barbarity of capitalism and to reaffirm that the workers of the world have a common interest in uniting to end capitalism and establish socialism as a world community without frontiers based on the common ownership and democratic control of the world's natural and industrial resources.

Readers interested in (if they have not already guessed) our views on the ICC and their admiration for Lenin are referred to an article in the August 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard (available from our Head Office for the price of a stamped addressed envelope). Those who want to verify that the meeting was conducted in our habitual democratic manner can purchase the tape-recording of the meeting—as, indeed, we urge all those interested in the socialist position on the Gulf crisis to do.

Editors.

Blogger's Note:

Longstanding correspondent to the Socialist Standard, George Pearson, also had a letter on this meeting in the November 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard.

There is an audio recording of the September 11th, 1990 meeting at Conway Hall on the SPGB's website:

THE GULF CRISIS – ANOTHER WAR FOR OIL 

Venue: Conway Hall, London

Date: 11th September 1990

Panel – Steve Coleman, Richard Headicar, Kerima Mohideen

The “Weekly People” Fights. Industrial Unionists on their Defence. (1915)

From the September 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

The official organ of the Socialist Labor Party of America, the “Weekly People,” continues to defend the S.L.P. of A. against the attack of the SOCIALIST STANDARD. In their issue of August 7 the “Weekly People” people state, in reference to our challenge to them to prove that we had misquoted, misinterpreted and misrepresented, the S.L.P.’s Address to the European movement:

“I. Misquotation. As to this we see we were in error in making it. We were clearly in the wrong there, and see no other way of correcting it than by a straightforward confession that we were at fault. We are sorry for the injustice that we did the Socialist Standard there, and we offer this avowal of our fault as an expression of regret.”

The only comment we wish to pass upon this is that it is very handsomely done and reflects credit upon our opponent.

Our contemporary then proceeds to give an instance of our “misrepresentation,” first quoting from our March issue as follows :

“The GENERAL PURPOSE of the letter [Address] we are criticising is to seize the opportunity provided by the wide-spread discredit thrown upon Socialism by the pseudo-Socialists of Europe for the purpose of attaching the confused and bewildered workers to the pseudo-Socialism of America. In other words, IT IS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO PREVENT THE WORKERS FROM SEEING AND UNDERSTANDING THE REAL CAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF WORKING-CLASS POLITICAL ORGANISATION IN THE PRESENT CRISIS, and the breakdown of the International, in order that the workers shall turn their wearied eyes, not to class-conscious political action, but to that snare and delusion, Industrial Unionism, with its kibosh of ‘taking and holding’ and ‘locking out the masters.'”

“That statement,” says the “Weekly People,” “was a misrepresentation of the general purpose of the S.L.P.’s Address.”

Was it, indeed ? The Address opens thus :

“Greetings :—In this hour of supreme grief the Socialist Labor Party of America feels it its duty to communicate with the brother-parties of the various countries for the purpose of aiding in the clarification of the situation such as it presents itself to-day, and to endeavour to arrive at a solution of the problems confronting us.”

The purpose of the Address is plainly stated to be to aid in the clarification of the situation and to endeavour to find a solution. But the only contribution which the Address brings to the “clarification” of the situation is the argument that the International broke down because it was a “pure and simple political party of Socialism” (“The events in Europe are likewise a demonstration of the principle that a pure and simple political party of Socialism . . cannot be of real service to the proletariat.”—The Address). We maintain that that is a deliberate attempt to prevent the workers seeing that the real cause of the failure of working-class political organisation in the present crisis was that it was not Socialist organisation. There is no misrepresentation about this. The S.L.P.’s Address implies that it was Socialist organisation—otherwise how could its breakdown (chief of the “events in Europe”) DEMONSTRATE that “a pure and simple political party of Socialism . . cannot be of real service to the proletariat” ? We, on the other hand, claim that the International or “European movement” was non-Socialist. By a strange freak of fortune we are upheld in this judgment by no less an authority than the S.L.P. Address, when it puts itself to the expense of an absurd contradiction of its above-quoted statement in order to tell us that the “European comrades”

“have become so enmeshed in bourgeois politics that they have apparently lost sight, for the moment at least, of the ultimate goal of the Socialist movement.”

Socialists enmeshed in bourgeois politics ! Socialists who have lost sight of the goal, of the Socialist Movement ! ! What is the goal of the Socialist Movement ? Socialism, surely. Fiat lux—Socialists who have lost sight of Socialism ! ! !

And as if this were not enough, the “Weekly People,” in dragging this into its August 7th columns by the scruff of the neck, as though it were a profundity too rare to be lost under the dust of ages, says :

“It calls attention to the estimate the S.L.P. Address placed upon European Socialist POLITICAL ACTION, and it shows that the Address recognised the fact that that action was not revolutionary Socialist political action.”

Socialist POLITICAL action which is not revolutionary ! In other words the political action of “Socialists” who have lost sight of Socialism and become enmeshed in bourgeois politics !

Well, we call such “Socialists” pseudo-Socialists. And those who, themselves claiming to be Socialists, recognise any Socialist element in such political action (as do the S.L.P. of A., on the showing of the “Weekly People,”) we also call pseudo-Socialists.

Our contemporary, in endeavouring to support the charge of misrepresentation against us, says :

“There was NO attempt to keep the workers from turning their eyes to class conscious political action.”

A single quotation from the S.L.P. Address will utterly dispose of this claim. The Address said :

“Besides, we believe that after the war is over the political conditions will be so adjusted as to compel the European comrades to give their UNDIVIDED attention to the question of industrial unionism.”

Finally the “Weekly People” claims that the S.L.P. of A. insists upon the necessity of class-conscious industrial action. This, as we have before, is false, for that child of the American S.L.P.—the I.W.W.—is not an organisation of class-conscious workers, nor has its political parent ever endeavoured to make it such.

On the subject of misinterpretation our opponent says :

“2. As to misinterpretation. The Socialist Standard in its March issue stated : 

We are told that : ‘The events in Europe are likewise a demonstration of the principle that a pure and simple political party of Socialism, however revolutionary it may be in its utterances, cannot be of real service to the proletariat, let alone accomplishing [sic] its emancipation.’ In a mass of vague statements and ambiguities this assertion and its implications are made clear. If it means anything at all it means that a SOCIALIST political party has been called upon to stand the test of the present crisis and has failed.”

The reader is invited to note the terms of the statement from which we drew the inference. The events in Europe were a DEMONSTRATION of something concerning a PURE AND SIMPLE POLITICAL PARTY OF SOCIALISM. Now it is quite clear that the only way in which any fact concerning a pure and simple political party of Socialism can be demonstrated is through the example of a “pure and simple political party of Socialism,” i.e., a Socialist political party. No juggling with any other sort of political party can demonstrate anything concerning a Socialist political party. Our interpretation of the statement, therefore, is the only possible correct one. That the Address says in another place :

“the European comrades . . . have become so enmeshed in bourgeois politics that they have apparently lost sight of … the ultimate goal of the Socialist movement.”

does not help our opponents at all. It does not justify the sense of their claim that “it shows that the Address recognised the fact that that action [“European Socialist political action”] was not revolutionary Socialist political action.” It does not merely show that that action was not revolutionary Socialism. We challenge the “Weekly People” to state that the action of those who “have become so enmeshed in bourgeois politics that they have lost sight of the ultimate goal of the Socialist Movement” can be Socialist action. Of course it cannot do so. So true is this that our opponent was constrained to declare in its issue of June 5th.: “The Socialist Movement is nothing if it is not a revolutionary movement.” Hence the “estimate which the S.L.P. Address placed upon European Socialist Political action” does not qualify the statement we are accused of misinterpreting—it contradicts it. The statement of the Address that events in Europe had DEMONSTRATED that a pure and simple Socialist political party cannot be of real service to the proletariat stands untouched, as implying that such a party has been tried and has failed, because in no other way could the result be demonstrated. How profound (the “Weekly People” is fond of applying this term to us) would the S.L.P. Address have appeared had it said :

“The Socialist Movement is nothing if it is not a revolutionary movement” [“Weekly People,” June 5]. 

“The European Socialist political action was not revolutionary Socialist political action” [same paper, August 7]. “Therefore the political action which was not revolutionary Socialist political action, of the European Socialist movement which not a revolutionary movement (because it was so enmeshed in bourgeois politics that it had lost sight of Socialism and its actions had become non-revolutionary) demonstrates that a political party which is altogether different in every respect, a party which is a revolutionary political party of Socialism, can be of no real service to the proletariat.”

Yet that is all that our contemporary’s “substantiation” of their charge that we have misinterpreted the S.L.P. Address amounts to.

Before closing on this phase of the discussion we wish to point, out how shallow our opponent’s argument really is. They say :

“True, the S.L.P. Address did imply that a purely Socialist political movement would meet with the same fate that the European movement met with. . . . The Address did NOT say that the European Movement was an up-to-date handle Socialist political movement.”

So they confess that they take the failure of a movement that is not a “purely Socialist political movement” and use it to demonstrate would be the fate of a movement that was a purely Socialist political movement.

Our contemporary gives several other instances of our alleged misrepresentation and misinterpretation, but as it does not argue them, and as we can only reply monthly to what the “Weekly People” can say weekly, we let them stand.

We now take up the article in the “Weekly People” of August 14. It is mainly concerned with an attempt to repudiate our charge that that journal misrepresented us. We complained about the persistent attempt to create the impression that the S.P.G.B. does not advocate the economic organisation of the working class as a necessary part of the struggle for working-class emancipation. If our opponents had been satisfied to place their kind of economic organisation against ours that would have been doing the square thing, but when, in a discussion with us, they, entirely ignoring our claim that the working class must be organised on the economic plane as well as on the political, say that they

“hold that, no matter how class-conscious, POLITICALLY, a movement may be, it is, if organised politically only, in no position to put through the demands of Socialism . . .”

that, whether it is calculated to do so or not, is extremely likely to create an impression that we stand for political organisation alone. Therefore it is misrepresentation. As for our “conception of the function of such economic organization,” that has nothing to do with the point, and it is a clumsy wheeze to try to escape by such a backstair method.

Our contemporary (Aug. 14), quoting us as saying that

“Economic organisation of the working class . . . is necessary for the maintenance of industrial order in the new-born Socialist Commonwealth.”

remarks that

“that statement is not so profound that it shows the vital functions of revolutionary industrial organisation : the functions, namely, of furnishing the physical force wherewith to hack up the fiat of the ballot, political action, and of organising the working class to assume control of production under Socialism.”

But if the “maintenance of industrial order in the new-born Socialist Commonwealth” is not the same thing as to “assume control of production under Socialism” what is the difference ?

The S.L.P. organ claims to have “come to grips,” but where has it done so. The bald reiteration of the disputed points of its position is not coming to grips. The “Weekly People” has studiously left our arguments alone, under the plea that to demolish our main point is to demolish our minor points. Thus we attacked and showed the absurdity of the assertion in the Address that industrial unionism is the embryo of future society. In view of the fact that this same Address states:

“We hold with Marx that capitalist society must have reached a certain point in evolution before Socialism is possible. But we also hold, and in keeping with the true essence of Marxism, that this evolution does not stop at the means of production, etc., but that it continues with equal force on the labour unions ; that these must take such shape that they will form the structure of future society.”

it is seen that this theory is the very keystone of the Industrial Unionist position. Yet our opponents prefer to regard it as a “minor point” rather than undertake the hopeless task of defending it. Similarly with the claim that the economic organisation is “the only conceivable force with which to back up the ballot.” We have taken up that point, but the only result is that the organ of the S.L.P. reiterates the fallacy as though it was a truth too obvious for discussion. Our S.L.P. antagonists must not think that they can always burke discussion, however. Sooner or later they have got to face the music—they can harden themselves to that reflection.

Editorial Committee

Holocaust 2 (1982)

From the September 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

The campaign of genocide which is the current military policy of the State of Israel is a tragic reflection of the real face of nationalism. The mythical image of Zionism as a movement of pioneering, progressive, pious, peace-loving nation-building has been more than exposed by the ruthless attempt to liquidate the city of Beirut “for reasons of national security”.

In early August the Canadian ambassador surveyed fifty-five separate areas of Beirut and declared that “this would make Berlin of 1944 look like a tea party”. The International Red Cross has declared that “at least 80 per cent of the casualties are civilians” (Sunday Times, 8 August 1982). Our TV screens abound with pictures of families which have lost fathers, mothers and children—victims of a senseless struggle of national ambition. In early August a block of flats in West Beirut was destroyed and nearly all of its civilian inhabitants died. Not for a long time has the horror of capitalist war been quite so evident as in the Lebanon.

As ever, when there is killing to be done, God’s rep on earth is to be found sanctifying it. Just as God’s Anglicans were blessing the British killers as they set off for the Falklands, so the British Chief Rabbi, in an interview in the Guardian on August 7, had to say that “to the extent that the only principle governing this action is one of self defence, or that of the security of the State, yes, Biblical or divine sanction can be claimed for it”. One might ask God’s spokesman precisely how a soldier carrying a gun or a pilot dropping a bomb can be engaging in self-defence against unarmed children, but then, one might as well engage in such a seminar with the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

The curse of nationalism is not new. Let it be clear that unlike certain anti-Zionists, socialists do not oppose the tunnel-vision mentality of nationalism only when it is Jewish. To us, the flag-waving, trigger-happy Zionists are no more ignorant and abhorrent than those who have swallowed the diversionary, nationalist message of the PLO. Socialists do not take sides in national conflicts because it is not our aim to support one or other of the competing capitalist or would-be capitalist factions, each of which seeks its own territories and exploitable populations. No socialist will ever fight to defend a border—we want to do away with the divisiveness of countries and states.

But there is a bitter irony about Zionist nationalism. In Dachau, the site of the old Nazi murder camp, a permanent exhibition stands as testimony to the atrocities committed in modern times against millions of Jews. That the survivors of such persecution sought refuge in a nation of their own—a country which would never persecute or exterminate anyone and would be free of the perverse national chauvinism on which Nazism was based—is not difficult to understand. In Israel, and here in Britain, not a few Zionists are now beginning to ask themselves the question: “How can it be that the country created by the holocaust is now inflicting similar misery on people who are just as defenceless as the Jews in Europe had been?” Some of them are blaming Begin. Others say that the PLO has pushed the Israeli government to such measures. The truth is that those who saw a solution in Zionist nationalism—in having their own laws, prisons, borders, army and weapons of destruction—were naive. Their form of nationalism is no less aggressive or bigoted than is ever the case under a system of society where the laws of the jungle are presented as being the rules of civilised conduct. Every nation’s flag is dripping with the blood of its enemies; every ruling class pays for its power in other people’s lives.

Nationalism can never be a solution to the problems of oppression: it was not for the Jews; it would not be for the Palestinians. The problem is class, not national, racial, or religious origins. As a class, workers have no country. The British do not own Britain, the majority of Israelis have no significant economic stake in Israel, the impoverished Arabs do not share their exploiters’ national wealth. There are two classes in society: those who possess without producing and those who produce without possessing. Wars are fought over the interests of the capitalists and would-be capitalists. In the 1940s an aspirant Israeli ruling class, represented by such vicious thugs as the Stern gang (of which the present Israeli Foreign Minister was a member), used terrorist tactics to secure their goal. Having obtained power violently, who could have expected the Israeli ruling class to have maintained power except by the continued use of violence? Israeli workers identify with the aims of their rulers—they see their national identity as more important than their class identity with Arab and other workers. In this they are dangerously mistaken.

The socialist solution to the Middle East conflict is not a piecemeal policy. We do not advocate re-drawing the border or political deals or the exchange of one (American-backed) ruling class for another (Russian-backed) one. These amount to mere rearrangements of the capitalist furniture. Only when Israeli and Arab workers join the worldwide movement for a society without class ownership, nations or armies will the war finally cease.

This is not a pious hope for the future. Workers are dying in Beirut and there is every sign that more will be killed. What is now a local war could turn into something rather bigger. Who will stop the killing once and for all—Habib, Begin or Arafat? To expect this to happen is like hoping for Brezhnev and Reagan to shake hands, make up and disarm. We leave such dreams to the Utopians who are fond of calling themselves Realists. For socialists, it is clear that if there is ever to be peace it is those who are the sitting targets of war who must actively pursue it.

Steve Coleman

Preparing for war again (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The world is in a pretty mess, and our newspapers are full of the news that the various nations are getting ready, rearming, for yet another, a third, world war.

No one can view this position with equanimity. Two world wars in one generation, with colossal destruction everywhere. Our masters, the capitalist class, have no solution or alternative, but to prepare for a third world war. The socialist is the only alternative policy, that is why we persist in advocating it to you. Look where you will, you will find no other solution.

We read a statement by Lord Boyd Orr, reported in Reynolds (7/8/49). He thinks we would be idle but for war work. He said:—

“ If the Great Powers were not spending more than one-third of their national revenues preparing for the third world war, the unemployment position would be far worse.

“If by some miracle peace descended on the earth and men were released from the Forces and from making bombers and other weapons, the strain would be too great for our economic structure.”

Yet there is still a housing shortage; we still have to exist on short rations. Surely this labour, wasted in producing war goods, could be more usefully employed.

But, No, say our capitalist masters, the workers must not get higher wages, must still exist on rationed food, so that our capitalist order may prepare for another war, destroying once more on a wholesale scale. Where does all this work and production for war get us? After yet another war, we shall surely return to what we are experiencing now. It gets us nowhere, poverty and starvation and worry for the masses, more and more wealth for the master class.

No, fellow-worker, this is all wasted effort; it perpetuates the system of Capitalism, the system which exploits us.

We ask you to seriously examine our attitude, and if you agree, as you surely must agree, we ask you to help us in our propaganda, to spread the knowledge of Socialism among our fellow-workers, by joining the S.P.G.B., and so do your share towards making this a better world. Help us to ABOLISH the capitalist system which prepares for wars and then indulges in an orgy of destruction. 

 Floro.

Answer to a Correspondent: Some questions about Socialism. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some questions about Socialism.

(Reply to E. S, Dorset.)

(1) Under Socialism there would be no persons living on incomes derived from the private ownership of property, whether in the form of rent, interest or profit. The landlord, like the owner of shares, derives his income from the wealth produced by the working class.

(2) You ask whether there would be taxation under Socialism, and if not, how would “social services” be carried on. Taxation is only necessary in a social system in which there is a privileged class and a subject class. Taxation in a modern capitalist country exists in order to enable the Government to maintain armed and civil forces, pay interest on money borrowed from investors, and meet the cost of so-called “social services," i.e., old-age pensions, health and unemployment insurance, etc. The latter would, of course, be unnecessary under Socialism, for each person would have free access to the necessaries of life, and the old and infirm would, therefore, not need private or State charity. Under Socialism all services would, in the real sense, be “social services,” for all able-bodied persons would co-operate in the production of wealth, to be consumed by the whole population, without distinction of class. There would be no investors.

(3) When goods are produced for the purpose of being freely available to all the members of society, there would be no place for a money system. A money system can exist only where there is private ownership of the means of production and of the products.

(4) The danger of war can only be removed by abolishing the underlying causes. The underlying cause of war in the modern world is capitalist economic rivalry. When goods are produced for use and not for sale at a profit, the incentive to seek foreign markets or areas of foreign investment will disappear, and with it the danger of war between rival groups of capitalist nations. Those who misunderstand the nature of modern wars, and regard war as if it were a method of preventing individuals from creating disorder, doubt the possibility of abolishing war by abolishing private ownership. Society would, under any system, have to take steps, if necessary, to prevent individuals or minorities from acting contrary to the basic needs of society, but action of that kind, when private ownership is abolished, would not bear any resemblance to modern war. Modern war is not a process of suppressing law-breakers, but a clash of interests between rival capitalist groups. Neither in its objects nor in its methods can it be compared with such suppression of anti-social conduct by individuals.

(5) Workers would not be “graded as regards wages," for there will be no wages. Wages are the price paid by the capitalist when he buys the labour-power of the workers. Under Socialism there will be neither a capitalist class nor a working class, but all will be simply members of society.

You ask if a man with a technical training will be paid more than a man without such training. Under capitalism the employer has to pay wages according to the requirements of each particular kind of worker. This is based ultimately on the cost of producing each kind of labour, i.e., the food, clothing, shelter, etc., of the workers and the cost of training. Under Socialism, if society needs a certain number of men and women trained for particular kinds of work it will see to it that the desired number are trained to meet the needs of society. No question of paying higher or lower wages, or any wages, can arise.

(6) You ask if the owners of industrial concerns will be compensated. Once you grasp clearly what Socialism is you will see that it is not a question of whether compensation is, or is not, desirable. Compensation is impossible.

Under capitalism the one basic feature which distinguishes capitalists from workers is that the capitalists possess the privilege of living without working, that is, of living on the wealth produced by the workers.

Socialism is impossible until that privilege is taken away, and having taken it away there remains no conceivable method by which the former capitalists could be compensated. They must either retain their privilege—which means capitalism, or they must lose it in order to make Socialism possible.

On the other hand, the loss of capitalist privilege will usher in a system of society in which all members of society—including the ex-capitalists—will have a degree of comfort and security, and possibilities of leading a full life. The ex-capitalists will possess the same opportunities as everybody else, more that that they cannot have.

Ed. Comm.

To the brink in Vietnam (1965)

From the September 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Second World War broke out the Socialist Party of Great Britain had no hesitation in declaring its opposition. We maintained throughout that war the same position as we had taken in 1914. We based our attitude on the Socialist principle of International working-class unity and argued that the war resulted from the commercial rivalry between capitalist nations over such things as world markets, spheres of influence and investments, and mineral resources, etc. From the Socialist viewpoint workers do not own countries, empires or vested interests, they do not own the wealth which they alone produce nor the factories and so on where production takes place. Therefore, when rival capitalists fall out, as they constantly do, over the division of the wealth they have plundered from the workers, no working-class interest can be involved. Further, the workers in every country have a common interest in uniting together to get rid of their common enemy, the world’s capitalist class, by bringing to an end the system that exploits and degrades them.

This attitude brought us much scorn and bitterness from the war-supporting members of the Labour and so-called Communist Parties. These and other self-appointed champions of the working-class had joined forces with the avowedly capitalist parties to win the war. They argued that democracy was at stake and therefore the interest of the workers was involved in defeating Fascism and dictatorship. There is always some plausible sounding get-out to make it appear that this war “is a just war”; the readiness of workers to accept such stories is what makes war a continuing possibility.

For the “Communists” however, this new found love of democracy only came after the Daily Worker (23/8/1939) had hailed the Russian pact with Hitler as a “Victory for Peace and Socialism,” and completely ignored the fact that Russia was itself a dictatorship where no vestige of democracy existed. The “Communists” having survived their former friend Hitler, are still suffering from political double-vision concerning democracy. The Socialist Party of Great Britain maintained that war could not be used as a means of defending democracy or of maintaining freedom. We pointed out that talk of freedom and democracy was just an ideological cover-up for the commercial ambitions of the rival capitalist classes, and that peace could never be other than an illusion as long as capitalism remained. There would always be new line-ups, new power-blocks as enemies became allies in the continuous quest for markets and profits. Throughout our existence we have insisted in face of all the clamourings for “something now” that the thing for world workers to do “now” is to recognise their identity of interests and unite for Socialism. Thus ending in one move the foul system which produces and reproduces all the day-to-day issues they clamour about.

There are countless examples from capitalism to prove our position to be the only sound one and, conversely, that all the arguments of our opponents are dangerous nonsense.

The most blatant current example is provided by the war in Vietnam. American capitalism is embroiled in a blood¬bath which, as usual, the propaganda machine describes as a fight for freedom. The double-talk and hypocrisy have failed to hide the real nature of the regime in South Vietnam, which is openly referred to in the British newspapers as a dictatorship. On July 4th the Sunday Mirror published an interview with a self-confessed murderer named Nguyễn Cao Kỳ. Under American patronage this thug became the tenth Prime Minister of South Vietnam in 20 months. In the interview he declared that his only hero is Adolf Hitler and boasted about shooting anyone who got in the way. The interview sparked off a chain of reactions, but the Sunday Mirror (formerly the Sunday Pictorial which supported the Second World War did not condemn this American stooge. The situation emerges where America, having fought the Second World War allegedly “to make the world safe for democracy” against Hitlerism is now backing up a Hitlerite in the name of “freedom.” The politicians of capitalism are, however, nothing if not thick-skinned. The embarrassment does not seem to have been too much for the British Government or the House of Commons. The day after the interview appeared, Mr. William Warbey, a Labour M.P., raised the matter in the House, but the Speaker, Sir Harry Hylton Foster, refused a debate. Another Labour member, Mr. Frank Allaun, tabled a question for the Foreign Secretary, seeking to break off diplomatic relations with the Government of South Vietnam “whose Prime Minister has declared the policy of following Hitlerian principles.” But as the Sunday Mirror points out, “Mr. Stewart is unlikely to agree.” The Labour Government cannot afford to be squeamish about supporting a dictatorship, they are committed to running British capitalism and they need the goodwill of American capitalism economically and militarily. Just as capitalism once made bed-fellows of Russia and Nazi Germany, it now does the same for the Labour Government and Hitler’s latest admirer. Cynicism and hypocrisy are inescapable for all who would retain capitalism. Democracy and freedom are ruthlessly trodden under foot and become empty words in the battle for propaganda advantage.

We seize the opportunity to again affirm —

“That the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers.

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain pledges itself to keep the issue clear by expounding the CLASS STRUGGLE, and whilst placing on record its abhorrence of this latest manifestation of the callous, sordid and mercenary nature of the international capitalist class, and declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood …”  (Extract from SPGB Statement on War, August, 1914)

Harry Baldwin

Editorial: A Cut at the S.L.P. (1917)

Editorial from the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The criticism of the Socialist Labour Party which appears in the S.P.G.B. Manifesto to the Proposed International Socialist Congress seems to have met with the disapproval of the people criticised. The people criticised try — we were going to write “to hit back,” but this would not be correct: they do not try to hit back, they simply try to parry the blow.

Of course, they cannot be blamed for confining their efforts to such defensive measures. That they can find no opening in our defence is apparently obvious, even to them. They have done their best with the unpromising material to hand, and it amounts to this:

An effusion of cheap sneers, stale witticisms, and the like as a mask to cover their skedaddling from the real issue ; a vague charge (vague in that it is unsupported by any evidence) of “flagrant dishonesty ” ; a ludicrous and lying attempt to explain away an awkward statement which appeared in their official organ ; and finally a display of fireworks on their own behalf which is as amusing as such things usually are.

Regarding the criticism in our Manifesto to the Proposed Socialist Congress, the S.L.P. state in their organ : “For ourselves we can smile at the weak criticism passed on the S.L.P.” And having thus adopted the policy of “grin and bear it, or take it lying down,” they pass on to the lighter task of finding funny names to fit the signature of our correspondent ”B.B.B.” In such easy ways are victories won in the class struggle!

“B.B.B.” quoted in our July issue the following (described by the “Socialist” of August as “an Editorial note”) from Nov. ’14 “Socialist”:

“That there are differences of opinion in the S.L.P. as in other parties, on the question of the war must have been apparent to most readers of “The Socialist.” Last month I tried to show what the different views were, but I have not been able to find out what support each side has, consequently I cannot say definitely what the official attitude of the Party is.”

And this is how the S.L.P. try to explain away that very curious, not to say damaging, statement :

“This note was quite in order; in accordance with our policy of allowing full expression of different opinions in our columns, letters were published urging a pre-war (? pro-war) policy. A discussion took place in our columns on the attitude of Socialism to the war, but the pro-war correspondents were in every case non-members of the S.L.P.

Some individuals, mislead by the correspondence and discussion, accused the S.L.P. of wavering on internationalism ; but later, when the Party Manifesto was issued and the air cleared, it was seen that the whole membership was solidly anti-war.”

That is enough to go on with. We will now proceed to handle the S.L.P. on the matter contained in this quotation.

First of all let it be noted that our opponents cling desperately to the pronouncement our comrade and contributor “B.B.B.” adduced against them. They had not the courage — or should we say indiscretion? — to reprint it, for it would then at once have provided the answer — complete and crushing — to their miserable attempt to defend it. “This note was quite in order” the S.L.P. champion says. Good.

Now what is the explanation ? “A discussion took place in our columns on the attitude of Socialism to the war, but the pro-war correspondents were in every case non-members of the S.L.P.” But the note which is “quite in order” says that it “must have been apparent to most readers of ‘The Socialist'” that “there are differences in the S.L.P. . . .  on the question of the war.” Nothing there about non-members of the S.L.P. That which MUST have been apparent to readers of “The Socialist” (and therefore necessarily from evidence appearing in that paper), was differences inside the S.L.P., concerning the war, not outside it. Who said “flagrant dishonesty” ?

It is true that in the May 1915 issue of “The Socialist” the following delectable passage occurs (“Impressions of the Conference “) :

“Imagine the surprise of all the delegates present when it was found that the Party was absolutely unanimous against the war, and that the two writers who had created the impression that the S.L.P. was a house divided, were not even members of the Party.”

But who were the two writers referred to ? Were they “M.” and Joseph Andrews, who, addressing the Editor as “Comrade,” were permitted to spread themselves over seven columns in the Jan. 1915 issue and five in the previous November number ? Were they these men, who could write such things as “The maintenance of the balance of power on the Continent is Great Britain’s object and it should be the object of all Socialists” (“M”) and “I propose that . . realising that German militarism is now a menace to the very existence of Europe, we support the Allies in their armed resistance” ? (J. Andrews.) But if these were the two non-members referred to, that still leaves unaccounted for the man who wrote the article “Shall If Fight” in the December 1914 issue of “The Socialist,” the man who penned this : “I cannot understand the stand being taken by some Socialists of refusing to kill,” and this : “I do not regard this question as a test of one’s sincerity as a Socialist,” and this : “So long as the other fellow remains armed and sets out to make mince-meat of me I reserve the right to retaliate,” and a lot more leading up to the position that we should fight. We should be pleased to be assured that this writer was a non-member of the Party; we should be hilariously delighted to “imagine the surprise of all the delegates present when it was found that” besides being the vehicle for the conveyance to the workers of the capitalist case and the capitalist pleadings for drenching the world with working-class blood, the official organ of the S.L.P. was edited by one who was “not even” a member of the Party !

We claim that it is a lie that all the pro-war correspondents were non-members of the S.L.P., and if this is not so will the editor of “The Socialist” explain that reference to the differences in the S.L.P. which must have become apparent — who to? — to those who read “The Socialist”?

Mark what the Editor of our contemporary himself says in the August issue concerning the “note” which was “quite in order,” in his vain endeavour to wriggle out of its implications :

“Bold Bad Boy, or Bunkum Balderdash and Blether, or whatever the mysterious initials cover, quotes from an article in the June 1917 “Socialist,” . . . and compares it with an extract from the November 1914 “Socialist,” where an Editorial note calls attention to the differences of opinion on the war expressed in the columns of the “Socialist,” . . . ”  (The italics are ours).

There again our opponents give themselves away. The note itself spoke of differences of opinion in the S.L.P., the Editor’s latest wriggle says that those differences were expressed in the columns of “The Socialist.” Then what becomes of the statement that the pro-war correspondents “were in every case non members of the S.L.P.”? Who said bunkum, balderdash and blether?

“Compare the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. in their actions,” says our contemporary. Well, suppose we do. In the first place we freely admit that there have been individuals in our party whose knowledge was not sufficient to keep them sound on the question of the war. We have never claimed that our Declaration of Principles could prevent the entry of undesirable people into our organisation ; but we do claim that when such people reveal themselves, by word or deed, as unfit material for a Socialist organisation, the Declaration of Principles to which they give their signatures on joining is an efficient instrument for dealing with them, and putting them outside. In the few cases where the war has revealed unhealthy elements the Party has promptly purged itself of such.

On the other hand, what have been the actions of the S.L.P. in this connection? The Editor of their official organ himself shows that even the columns of that journal have been used to give publicity to the pro-war views of members of the S.L.P. We do not know what action that party took in the secrecy of their councils, but the columns of their organ have not been used to give publicity to any handling of the pro-war members thereof. When the Editor of “The Socialist” is compelled to write, three months after the war broke out, “Last month I tried to show what those different views were, but I have not been able to find out what support each side has, consequently I cannot say definitely what the official attitude of the Party is “—when such a statement as that, we say, can appear in the official organ of the party, how can the party handle pro-war members ? The official organ, the mouthpiece of the Executive and therefore of the party, does not know, in the face of the controversy on such a vital question as that of the “attitude of Socialism to the war,” what the party position is ; how, then, can individual members be expected to know that position, or be dealt with for not knowing it ?

For years it has been the practice of the S.L.P. to refuse to soldiers admission to their ranks. Foolish as this was under pre-war conditions, the logic of such an attitude left no mistake as to the proper course to be taken on the outbreak of war. Yet this party, who, before the war, could not abide an unfortunate member of the working class whom stress of circumstances had compelled to sell his labour-power to the master class in the only capacity open to him, had no “official position” in relation to the war when it had been in progress three months. Up to that time, at all events, the members were “quite in order” in shouting for the despised and rejected soldier to begin the work for which he was despised and rejected, and by that same token the members were in order in “joining up” and getting on with the butchery themselves. The party was divided on “the attitude of Socialism to the war”; its Press could not “find out what support each side had,” and therefore could not say whether it was the duty of the members to rush off and join the Army, or get themselves incarcerated for opposing the war.

That is how we “compare the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. in their actions.”

But we have not done yet: we may as well make a job of it while we are about it. Our opponents try to prove their status as a revolutionary organisation. What is the evidence they offer ? Do they present us revolutionary principles and prove their policy to be consistent therewith ? No. They have a very different standard for judging revolutionary organisations. They judge — by the number of members they have had in prison ! In this respect what a long way they are behind the Suffragettes !

“We have had many of our members on the Clyde imprisoned and deported for revolutionary propaganda,” our contemporary says in course of proving their revolutionary character. “We have Editors, past and present, in gaol or under the shadow of gaol. (A former Editor – A. McManus – was deported and again arrested for working-class activity in the recent strike.”) All of which wears a different complexion when we remember that the S.L.P. “martyrs” to gaol in spite of abject contrition, and that McManus, if reports be true, has taken the chair for Tom Mann, whom the S.L.P. has so roundly denounced upon occasion. “And our Press and organ have been under the ban of the military,” our contemporary goes on, finally asking : “Do these things happen to a party which is pro-war, or anything but a revolutionary organisation?” Such things certainly may, as witness the Suffrage movement. But at all events, we should imagine the Government would have paid pretty heavily for some of the stuff which appeared in “The Socialist” after the outbreak of .the war. It takes rank with Harold Begbie’s ” What do you lack, Sonny?” as a contribution to the confusion which made it possible for the capitalist butchers to drag our fellow workers from their homes to the shambles. Perhaps the S.L.P. can now see how lightly “B.B.B.” let them down.

Words that bear repeating. (1917)

From the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our good will and socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.

The World for the Workers.

— S.P.G.B. Manifesto, September 1914.

End capitalism to end war (1986)

From the Winter 1986-7 issue of the World Socialist

Recently two leading war protestors, who are also "leftists" were given space in the Times/Colonist of Victoria, British Columbia, to update the age-old "guns versus butter" controversy which flares up during every economic depression.

Nobody is ecstatic about the immense financing of weapons of destruction while people starve in Third World countries. However, such contradictions are inevitable where the human race is torn into two antagonistic classes, the exploiters and the exploited. The world is organized as a predatory system, not as a humanitarian one. The means of production and distribution, whether operated privately or under the aegis of the state, are monopolized by about 10 per cent of the population and are used by them to accumulate capital by exploiting the other 90 per cent. Production is for sale/profit and "no profit, no production" the basic economic law.

The human race is further divided into competitive, geo-political units called nations, for administering this dog-eat-dog system. Commodities accumulated in one country from the exploitation process come into conflict on the international market with those from other countries. The struggle is also for trade routes and exploitable populations. During a world depression the struggle intensifies. Fewer workers are needed. More armaments are required. The profit priority is King.

It is a myth (and not a new one) to think that if money was not spent on arms, it could be used to feed the destitute. The economic laws of capitalism (including the state variety of Russia and China) dictate that money be invested to reap profits by appropriating the unpaid part of the labor of the producing class, not by feeding hungry people.

The two "leftists" were probably no more appalled than Gorde Hunter, the "rightist", when he reported in the Times/Colonist that Ethiopia was air freighting 5 tons of fresh fruit and vegetables weekly to London, England, probably at high prices to rich consumers. This report is understandable in the light of capitalism's market laws. The starving people in that country have no legal (money) right to an adequate diet. The profitability of that food has to be realized through exchange for cash.

Likewise, in the United States, destitute people sleep on the streets. In the USSR elderly women wait in line at 7.00 a.m., outside grocery stores in subzero temperatures for rationed food in limited supply. While the ruling Russian élite revels in luxury.

People are led into wars

Both the aforementioned Times/Colonist writers (one was a member of the New Democratic Party, the other seemingly a closet Leninist) seemed to realize that the arms race does not exist in isolation from other social issues and that the solution for one is the answer for all. This is a forward step. But both referred to national political leaders being at fault, one urging the peace movement to work for a change in attitude by those "who are set in authority over us".

It is precisely because the function of leaders is to wield the authority of the ruling class over the mass of ordinary people that there is only one kind of leader regardless of attitude. Trusting leaders is like trusting the Mafia to guard the bank. And such trust, or faith, arises from ignorance.

Leaders use ideologies to conceal the sordid commercial conflicts between nations. "Communism" versus "Democracy" is used by the two super-powers on their people to justify the cold war and the development of today's military insanity. Fear and hatred for "the other side" is instilled in workers' minds, as in other wars.

Likewise, if the super-powers could agree to a freeze on more nuclear weapons, their respective leaders could tell their workers (who are discouraged from thinking) that the danger of a holocaust was gone. Or if they reduced the number of missiles by 50 per cent Meaning that humanity could be blown off the earth only half as many times as before. Also, how about a few more crumbs allowed to fall from the banquet table to prove that progress is being made against poverty? The majority can be deluded on war if they can be made confused about society.

The disarmament movement is based upon a dangerous and perhaps fatal illusion, lulling millions into a false sense of security in the belief that something is being done. The movement also allows itself to be manipulated by the political ideology of the rulers of this divided, antagonistic world social system of selling and profits which can no more avoid war than a tiger can subsist on hay.

For instance, a basic ingredient for every war has been the mental conditioning of the workers of each country into believing that "our freedom", "our democracy", "our fatherland" was at stake or that "our country" would be invaded by evil people (who are always on the other side). This is just ruling class ideology since there is no evidence that the workers of the world own any country. Yet there has not been a peep of protest or informed rebuttal from the peace groups about the war potential in working class nationalist, chauvinist indignation over a US firm manufacturing EXPO emblems or a US icebreaker going through "our" Arctic waters. In fact the peace activists themselves use the possessive expression when referring to whatever country they live and are exploited in.

The only way to end nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons can only be ended when wars end, which cannot happen until world capitalism is replaced by Socialism. All night vigils in the rain, those three tipis and three or four pup tents at Nanoose Bay where pacifists were trying to stop renewal of a Canadian-US agreement for the US to test torpedos, or banging pots and pans in Esquimalt Harbor, Victoria, where US warships dock not saying whether or not they carry nuclear missiles, are activities which are as impotent as they sound.

War protestors are in the position of beggars asking governing politicians to do something vital in the interests of society, but which would clash with the interests of the owning class. Not much chance. Beggars can't be choosers.

A familiarity by the majority of the cause of war and a commitment to build the new society is the only guarantee that war will not occur and that nuclear weapons will not be used.

Socialism will involve the basic change in social organization from class ownership to common ownership and democratic control by and in the interest of the whole human family. Work will be carried out on the basis of voluntary co-operation to produce society's needs. Consumption will be free according to individually determined requirements. No minority class, dictating through the state, will impose forced labor on a subservient class to keep parasites rich and idle. The social cause of war will be removed since profit-making, competition, buying and selling and allied activities will end.

George Jenkins (Canada)

Korea: An Imperialist Cockpit (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 12th September Mr. Attlee addressed the House of Commons on new “defence” measures. On the same day the Evening Standard published a report of his address. From this report we learn that:

“The steps we are asking the House to endorse are taken solely with the intention of preventing another war and resisting in its early stages the onward march of aggression.”

What a familiar ring this statement has! The “steps” in question covered increased man-power and equipment for the fighting forces. Larger and more efficient fighting machines mean larger and more efficient killing and destroying machines. More and more of the world’s productive power is being concentrated upon purely destructive purposes as time goes on. During each war we are promised peace and plenty when that particular awkward squad has been removed. But no sooner has one awkward squad been liquidated than another pops up in its place. From the East we are told that the “Western Imperialists” are the niggers in the woodpile, and from the West we are told it is the “Eastern Imperialists.” The fact that it is both is only appreciated by the socialist. In 1914 similar “steps” were taken to stop the Junkers and prevent further wars; they were stopped but it made no difference; wars went on. In the 30*s the “steps” were to stop the Fascists and the Nazis. They were stopped, but not further wars. Now it is the Kremlin and so the comedy is played on. Steps are always allegedly being taken to stop wars but these “steps” consist of building up bigger and better means to wage war.

For nearly forty years we have been living in the midst of a catastrophe or on the brink of one. The Labour Government has learnt nothing more from its predecessors' failures than to follow the same well worn road to the battlefield. It has not a single policy that is directed at the root of the trouble—the property basis of society. The same thing is true of the governments of America, France, Russia and the rest.

Conditions make nonsense of all the “statesmanlike” forecasts of what will be done after hostilities cease. Those who make these forecasts forget that we are not living in a vacuum but in a real world consisting of sections of people with conflicting interests arising out of property relationships. During the last Great War, just as during the previous one, we were assured that Germany would never be allowed to arm again and become a potential threat to world “peace.” Conditions have again knocked the stuffing out of this assurance. Now we are being prepared to accept a re-armed Germany—in the interests of peace! Major-General Sir Francis de Guingard (Sunday Times, Sept. 17th) puts the question in the following way:

“This all leads to the problem of German participation in Western defence. Without it, any question of trying to hold up an aggressor on the Elbe is ruled out.  . . . We must, therefore, accept a major German participation in defence: otherwise we are likely to lose the ‘soul of Germany,’ the good will of the German people, and maybe Europe. Without it there is grave risk that Western Union defence will be unable to marshal sufficient strength, even to hold the Rhine, by 'Danger Day’—say in perhaps one or two years’ time.”

To return to Mr. Attlee’s address. He repeats the kind of phrase that was used in relation to the Nazis by members of the Tory Government.

“I have every confidence that aggression will be halted and a salutary lesson given to would-be aggressors.”

How often have we heard this banal phrase! Later on he makes nonsense of this “confidence” by stating:

“We must face the fact that what happened in Korea may in one form or another be repeated elsewhere.”

It does not require much insight to realise that this is the obvious policy for the Russian Government to follow. Imperialist Russia is in a position to use other groups as tools by playing craftily upon the cupidity of propertied sections that wish to be rid of Western influences and, at the same time, its fake anti-capitalist protestations mislead sections of the working class. The Western “Democracies” on the other hand have to convince those who must bear the burden of the fighting that their existence is jeopardised and that, on this account, sacrifices are “necessary.”

Major-General de Guingard commenced the article, to which we have already referred, with the following words;

“The Western world should be truly thankful for the Korean aggression; for it has set ablaze an alertness and determination that may prove our salvation.”

We wonder what the homeless, battered and suffering Koreans would reply to this expression of high sentiment? How do they feel about being the subject of warfare between conflicting imperialisms? Both in the North and the South homes and industries are being reduced to ruins; Koreans are dying by the thousand and by the thousand they are leaving ruined homes to trek wearily they know not where. When it is all over and some survivors return to the battered ruins that remain what will their feelings be towards their respective backers and “liberators ”? Some forms of liberation they have already experienced; the liberation from life, homes, home-ties and the means of living. An indication of the attitude of the South Koreans, as well as the soldiers of the United Nations, was given in an article by a war correspondent, Richard Hughes, which appeared in the Sunday Times on the 10th Sept. Here are some illuminating extracts from the article.

“Nor is there any real soul to this war. No profound sympathy or even warm liking exists between the Americans and the South Koreans. The soldiers of the United States and Britain notoriously have little abstract opinion or articulate comment on why they are fighting, but they usually detect in any war a menace to their country or to their home. As they profanely insist, they can perceive nothing of that sort in this war.

“However they have now developed a hatred for the enemy, largely because of his atrocities. And their earlier natural resentment at the spectacle of able-bodied Korean youths squatting impassively by the road and watching the white man move forward to ‘defend’ them has disappeared as President Syngman Rhee’s conscription orders become effective and 5,000 Koreans in American battledress are added to each American division to take over hill fighting."

The fact that masses of the South Koreans had to be conscripted before they would bother to take up arms does not suggest that they were very much worried about the threat from the North. If Information were available probably the same kind of thing could be said about the Northerners when they realised the price they were called upon to pay for what they thought would be a minor internal struggle. However both groups of pawns will have plenty more to worry about when hostilities have ceased and they have to set about rebuilding what they have lost

In fact none of the Governments involved were fundamentally concerned about liberating or defending the Koreans as a body. Korea is simply a cockpit, one of the bloodier strategic moves in the greater struggle between rival imperialisms.

In the course of his address Mr. Attlee said: “But it does mean that in our view we must take every practicable step that is possible to prevent war.” There is only one practicable step that can prevent war and that is to abolish the cause of war. This step Mr. Attlee and his colleagues are unable to take, even if they wished to do so, because they sought votes for. and became the government on, a programme that ensures the continuance of capitalism. The continuance of Capitalism necessitates the production of goods for the purpose of ensuring dividends and interest to those who invest. In order to accomplish this object goods have to be sold. Production and sale requires sources of supply of raw materials, markets in which to buy and sell products and unmolested trade routes to the markets and to the places from which the raw materials come. Out of these requirements wars arise, and as long as production is organised for the purpose of selling goods at a profit there will always be wars. When buying and selling have disappeared along with property incomes the objects of wars will no longer exist. Until then "small nations” will be the pawns of the more powerful groups and working men and women will lose their lives in quarrels that do not concern them.

Gilmac.