Editorial: Russian Foreign Policy and Communist Somersaults (1938)

Editorial from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ten years ago, when Germany was disarmed and Russia was particularly fearful of France and her allies in Central and South-Eastern Europe, the Russian Government cultivated friendly relations with Germany and Italy. In line with this policy, the Communist Parties all over the world were ordered to denounce the Versailles Treaty, seek the break-up of the British Empire and hold up Great Britain, America and France and her allies as the enemies of peace and democracy.

The Russian policy changed with the recovery of German armed strength. Russia joined the League of Nations and sought alliances with France, Czechoslovakia and Great Britain. A corresponding change had to take place in the policy of the Communist Parties, and they proceeded to eat their own words and preach all of the doctrines they had formerly derided. The League of Nations, instead of being to them a League of Britain and France to hold the spoils of the last war, became overnight the only bulwark of peace and democracy. The Lenin of 1918 would have poured scorn on the puerile arguments the Communists now put forward. 

The extent of the gulf between the old and the new Communist doctrines can be measured by comparing the present attitude with that contained in “The Struggle Against War," published by the Communist Party of Great Britain ten years ago. (It is undated, but reveals its date of publication by the opening words: “Ten years after the world war.")

On page 31 it deals with the “numerous oppressed nationalities and national minorities existing in a number of the States in Europe, set up by the Versailles Treaty." It denounces Poland and Rumania, who “cruelly oppress with a bloody hand the White Russian and Ukrainian and Bessarabian populations in their territories," and goes on as follows : —

In Czechoslovakia and in the Balkan countries, in Italy in France, Spain, Belgium and Great Britain (Ireland) there are also oppressed nationalities. The Communist Party will support the liberation movement of the oppressed nations and national minorities in all these countries, lead them in the revolutionary struggle against Imperialism and unreservedly champion their right to self-determination, which must include the right to complete separation.

But in 1938 Russia had treaties with Czechoslovakia and Rumania and France, and any Communist who dared to champion the right of their minorities to separation would have found himself in trouble, denounced as a Fascist.

Then there is the question of the cunning way in which capitalist governments lure their workers into supporting wars. In 1928 it was a fundamental task of the loyal Communist to expose the “sophistries and catchwords by which the bourgeoisie and Social-Democracy try to justify war" (page 14). The Communists were to expose the slogan of “national defence,” and, above all, the workers must be warned against the trick of pretending that the war is a war against Fascism. The pamphlet goes on: —

In the last Imperialist war, the Allies made use of the slogan, “Fight Against Prussian Militarism," while the Central Powers used the slogan “Fight Against Tsarism”; both sides using the respective slogans to mobilise the masses for the war. In a future war between Italy and France, or Yugo Slavia, the same purpose will be served by the slogan “ Fight Against Reactionary Fascism," for the Bourgeoisie in the latter countries will take advantage of the anti-Fascist sentiments of the masses of the people to justify Imperialist war.

The paragraph ends with the remark that “The Communist Parties have hitherto paid insufficient attention to the duty of refuting these sophistries.”

Pity the poor Communist who kept his pamphlet by him and dutifully tried to pay more attention to refuting them.

How the Churchills and Edens must laugh when they see the Communists walking right into the trap against which, ten years ago, they were warning other people.

The Death Dance of Danzig (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

“If a geographical position may be described as absolutely bad, this certainly applies to the position of Poland.”

So says Bukoviecki, in a pamphlet which he published when running as a parliamentary candidate for Poland twenty years ago. He was appointed Attorney General and therefore can be quoted as representing the views of a powerful section of the Polish ruling class. (The above quotation and those that follow are taken from “Poland’s Westward Trend,” by Hansen.)

He says something more, though he may not have realised it would be drawn attention to so long afterwards: “The political path followed by Poland must indeed be peaceful, but the nation must, nevertheless, be inspired by the military spirit! The people must be the army! The army the people.”

He expresses himself at length on the problem of Germany, Poland and East Prussia: “As already mentioned, the German-Polish relationship appears particularly hopeless. Poland, in consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, obtained from Germany what was her just due; if anything, even less, inasmuch as a great slice of Upper Silesia, with a preponderating Polish population, remained beyond the western frontier, while Ermeland and Masuria, with their mixed but preponderating Polish populations, are situated within the frontier of East Prussia, and the mouth of the Vistula, and Danzig itself, are situated outside the Polish frontier, these latter being the natural links between our country and the sea. Notwithstanding these facts, Germany regards the loss of these territories, which Poland has obtained, in the light of a grievous wrong, and will endeavour with all her might to regain possession of them. The right of this age-long quarrel is, if the matter be regarded objectively, undoubtedly on the side of Poland. . . . While we assert this to be our right, we must not, on the other hand, take it amiss if the Germans, regarding the matter from that subjective point of view, which plays so large a part in political sentiment and aims, feel the loss of these territories very acutely. . . . The German owners of Polish territories were, moreover, to be distinguished from the Russians and the Austrians in that they did not regard the conquered territories as an object of economic exploitation, but introduced a rational administration which was advantageous to the occupied territory, since they succeeded in raising the cultural level of the country in all directions. . . . To deny these facts would be unworthy of a serious political journalist; however, we must not draw conclusions from them, for they do not refute another fact, which must be regarded here as a circumstance of the greatest importance—the fact, namely, that this is Polish territory, and that even the most intensive German labour could not legitimatize its ownership, because it was the labour of an unlawful owner.”

It must be borne in mind by the readers of the Socialist Standard that Bukoviecki gave no thought whatever to the opinions of the wage slaves, Polish or German, in this connection. And now we come to what he is driving at: “… Most grievous to Germany, however, is the loss of Pommerellen, especially of its northern part, the so-called Danzig Corridor, which separates East Prussia from the rest of the state. The Danzig Corridor, which, on the one hand, is a stumbling-block to Germany, represents, on the other hand, a cause of complete dissatisfaction to Poland, something that does not guarantee her a really secure and permanent access to the sea. It is open to Germany to work for the removal of this obstacle, but it is, likewise, open to us to work for its extension. The mere fact that the lower course of the Vistula is not exclusively in our possession, whereas its eastern bank belongs to Germany, and, further, the fact that the Free City of Danzig to a considerable extent is bounded by German territory, is most unfavourable to Poland, and, in case of war-like developments, would be dangerous.”

The reader should carefully note the next part of the argument of this astute politician : “And East Prussia, which occupies such a central position in the northern part of the Polish territory— does it not for us represent a perpetual threat ? Is a real connection with the sea and the necessary development of our navigation and commerce to be reconciled with Germany’s possession of this territory?”

We can see from the above what may be behind the moves of Colonel Beck and, in addition, what may be involved in a fight for “democracy.” To be fair to Bukoviecki we must point out that he clearly states: “Obviously we are not speaking of preparations for any sort of military or diplomatic action, but merely of an absolutely peaceful activity on the part, not of the State alone, but also on that of the nation, calculated well beforehand and systematically pursued.”

Hitler never put it better.

We will now quote from the self-styled “Socialist” Grabski, who eventually allied himself with the National Democrats. He was a professor of Political Economy at the Lemberg University. As a representative of his party he was from 1919 to 1922 Chairman of the Commission for Foreign Affairs of the Polish Parliament. He was at one time Vice-Premier and twice held the office of Minister of Education. His book from which we take our extracts is (in English) “Observations concerning the present historical epoch in the development of Poland.” His views can be taken as the views of the National Democrats.

In the chapter, “The Direction of our National Expansion” : “What direction shall the expansion of the Polish people follow ? Shall it expand northwards to the Baltic or to the south-east, in the direction of the Ukraine and the Black Sea? . . . Thus in the course of the next fifty years at least Poland will have an opportunity of expanding towards the east. It must, however, be fully understood that our efforts towards further expansion to the east cannot be carried into effect without complete security from Germany. This security, however, can only be purchased by relinquishing our claims to the Baltic and by returning West Prussia and Upper Silesia to Germany. . . . The decision of the Eastern Prussia problem which was given by the Treaty of Versailles is too artificial to be permanently maintained. . . . And, therefore, one of two things—either we turn the Polish policy of ascendency eastwards against Russia, by taking advantage of the successive periods of weakness which the next half-century will bring, and thereby leave the decision of the merely provisional settlement of the East Prussia problem to Germany, or we stake all the power at our disposal on the solution of the East Prussia problem by Poland in a sense favourable to Poland. If this is our position, any hesitation will be mistaken.”

It is to be observed that he gradually works up to the necessity of fighting Germany, and now we have the plan of campaign: “First of all, however, we must bring into being our movement of expansion towards the Masurian lakes and the Baltic. This is, as yet, not a fact of our daily life, yet it is the first commandment of Polish history, the historical path of the Machtpolitik of Polish people and the Polish State. … In this clash Poland, however, will be victorious only if she is not merely technically prepared by the necessary organisation and equipment of her army but also politically, by the arousing of a Polish national consciousness in the Polish population of East Prussia. . . . For, as a matter of fact, the continuance of the Polish Republic will be permanently secured only if we are victorious in the inevitable war with Germany, a war in which the latter will hurl herself as soon as she has recuperated from the defeat that she sustained in the Great War.. . .”

He concludes with an interesting statement: “The Polish expansion towards the Baltic implies at the same time a rapid industrialisation of Poland, the development of the towns and of democratic middle-class culture, the consolidation of the administrative organisation of the constitutional State, and the progress of western civilisation.”

The progress of capitalism and the extension of wage slavery is what he really means. It is to be noted that the class to which we belong is never taken into consideration.

The above is reproduced at length in order to show the reader what is operating underneath the movements of the different politicians; the Germans are just as ruthless as the Poles, but, should War come between Germany and Poland, and we be called upon to respond to a call to protect “Poor little Poland,” it is well to know what the trouble is about. There are many other authors I could quote to prove that the Poles aimed at expansion twenty years ago, but I will use just one more, Stanislau Srokovski. His work, “From the Country of the Black Cross: Notes on East Prussia,” is well worth perusing.

From 1921 to 1923 Srokovski was the Polish Consul-General at Koenigsberg. The fact that he was at one time an official Polish representative in a German province justifies one in concluding that his statements are of considerable importance.

Having stated that East Prussia has lately displayed a greater eagerness to attract settlers of the small-holder type, Srokovski continues as follows:

“Poland does not consider it in any way necessary that the East Prussian colony should attract a surplus population, since in that case there will be an increasing danger, not so much of peaceful penetration by an element foreign to the Polish race, but of the possibility of an effective armed intervention on the part of East Prussia in conjunction with simultaneous action on the part of the Reich. It does not seem superfluous to call attention to the fact that the East Prussian frontier is less than seventy miles distant from Poland’s capital.

“If the Polish part of East Prussia, the Masurian district, which by right should fall to us, cannot be severed from the province, thereby at a stroke reducing the numerical weight of the East Prussian population which is hanging over us, we ought at least to counteract, by all possible means, such a process of colonisation, which would produce over our heads, on the shores of the Baltic, a concentration of elements hostile to Poland.”

He recommends the flooding of East Prussia with cheap Polish peasant labour as a means of getting Poland entrenched in the country, but if you would understand what is behind the present controversy, carefully chew your cud on the following:

“The idea of a Polish-German conflict in respect of the Corridor is gradually being replaced by the idea of a conflict in respect of the development and importance of East Prussia. For there is no sense in insisting on an immediate territorial connection between the Reich and East Prussia, unless the latter, which is to be bound and held fast, does actually represent a valuable and important object, and unless there are, to the north and east of it, territories into which Germany, based on East Prussia, might seek to expand. In proportion as East Prussia declines, or acquires a different and independent administration, and in proportion as Lithuania, White Russia and Latvia, with all their commercial and other possibilities, slip away from East Prussia, the less will East Prussia interest the leading political and commercial leaders of Germany. Almost automatically it would lose its importance as a German province, and would become a sort of autonomous region, more or less estranged from general German politics, and, under certain circumstances, even in opposition to them. In that case, too, the Polish-German conflict in respect of the Corridor would, almost automatically, recede into the sphere of problems devoid of actuality, and, after a further lapse of years, during which the strength of Poland would increase, it would sink more or less into oblivion.”

In other words, Srokovski, a responsible Pole, who, as Consul-General, held important posts, was advising that East Prussia be economically strangled. We can gauge from these statements the general attitude of the military caste of the fair land of Poland towards the Danzig problems.

It is the same old system that is responsible. Amid the A.R.P. and the Labour Exchange we perceive, if we look closely, that what is involved is a question of capitalist expansion and profit. So far as the working class are concerned, they will be periodically used as cannon-fodder, until they decide upon the abolition of the wages system.

Charles Lestor

How can Hitlerism be destroyed? (1940)

From the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

That the Nazi Government, or what has come to be known as Hitlerism, is a menace to the peace of the world, is a fact as much recognised by Socialists as by all those who support the war. No Socialist will deny that all the Hitler regime stands for is repugnant and revolting to every ideal which he strives to establish.

The suppression of free expression of opinion, the concentration camp, the racial persecution and exiling of all people arbitrarily deemed out of sympathy with Nazi-ism, the public and private burning of a vast literature on Socialist and scientific subjects, the untold number of outrages committed by the Gestapo, are things indicative of a form of social life (pardon the phrase) which must befoul the finer feelings of all those worthy to be classed as really human.

Intellectual development cannot be where such conditions are prevalent. And where intellectual forces are stifled, real social material well-being is impossible of attainment. There must be no mistake that Socialists hate Hitlerism in a manner beyond question. It stands out to us calling aloud for destruction. But when we have said all this we have but touched the fringe of the problem presented by the existence of the present German Government. That Government, like that of any other throughout the world, owes its origin and maintenance to definite historical and social causes, in which we include such mass ideology as that upon which all governments largely depend for their existence.

Let us begin at the beginning.

The basic condition for the rivalry between modern states is the quest for profit on the part of those who own the means of living, the land, mines, railways and all such resources of the earth as the whole of mankind needs in order to live. The people who own these vital forces of human life are, in broad outline, represented by those who are in control of the machinery of government. Whether such government be democratic or dictatorship in form, the above statement applies with equal force. It cannot be too often stated that the method of government in all capitalist countries is a sort of  by-product of the same general mode of wealth production and distribution. We leave aside for the moment whether the democratic or dictatorship form of the state in capitalist countries is more favourable for working-class expression and development. One point here is, that in democratic Britain, France and America, as in dictatorship Germany and Italy, wealth is produced primarily for profit. Therein is to be found the secret of the world situation in modern times. Profit represents–is in fact–the unpaid labour of the workers. Every worker must realise that after he has spent his energy in producing things for the capitalist, and after all materials and other items have been provided for, there is a surplus above the amount he gets in wages. When this surplus fails to materialise, capitalist production normally ceases. We describe the surplus wealth taken by the capitalist as surplus-value. The worker labours for the capitalist (when he is permitted to do so) for wages, and the capitalist puts him to work to realise the difference between the wages paid and the value of the worker’s product of labour. “It is this sort of exchange”, says Marx, “between capital and labour upon which capitalistic production, or the wages system, is founded, and which must constantly result in reproducing the working man as working man and the capitalist as capitalist.”

The perpetuation and expansion of the capitalist’s pursuit of surplus-value gave rise to the imperialism underlying modern war. For capital to grow to maturity it must break down national boundaries and seek the world for its sphere of activity and gratification. Hence the conflicts between national groups of capitalists represented by their respective governments backed by armed force.

The phrase, “the workshop of the world”, at one time so aptly applied to this country, indicates an ideological landmark, not merely in the economic history and development of England, but also in that of the other leading capitalist powers. Those who were once the customers of “the world’s workshop” became, in the very nature of the capitalist process, its competitors for markets, trade routes, spheres of influence, and the occupation of strategic positions, or the acquisition of raw materials.

Thus arose the intense rivalry of Britain and Germany, which culminated in the war of 1914-1918. The defeat of Germany in that conflict and the imposing of  the Treaty of Versailles upon her paved the way for the war in which we are once more engaged.

One of the chief architects of the Versailles Treaty, Mr Lloyd George, has said of his own part-handiwork:-

I am one of the four upon whom devolved the onerous task of drafting the treaties of 1919 . . . The conditions that were imposed upon Germany were ruthlessly applied to the limit of her endurance. She paid £2,000,000,000 in reparations. We experienced insuperable difficulties in paying £1,000,000,000 to America–and we are a much richer country than Germany.

We stripped her of all her colonies, confiscating her equipment in those vast territories.

We deprived her of part of her home provinces, some of which she had possessed for over 200 years.

We took her great fleet away from her.

We reduced her army of millions to 100,000 men.

We dismantled her fortresses and we deprived her of artillery, tanks, airplays, broke up all the machinery she possessed for re-equipping herself

It is no part of our Socialist work to shed tears over the demilitarising of Germany or any other capitalist state. But as we look back from the time of the termination of the last war, up to date, we are forced to observe the economic and political consequences which called forth the author of Mein Kampf and his gang as the heads of a great state. Hardly had the Versailles Treaty been signed than the then German Government began to plot and scheme to defeat it. Hemmed in as Germany was by strong powers like England and France, there is little cause for surprise that, to quote Mr Lloyd George again:-

“When communities are deprived of the protection of law by selfish and unscrupulous interests they generally find refuge in taking the law into their own hands.”

That the thrusting of the Versailles Treaty upon Germany was in principle no worse than the German or Prussian Treaty imposed upon France in 1871, than that imposed upon Roumania at Bucharest, or that on Russia at Brest-Litovsk, is but begging the question. The real point is that capitalist treaty-making is not only no safeguard against wars, but as a sort of storehouse for their recurrence. And so is Europe, perhaps the whole world, once more on the verge of a gigantic slaughter, blinding and maiming; the approximate end to the whole butchery and destruction being beyond reasonable forecast.

The British Government again drags the workers of this country and its colonies into the battlefields on the plea of resisting aggression, as it did in the last “war to end war”. This time we are to smash Hitlerism, as we were in 1914 incited to destroy the Kaiser and his military caste.

But it is not the Nazi form of government as such that the British ruling class seeks to end, but the policy of Hitler’s regime in aiming at the interests of those who own and control the British Empire. Hitler and his murderous thugs might have raped and persecuted, imprisoned and tortured indefinitely, without as much as a stir from the “Mother of Parliaments”. The sacking and slaughter of Abyssinia, the overrunning of Austria and Czechoslovakia, were as much undisputed acts of aggression as that of Poland, but they evoked the British Government to acts of accommodation rather than conflict. Not until it was certain that  Hitler had designs on the dismemberment of the British Empire were the forces of slaughter released by Great Britain and her ally, France.

If the present war is allowed to run its course until one or other of the combatants is crushed, are we likely to witness, if we are still alive, the downfall of the Nazi form of government in Germany, the restoration of some form of democratic social life in Germany, and the maintenance of what democratic means of expression remain in Europe today? If Chamberlain, Daladier and Company are the spokesmen in setting the seal of defeat on Germany, will they invite the “leaders” of the working-class movement to secure that the German workers be permitted to voice their political and social views, whatever they may be? We know from experience they will do nothing of the kind; it is not a matter in which they are the least bit interested. Therefore, the backing of the “Labour Movement” given to the British and French governments is preposterous.

The working-class movement of Europe, even that part of it which claims the war to be one of Democracy versus Nazi Dictatorship, is no more likely to be consulted at the “funeral” of Hitler than they will be granted their emancipation from wage-slavery by the international capitalist class. The real issue before the working class of the world is one of ending its exploitation and all that such entails.

The present war is most likely to bring in its trail, unless it is stopped by working-class action meanwhile, greater misery than the last war, greater and more intensified exploitation, less freedom to achieve our purpose than we now possess, whichever side is triumphant in the struggle.

The German workers must, it seems, be the means of effecting the downfall of the Nazi system of government.

For ourselves we, as Socialists, would render them any service which would assist in their accomplishing the overthrow of their despotic ruling gang, if only to gain for them the immediate means of being able to give expression to their social and political aspirations without fear of being murdered or placed in a concentration camp.

Until the working-class movement in Germany or anywhere else can gain the means of emerging from underground into the daylight, their chances of finally freeing themselves from capitalism through Socialism are well-nigh hopeless. To assist in the war against Germany is not the way by which this can be accomplished, we should be slaughtering the very people we desire to liberate from the Nazi yoke. Moreover, our action then would assist Hitler and Co. to bury still deeper the opposition to his rule. He would point to the unanimity of feeling here to secure it in Germany. We find no valid reason for the support of this war, as we found none for the last war, which left us, of the Socialist Party, more isolated in our opposition than we are today.

When the war of 1914-1918 was at its worst, when the blood-bath was full to overflowing, we said then:

“Every Socialist must, therefore, wish to see peace established at once to save further maiming and slaughter of our fellow-workers. All those who, on any pretext, or for any supposed reason, wish the war to continue, at once stamp themselves as anti-Socialist, anti-working class, and pro-capitalist.” (Socialist Standard, July 1917.)

Quite frankly, facing the matter realistically, we see no immediate prospect of the workers becoming Socialists in sufficient numbers to come to real grips with the capitalist class in a challenge to the latter’s political power. The talk of a Socialist peace, although supremely desirable and necessary, would therefore seem to be Utopian at the moment. If the working class becomes alive to the realities of  the war issue they will see that their first task is to stop the blood-letting, and finally to gain political power for themselves and establish Socialism throughout the world and thus end all wars.

Robertus.

Editorial: The Peace Settlement : Back to 1815 or on to Socialism? (1941)

Editorial from the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Times, in a recent editorial, was discussing the kind of settlement that should be made when the war is over. Comparison was made between the Versailles Peace Treaty made after the last war and the settlement made in 1815, when Napoleon’s armies had been disposed of, and the comparison was wholly in favour of 1815 !

 Neither ingenious formulas nor noble aspirations will of themselves suffice. Those who made the Vienna settlement of 1815 were less affected by sentiment and took less account of abstract ideals than the peace-makers of Versailles. But the settlement proved more enduring because it was based on a shrewder estimate of the relative strength of the principal European Powers. No peace settlement can last which is not rooted in the realities of power. Mr. Eden was right, in his speech last Tuesday, to set down as the first of peace requirements the military measures necessary “to prevent a repetition of Germany’s misdeeds.”— (Times, August 1st, 1941.)

Thus does the Capitalist world progress. During and after the last war the keynote of the utterances of most of the leaders of the Liberal and Labour Parties was that the mistakes of 1815 must not be repeated. Instead of a peace based on the balance of force we must have, they said, a peace based on principles and ideals. Now that it is popular in the same quarters to ascribe the present war to the last peace, there is a revulsion of feeling, and back we go to the good old principles of the reactionaries who disposed of the boundaries of Europe 126 years ago. And what will that mean?

One thing the Times does not attempt to hide is that even when the Peace is settled, trouble will still be round the corner.

  “The danger point is likely to occur not at the moment when the settlement is made, but some 15 to 20 years after . . . when a new generation rises to challenge it.”

Indeed, the Times need not have postponed the trouble for so long a period. In accordance with its newfound enthusiasm for 1815, the Times pointed out that after this war.

  “Leadership in Eastern Europe is essential if the disorganisation of the past 20 years is to be avoided … This leadership can fall only to Germany or to Russia.”

This line naturally caused some apprehension in the minds of the Governments of the smaller Powers, notably Turkey and Poland, especially in view of the Times’ further remark that “an enforced disruption of Germany would run athwart the modern trend towards larger and more integrated units, and would be unlikely to endure.”

The rulers of the smaller Powers anxious to preserve independence can see the difficulty of doing so whether Germany or Russia rules the roost in Eastern Europe.

Then, a few weeks later, came a Times report about the growth of a Pan-Slav movement in Russia: —

  “Hence to-day virtually the whole Russian nation— and, indeed, all the Soviet peoples—stand in conscious solidarity behind the Government. They believe that a greater Russia may arise, destined to be the nucleus of the Slav peoples, and to play the same unifying role as Prussia did in Germany.”—(Times, August 25th, 1941.)

What with the existing Empires and new Russian and Chinese Empires in process of formation, or at least being thought about, will the new world be any better than the old? Let there be no mistake about it, there is no formula or principle, new or old, Prussian or Russian, British or American, which will solve the nationality problems of Europe and the rest of the world under Capitalism. Capitalism breeds conflict, and conflict leads on to war even though a Napoleon gives place to a Kaiser or a Hitler.

Editorial: Reparations or Revolution. (1924)

Editorial the September 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The World Situation.

The scramble for the spoils of war has entered another stage. The Versailles Treaty arranged the division of the plunder but the Allies have been quarrelling about the “sharing out” process. So “experts” have been called in to advise methods for a quicker “delivery of the goods.”

The working class has no interest in reparations or indemnities. The fight among the capitalists over these questions is an effort to relieve themselves of the financial cost of the slaughter which they engineered in 1914. The workers do not own property and therefore cannot pay for wars, and so the capitalists must fight it out between themselves as to how the bill can be paid. Behind the reparations question there is the ever present struggle for markets on the part of the world’s capitalists, and this struggle is keener and more desperate than ever.

In spite of military victories and vastly increased territory the Allied Capitalists are faced with a world problem which they cannot solve. The productive power of labour and the use of improved machinery has greatly increased since the war, but the market has not expanded. Not only are the rival national capitalists unable to find fresh markets, but the manufactured goods which once they could sell to foreign buyers are not wanted in countries now manufacturing for their own home market. Instead of exporting shoes to countries like Chile they are exporting shoe machinery.

Capitalist Governments like that of Herriot, MacDonald, etc., support a reparations policy in the hope of defeating the competition of Germany and so restoring the trade and commerce of the Allied Capitalist world. But each one of the Allied Nations capitalists are out to smash the competition of the other, and even with Germany “scrapped” the same problem and the same murderous struggle for markets and territory would go on. And in the rivalries and conflicts of the exploiters the workers have no concern. The workers’ interest is to abolish the system under which they are robbed of the results of their labour.

The Fraud of the Labour Party.

The Labour Party on platforms and papers throughout the country declared that the Treaty of Versailles must go.

They said in their handbook for Labour Party speakers (Labour and the Peace Treaty):

  “The commitments of Labour to revision of the Treaty have steadily grown in definiteness and emphasis during the last four years. Not only is Labour committed to revision by the fact that the Treaties, both with Germany and Austria, are in plain violation of the principles it has so often expressed during the war, but it is committed also by repeated declarations, made since the terms of the Treaty and of the Covenant of the League of Nations (embodied in it) became known.”

In complete defiance of election promises and literature the Labour Party have endorsed the Dawes Treaty which MacDonald defended and signed. Thus not only have the Labour Party supported the war, but now they assist the ruling class to reap the spoils.

After all their denunciation of the Versailles Treaty when in opposition, the Labour Party in office ignored their specious promises and promptly repudiated Arthur Henderson’s election pledge at Burnley to revise the Versailles Treaty.

The Labour Government were praised by the Capitalist Press, specially eulogised by the King, and showered with laurels by leading enemies of the workers, for their work in arranging the Dawes Treaty.

The capitalist work of the Labour Party has been admitted by its own members. Mr. E. D. Morel, writing in the “New Leader,” says :—

  “That it should have been possible for the Conservative leaders last week to affirm dogmatically that a Labour Government had re-established the authority of the Versailles Treaty not again to be questioned by any British Government, without such affirmation being queried by so much as a negative interjection, is the kind of thing which is calculated to spread the dry-rot of suspicion and disillusion in our ranks. For everyone is aware that so long as an unamended Versailles Treaty continues to be the public law of Europe, Europe will not know Peace. We have been told so by our leaders for five years, and we knew it without their telling us. Principles proclaimed for years cannot be abandoned in a night by a Party to whom principles are realities.”

The Dawes Plan.

“The Dawes plan is a plan devoid of sentiment or political or nationalistic feeling ; it is a plan which considers simply and solely the best way of getting the greatest amount of money out of Germany.”

That is the description of the Scheme by the “Manchester Guardian Weekly” (July 18th).

The process, however, of “getting the money” is to place Germany in the hands of Pierpont Morgan and other bankers who are to have the first call on German assets should there be a default in the interest. The railways of Germany are to be converted into a private company, and a huge joint stock bank set up. The Dawes plan tells the German workers that “wage increases are out of the question,” and German capitalists already hint at longer hours and lower wages.

The “brainy” capitalists and their “experts” have evolved a scheme to finance industry in Germany so that out of a larger production goods may be sent to the Allied countries, as reparations.

That policy is simply a continuance of the “dumping” process which our masters have been complaining of for the past few years. But the Dawes plan intensifies it by arranging for more goods to be given free to the capitalists of Allied Nations. Not only so, but the speeding up and greater output which will ensue in Germany will intensify the competition in the world’s markets. This peace cure of the Labour Government will not improve the economic situation. The capitalists here who support this reparations swindle will hypocritically tell the workers “You must accept less and work longer owing to German competition and their low standard of living !”

Its Economic Effects.

The economic effects of getting the spoils of war has been pointed out by leaders of the Capitalist Parties.

Mr. Asquith said : “The indemnity ships have paralysed our shipping industry, while the German yards are busy.”—(Paisley, 2nd June, 1921.)

The financial agents of the Governments, Samuel Montague & Co., declared : “The diversion of German indemnity coal to France has spoiled our market in that country.”— (Parliamentary Debates, July 14th, 1924.)

The Conservative Leader, Mr. Baldwin, said, in the House of Commons :

  “What I want to know is, where are those exports going ? The most obvious place for them to go first is into the openest and freest market they can get, that is to say, ours. Unless there happened to follow a period of world expansion such as followed the introduction of Free Trade into this country—an expansion partly due to discovery in industry, and partly due to discoveries of gold—unless you could have some world expansion of that kind, you will have an immense amount of suffering in every industrial country in the world, that receives those exports, but principally in our country. Theoretically, it is perfectly true that over a period of years the position may right itself, but the process of absorption may take many years, and the dislocation that will be caused in the highly-developed industrial communities is a dislocation that will ruin them before the absorption takes place.”—(Parliamentary Debates, November 15th, 1923.)

Mr. Hardie, of the Labour Party, replied to a speech thus :

  “The right hon. gentleman has so little understanding of British industry and British products that he does not realise that we have 1,300 coke ovens standing idle in this country, and that the workers are on the dole. Yet we have a combination of our present Prime Minister and ex-Prime Ministers wanting to bring in coke from Germany, although our coke ovens are shut down and the men are on the dole.”—(Parliamentary Debates, July, 14th, 1924.)

The Miners’ Federation have also protested about the economic effects of Reparations, but as they belong to the Labour Party they are also responsible for them.

The Coming War.

That this Dawes plan contains the seeds of further war is the claim made by Mr. Morel:

   “This reparation policy does not make for a peaceful settlement; it makes for dislocation and war. Indeed, my own feeling in this matter is that, if the Dawes Report receives the support, as it does, of a certain number—shall I say a large number?—of financiers, business men and economists, it is because they entertain the view, although, perhaps, it is discreetly hidden, that it will show, after a year or two, that the whole idea of obtaining these vast sums of money from Germany is impracticable in practice, because the Transfer Committee will not be able to transfer to Germany’s creditors, either in German currency or in deliveries in kind, the vast sums which are laid down. That hope may mature, but one thing is perfectly clear, and it is the most dangerous aspect of the whole Report, namely, that the whole of this stage-managed Conference, based upon the still continued partial ignorance of the British people of the essence of the reparation policy, and the complete ignorance of the French people of the essence of the reparation policy, is based upon the expectation held out to the British and French peoples that these huge sums of money will, in fact be obtained. That is the most dangerous thing, because, after those expectations, the reaction of disappointment will come about when it is found that they cannot be realised. That will lead once more to a revival of feeling, and the whole thing will again be thrown into the melting pot.”—(Parliamentary Debates, July 14th, 1924.)

Mr. P. Snowden represented the British Government at the London Conference, but after the congratulations to the Labour Government was over, he admitted to the Manchester Guardian (August 22nd) that the occupation of the Ruhr was illegal, and that “the French industrials have designs upon the economic control of certain German industries which they make no effort to conceal.”

The Socialist Position.

The general effects of the present Treaty will not be to improve labour’s condition anywhere. German capitalists will make sure of their profits, and, with the assistance of the bondholders of allied countries, will squeeze the last ounce of work out of their slaves. The workers in allied countries will find unemployment increase due to payment of reparations in the form of goods. The workers will have to face world wide efforts to make them work harder and, with a large army of unemployed, wages will be cut down further.

There is no escape from the effects of private property in the means of life. The system is based upon trade for profit, and as competition for trade increases, more scientific methods of production are employed and fewer workers are required to do the work. An ever-increasing part of the wealth goes to the employing class, and thus class distinctions become more glaring. The world’s resources, whether in the Ruhr or elsewhere, are eagerly struggled for in the effort to get the world’s wealth into fewer hands.

No reparations policy can touch these facts, which are the result of the rule of capital. This intervention of the banking interests into the fight for the spoils of war shows how international that rule of capital is. The Labour Government’s unity with Pierpont Morgan & Co. may be explained by the Daily Herald’s editorial (March 29th, 1924), which said :

  “The policy of all capitalist countries is, in the last resort, controlled and determined not by the politicians but by the economic and financial powers whose creatures they are.”

The Present system is beyond repair. Only a revolution can abolish the “evils” of to-day. Hence our demand is not Reparations, but a Social Revolution !

Editorial: Peace (!) (1919)

Editorial from the August 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

Peace, we are told, has now been made. On 28th June, 1919, the representatives of the Allied powers and Germany signed a “Peace treaty”, officially terminating the “Great War”, which it had claimed would “end all war” and “make the world safe for democracy”.

To achieve the great result millions of the working class lie in war graves, millions are maimed, crippled, or disfigured for life, millions more, with constitutions shattered, are wondering what the future holds for them.

Alongside this enormous waste of human life and limb, the destruction of wealth that has taken place seems trivial. Yet here the quantities are staggering. Numberless houses, factories and works, numerous mines, roads, railways and canals, thousands of ships with their cargoes, millions of tons of munitions, and extensive crops, forests, and the like, have been destroyed in this welter of war. And even now we are not at the end of the waste and destruction, for Mr. Bonar Law, speaking at a “Victory Loan” meeting, stated that there were still 23 other wars in progress.

But the “Great War” has ended. And almost immediately, in every country throughout the capitalist world, strikes and struggles between masters and workers blaze up. In the countries of the conquerors and the conquered alike, in neutral States and border zones, over-riding all the artificial divisions of territory and race, the antagonism between the working class and the master class gains greater prominence, with fiercer fights, than ever before. These fights, necessary for immediate purposes as many of them are, provide no solution for the fundamental problem facing the working class.

To the capitalist class a solution is impossible. They cannot abolish the antagonism except by abolishing themselves.

The “League of Nations”, claimed by its supporters to be the greatest safeguard of future peace that has resulted from the war, is cynically exposed by the military treaties between England, France, and America, to be a combination of the stronger Powers to enforce methods and conditions suitable to their own interests upon the weaker nations.

What other arrangements or undertakings have been made we do not at present know, but the refusal of China, one of the Allies, to sign the “Peace” Treaty is significant. One reason for China’s action that has leaked out is the practical handing over of Chinese territory – the Shantung Peninsular, to Japan. As this action threatens to at least restrain, if not to shut out, American trade in that part of China, because of the important seaports on the Shantung coast, it is raising a pretty quarrel between America and Japan, whose trade rivalry is already intense.

Such portions of the “Peace” Treaty with Germany as have been published further support our case. Large areas are to be taken from Germany and handed over to France, Belgium, Poland, and Denmark. In some cases a plebiscite of the inhabitants of certain areas may be taken later on, but this is entirely within the discretion of the “League”, who may withhold such plebiscite if they wish. It is, of course, quite an accident that so many of these areas contain rich coal and ore deposits. In addition the Allies are to enjoy the “most favoured nation” treatment in commerce, to have unrestricted freedom of transit for their goods, and no Tariff discrimination for five years. While children are starving in Germany over 100,000 milch cows are to be taken by the Allies.

In the Socialist Standard for September 1914, in our Manifesto on the War, we stated:

  “The Capitalists of Europe have quarrelled over the questions of the control of trade routes and the world’s markets, and are endeavouring to exploit the political ignorance and blind passions of the working class of their respective countries in order to induce the said workers to take up arms in what is solely their masters’ quarrel.”

Alone of all parties in this country we took our stand upon the Socialist position. So-called Socialist parties that supported the war then, are now in many cases pretending to be opposed to such wars and are urging the workers to demonstrate and strike against British soldiers being used against Russian workers. Too ignorant or cowardly in those days to stand for the interests of the working class, they now try to achieve a popularity and reputation by urging soldiers to refuse to fire on Russian workers, while they applauded or were silent when the same soldiers were shooting down German, Austrian, or Hungarian soldiers.

Nay, even when these soldiers were used against workers at home–in Dublin, Hull, Tonypandy, and Glasgow–they accepted the right claimed by the capitalists to use such forces for their own interests, without any call for a strike.

In the manifesto mentioned above we said:

  “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. These armed forces, therefore, will only be set in motion to further the interests of the class who control them – the master class.”

As far as Russia is concerned, there are signs that “intervention” is nearing its end – not because of the demonstrations (those called for 21st July were a ghastly failure), but because of a division of interests in the capitalist camp.

While the British and French capitalists who have invested large amounts of capital in developing Russian industry, desire intervention for the purpose of seizing control of the productive forces, either for themselves or in combination with the Russian master class, the other capitalists are quietly but effectively protesting against the scheme. Those who manufacture at home and seek markets abroad, note with anxiety how Japan and America are preparing to take hold of the Russian market. According to some reports, German merchants are already trading in Russia. On the other hand the Bolshevik Government has repeatedly announced its readiness to make “economic” and “industrial” concessions to foreign capitalists in exchange for seeds, machinery, and tools. The acceptance of these “concessions” can have but one result–the running of the main industries of Russia on capitalist lines.

The backward economic conditions of Russia compel the Bolsheviks to make these offers that are in flat contradiction to their theories, and they can no more resist successfully the force of these circumstances than they could avoid signing the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Hence that section of the capitalist class who wish to open trade with Russia favour the withdrawal of Allied support of all kinds from Kotchak and Dennikin, and the making of a commercial agreement with the Bolshevik Government. Their need for haste is increased by the open campaign of jingoism that arose again after the Armistice and which has been epitomised by Sir Douglas Haig when receiving the Freedom of the City of London on the 12th June, 1919. Speaking of his experience of the war he said:

  “My message to you, and through you to the Empire, is to urge you, now that the war has given you at once the reason and the opportunity to do so, to set up forthwith the organisation of a strong citizen Army on Territorial lines–an organisation which shall ensure that every able-bodied citizen shall come forward when the next crisis comes, not as a willing, patriotic, but militarily ignorant volunteer, but as a trained man.” (Daily News, 13.6.1919).

Here, even before the “Peace” treaty was signed, was the exposure of the foul lies of the capitalist class that this war was “to end all war”.

While competition between capitalist groups for routes, markets, and control of raw material exists, the cause of war remains. The amalgamation of some of these groups into “leagues” or “associations”, while it may put off the evil day for a while, only makes the struggle the greater when it does arise. But even if the whole of the greater capitalists of the world were to unite for the control of the globe, there would still remain the greatest of all wars to be fought out – the Class War for the freedom of Mankind.

During the “Great War” the capitalist class on both sides broke down many of the old national and racial barriers that still existed between various sections of slaves under their control. Black chattel slaves fought alongside yellow contract workers. Irish Home Rulers stood by jingo Englishmen, French Syndicalists by Japanese Imperialists.

Clearer than ever before stands out the great fact that there is no hope for real peace in the world until these various sections of workers recognise the common fundamental character of their slavery and set to work to remove it, thus ending the enslavement of the human race by the establishment of Socialism.

As in September 1914, so now we say:

“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 establishment of Socialism.”

Executive Committee,

Socialist Party of Great Britain.

The Position in Japan. (1920)

From the September 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Daily News” of July 10th included an article by A.G.G., the gist of which was a plaintive appeal against the renewal of the Treaty of 1902 between Japan and England, and in the course of his screed the writer accuses Japan of using the peculiar conditions brought about by the outbreak of the great war to her own advantage, implying in addition the use of her natural proximity to China to the disadvantage of that country, keeping in mind the fact that the remainder of the Allies had their hands too full in Europe to exercise any sort of control over her actions.

It is not intended here to go into the question as to whether possible acquisitions in China were a part of the bribe held out to Japan in order to secure her adhesion to the Allied cause, although the Versailles Peace Treaty has made it reasonably clear that all the smaller nations who were induced to participate in the conflict had certain concrete inducements offered to them as a quid pro quo,

In passing, a scrutiny of this Peace Treaty will also show that the bribes that were offered were all at the expense of the smaller nations for whom “we” affected to be so much concerned. Further in this connection, it might be suggested that offering the property of others is a very cheap form of bribery, as it leaves in the balance the question of being able to fulfill the obligation, and when it is fulfilled of course it has the additional beauty of being expensive only to the bespoiled party.

It may not be generally known that the Treaty of Alliance of 1902 between England and Japan had as its specific objective the maintenance of the integrity of the Chinese Empire in the following terms (as quoted by “A.G.G.”):

What are its objects ? They are three:
(l) The maintenance of the general peace in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India ;
(2) The preservation of the common interests of all Powers in China by insuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire, and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China ;
(3) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the High Contracting Parties, and the defence of their special interests in Eastern Asia and India.

These terms can be called safe, seeing that they provide for the “preservation” of the common interests of all powers, and the “principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China.” This form of phrase is typical of all treaties between great Powers wherein the superficial assumption would be concern for the lesser Power in that the interests are always open to be enforced, so that the blatant hypocrisy of the whole business is always likely to be shown.

In the camp of the “High Contracting Parties” all is peace until such time as one begins to think that the other or others are getting too large a share of the loot, or so long as each is satisfied that it cannot do better by itself. But when this state of things becomes disrupted the trouble begins, and we find our gallant champions of the smaller nations are simply brigands out on the grab.

“A.G.G.” accuses Japan of having grabbed more than she should, and wishes US, you and me, fellow worker, to give the year’s notice required for the termination of the Alliance.

There is not much that can be said about the Japanese politician and diplomat that cannot be said about those of any other nation. They are doing the bidding of the Japanese section of the capitalist class in the same way that the politicians and diplomats of other nations are accomplishing the purposes of their capitalist masters, and the impulse behind it all is not regard for the rights of small nations, or respect for treaties.

What they prate of as “justice” is merely their idea of what will best further their efforts in the struggle for the world’s markets. This struggle, it is now clear to all intelligent people, precipitated the ghastly war through which we have just passed.

The writer of this article had occasion to take up a temporary residence in Japan recently, and during his stay had reason to travel up and down the country very extensively. He found all those social phenomena which are to be found here just as obvious there applying both to the workers and the masters. The struggle for existence is pretty well as keen there as here, the qualifying term being used advisedly owing to the fact that the Japanese master class have not quite rid themselves of the old patriarchal idea—there is still a glimmering of the principle behind Japanese industry that the worker is a responsibility of the master and as such the attitude does not appear to be quite so ruthless as it does in countries in which capitalism is not of recent development.

For instance, one will often find very old men working in some of the largest and most up-to-date plants in the country ; these men are looked upon largely in the light of pensioners, and when they are unable to muster the requisite energy to crawl to their daily toil some small pension is generally allotted to them so that they do not have to fall back upon the charity of their relatives. As a matter of fact, as there is no such thing in Japan as a workhouse or parochial Union, it will be understood that the Japanese worker, without some support from the master for whom he has spent his life’s blood, would be compelled to fall back upon the charity of his friends and relatives because no other resource would be open to him.

As a further illustration of this point it may be said that the beggars which abound in the land of the rising sun are all diseased or blind and are brought up from infancy to begging as a profession. No attempt is made by the Japanese Government to control the beggars as such. They have merely to conform to the ordinary law which applies to all workers, and they have their own union. The difference which strikes one between the beggars of this and other Western capitalist countries and those of Japan is that the former are nearly always industrial “throw-outs” while the latter seldom are.

It is very difficult indeed to get a true perspective of Japanese working-class life beyond the knowledge that the basis is the same as in all other capitalist countries, owing to the impossibility of reading the Japanese printed matter. It is comparatively easy to gain a smattering of the colloquial tongue, but this only enables one to find one’s way about, as it were, and does not open up the possibility of entering into detailed exchange of opinions. The fact that the literature is inaccessible is due to the fact that a lifetime of study would be necessary to gain a reading knowledge of the language. Therefore the only resource of the European who wishes to examine Japanese conditions through literature is the European Press of the country, which from day to day publishes extracts from the native Press. It can be readily understood what point of view is presented in these extracts, and what value, consequently, is to be credited to the information to be culled from such source.

There are, of course, many Japanese who speak English, but these, amongst the workers, are more or less what would be termed “middle class,” and one gets from them very much the same views as from their prototype here.

Among the workers the iron of capitalism is biting deeper and ever deeper. Rice, the staple food of the whole nation, has risen in price by more than 400 per cent, during the last two years, and although wages have risen in practically the same degree, helped by the favourable position that Japan has occupied during the war, now that, other countries are entering into competition with her this favourable condition of things will necessarily be modified, and is already making the struggle for existence show itself in a more marked degree.

The signs of unrest are becoming increasingly evident, and a constant succession of strikes, with a growing membership of the labour unions is in progress. Such a thing as a strike was hardly ever heard of before the war, but the writer scarcely remembers one large engineering firm in the whole of the Japanese Empire that was not held up by strikes for longer or shorter periods during his stay. One of the characteristics, however, of strikes in Japan is their unanimity. Such a thing as a blackleg is scarcely known, and on this account once the call for a withdrawal of the workers is issued the whole plants involved are closed down. A particular instance of this occurred in Kyushiu last December, and the Imperial Steel Works—a Government works employing over 24,000 workers—was shut down for more than three weeks, much to the delight of the American importers of steel. There was the usual batoning and imprisonment of those prominent in the strike, in spite of which the Imperial authorities had to climb down, and by large promises and small concessions persuade the workers to resume.

“A.G.G.’s” allusion to Japan “leaving the war severely” alone is very pathetic but does not touch those workers who understand their position in society. It is obvious that the impulse either of action or of inaction in that regard was the same with every nation, whether belligerent or neutral, and when he expatiates on this point and continues as follows: “no thought of the interests of the Allies, no thought of the interests of China, only the fear that if China became one of the allied States her interests would be better safeguarded in future,” one still remains unmoved, knowing what treaties are drawn up for.

The fact that China finally declared war against the Central powers is not mentioned in the article under discussion, otherwise our scribe would have to explain why it was that even after that occurred China’s interests were not better guarded than before.

It is quite common knowledge that Japan has been and is still doing her level best to disrupt the internal economy of the Celestial Empire, and maybe the fact that Japan is for the time being foremost in that field is what is causing so much concern to our servant of the cocoa kings !

The whole diatribe against the Japanese absolutely misses the vital points. This is not a matter for surprise, as the literary hacks of the master class are not concerned with fundamentals. The struggle for trade expansion necessitates control of new markets, and the acquisition of new territories in which to settle “surplus” populations. Consequently the Japanese Government have to follow any line which will give them control of new spheres, and more openly than in the past proclaim the imperialist policy adopted by the other big capitalist countries. These fundamental points are carefully evaded by our author.

In the case of Japan, of course, the necessity for an outlet for the teeming population is urgent, and this will be readily understood when it is mentioned that the population of the country is close on 60 millions, while the habitable portion is probably less than that of Great Britain. Although the area of the country is considerably larger than that of the British Isles, the country is largely covered with mountains, in fact, it has been computed that seven-eighths of its area is thus covered,

The fact of density of population strikes one wherever one goes. The workers’ houses have no yard or garden, simply being separated back and front by the streets. When a two-storey house is mentioned it implies two separate dwellings as far as the workers are concerned. It is easy to understand how detrimental to the workers such a condition of living is, and when Government statistics acknowledge tubercular cases to equal 25 per cent. of the population no doubt can remain of the serious effects of this massing together of large numbers of people in limited areas.

To summarise, therefore, it can be said that sooner or later, treaties or no treaties, Japan will be compelled to find fresh territories, and there will be war. There is no need to make any bones about this point of view. The only hope of the workers lies in the establishment of Socialism, and it is only by Socialism, and not by treaties, that the British and the Japanese workers alike can save themselves from disastrous conflicts in the near future.

Socialism, of course, can only be brought about by Socialists, and it is satisfactory, therefore, to remember that Socialism is becoming more and more discussed in Japan, although, owing to police restrictions it is very difficult indeed for an outsider to get into touch with the organisations to ascertain immediately their point of view in order to allow of comparison with the position of the S.P.G.B.

D. W. F.

War Overtakes Russia (1941)

From the July 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The failure of a policy
There is no such thing an ideal foreign policy. In international politics there is no policy which will suit all times and all circumstances. There is none which can be carried out to give a guarantee of enduring peace. This is true, though most people do not believe it. After every outbreak of war historians and others look back to this or that turning point, and say that if only a certain Government had acted differently, with more foresight, the war would not have happened. This kind of reasoning rests on assumptions that are not justified. It assumes that a Government is a free agent, able to follow any policy that the international situation may seem to call for. It ignores the forces behind the Government which determine the Government’s attitude and limit its freedom of action; the electorates that have to be considered, not to mention commercial, industrial and financial groups whose demands on foreign policy are coloured by their trading and other interests. The view taken by the “wise-after-the-event” historians assumes, too, that if one Government gave a certain lead in international affairs other Governments would react in a simple practicable way, determined either by fear of opposing a strong group of Powers or by mutual desire to maintain world peace. The historians and many other people are obsessed with the idea that international rivalries and alliances are clashes of the personalities of “great man.” They forget that it is not abroad, at international conferences, but at home in their own immediate social environment, that statesmen learn their principles, motives and methods and form their opinions on what is desirable and what is practicable.

The history of the past twenty years is full of illustrations. One popular theory in Great Britain to-day is that if only Mr. Baldwin and his predecessors had built up great armaments to keep Germany down there would have been no war. This theory has for the moment displaced the opposite theory that if only the same gentlemen had relaxed the Versailles Treaty and been kind to Germany there would have universal disarmament. Both theories are fallacious, because they ignore many important factors. They ignore the war-weariness of the workers after the last war and their resulting pacifist tendencies. Faced with such an electorate, any Cabinet which had come out with a big programme of armaments ten or fifteen years ago would have been defeated at the polls. Mr. Baldwin’s defence of himself is on this point well founded. On the other hand they ignore the fact that capitalism forces all Governments to compete in the world market and to strive for aims which cannot be satisfied. In order to solve the insoluble problems of its own industries and financial organisations every Power, great or small, is demanding something which the other Powers cannot afford to yield. And the whole problem is complicated by the sectional interests within each country, each trying to influence foreign policy. Those who talk as if the only problem of the British Government was to prevent the German capitalists from re-establishing German power, forget that in the nineteen-twenties the problem appeared to be that of preventing the French capitalists from dominating Europe and the Mediterranean. The policy of helping to re-establish Germany was at that time supported by British and American business interests, whose markets were in Germany or who suffered from French competition, by bankers who had loaned millions of pounds to Germany, as well as by the Labour Party, which feared French anti-democratic tendencies, and by Imperialists, who thought that French Imperialism had become more dangerous than German. Alongside all this is the fact that the propertied class in all countries fears “subversive” influences and leans towards other Governments which look like firm bulwarks for the defence of property; hence the readiness of influential circles in every country to do a deal with the Nazis. It is this welter of forces that explains the otherwise inexplicable weakness, idiocies, blindnesses and sudden reversals of foreign policies.

Russia wanted a “Strong Germany”
The latest example of the impossibility of escaping these consequences of capitalism by cleverness and stratagem is given by Russia’s forced entry into the war. Why did the policy (or rather policies) of the Russian Government fail? Could this result have been avoided? Why did Germany swing from friendship to enmity with Russia and why did Russia drop Litvinoff for Molotov, only to find itself faced with the situation Molotov thought his policy had obviated?

Immediately the Russo-German Pact was signed it was pointed out in these columns (October, 1939) “it seems certain that now Russia and Germany are neighbours, both intent on dominating Eastern Europe and the Balkans, they will find each other dangerous friends, liable to turn into enemies at any moment.” Germany’s growing need of war materials and, no doubt, the assumption that a war against “Godless Bolshevism” might appeal to wide circles in Britain, the Dominions and U.S.A., has made this the suitable occasion in Nazi eyes.

The people most surprised by a natural outcome of events are the Communists.

The American and British Communist Parties, in the first of their statements “explaining” the position, gave an easy and fatuous answer to one question. They can see one of the factors at work but ignore all the others. The New Masses, an American Communist paper, issued just before the German attack said:-

  “A German-Soviet war is only conceivable if Germany first reached an understanding with Great Britain.” – (The Times, June 25th, 1941.)

The British Communist Party, in a manifesto issued on June 22nd, after the attack had begun, declared that it –

   “is the sequel of the secret moves which have been taking place behind the curtain of the Hess mission. We warn the people against the upper class reactionaries in Britain and the United States, who will seek by every means to reach an understanding with Hitler on the basis of the fight against the Soviet. Only the action of the people can prevent this. We can have no confidence in the present Government dominated by Tory friends of Fascism and coalition Labour leaders, who have already shown their stand by their consistent anti-Soviet slander campaigns.” – (Manchester Guardian, June 23rd.)

This was issued on the Sunday on which the German onslaught began. It therefore preceded the broadcast by Mr. Winston Churchill, in which full aid to Russia was promised by the British Government. Within a couple of days the Communist M.P., Mr. W. Gallacher, was voicing in the House of Commons his “agreeable surprise” at Mr. Churchill’s speech, and the latter gentleman, who presumably falls into the Communist Party’s category of “Tory friends of Fascism,” was being cheered in the streets of Moscow. Molotov, Russia’s foreign Commissar, in his speech on Sunday, June 22nd, was more honest than his Communist admirers. “With unusual candour,” says the Manchester Guardian (June 26th), “he declared his policy towards Germany to have proved a failure.” Let us, then, look at Molotov’s earlier speeches to see what his policy was, and whether, as the Communists claim, the Bolshevik Government has been able in international affairs to be wiser and more successful than other Governments.

Molotov’s predecessor in office was Litvinov, whose policy, like that of Churchill and the British Labour Party, was to use the League of Nations as a means of organising common action by Powers which would together be strong enough to deter Germany. Litvinov failed and was sacked in order that Molotov might try his opposite theory, the theory of the group in Britain who favoured appeasement with Hitler and wanted a strong Germany. Mr. Churchill, it may be recalled, was demanding, in May 1939, “a full and solid alliance … with Russia without further delay” (Evening Standard, February 6th, 1941), and it was about that time, in 1939, Mr. Pollitt, on behalf of the Communist Party, was urging Churchill, Attlee and Sinclair to get together and form a government. Molotov took Litvinov’s place in May, 1939, and was responsible for the secret negotiations which resulted in the Russo-German Pact of August, 1939, a pact which the British Communist Party declared was a “victory for Peace and Socialism,” a “blow to Fascist war plans and the policy of Chamberlain” (Daily Worker, August 23rd, 1939).

What, then, was the Molotov policy which led him to appear in smiling association with Goering and other Nazi leaders? It was, indeed, nothing other than the Chamberlain policy applied to the supposed needs of the Russian Government. It was the much denounced British Imperial policy of the balance power in Europe, the policy of siding with what appeared at the time to be the weaker of the group of European Powers to prevent the stronger group from achieving domination. It was Molotov, not Chamberlain, who declared: “We have always held that a strong Germany is an indispensable condition for durable peace in Europe” (Molotov’s speech to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., October 31st, 1939, published in English translation by Anglo-Russian News Bulletin, November, 1939, page 9). The calculation behind Molotov’s Pact was no doubt that Britain, France and Germany at war would weaken each other and thus (as the Communists claimed in the period of their early support for the war and their present return to support for the war) “Socialist” Russia would succeed in keeping out of “this war . . .  between imperialist powers over profits, colonies and world domination” (Mr. Palme Dutt, “Why This War?” Communist Party, November, 1939, page 4).

Molotov, in the speech referred to above, also put forward the proposition, held by the British Labour Party at one time, and by the late Lord Rothermere and others, that the present war was caused by the Versailles Treaty, and could have been avoided if the Treaty had been different or had been modified.

Molotov said:-

   “Relations between Germany and Western European bourgeois States have in the past two decades been determined primarily by Germany’s efforts to break the fetters of the Versailles Treaty, whose authors were Great Britain and France, with the active participation of the U.S.A. This it was, which in the long run, led to the present war in Europe.” – (Page 9.)

In the same speech Molotov said that his hopes of enduring peace between Germany and Russia rested on the belief that “the new Soviet-German relations are based on a firm foundation of mutual interest,” a phrase very similar to that used by the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, in his speech on June 24th, 1941, when he said that his hopes in 1935 of good relations between Britain and Russia were based on a joint declaration “that there was no conflict of interest between the two Governments on any of the main issues of international policy” (Evening News, June 24th, 1941).

It does not seem that the state capitalist Russia has been able to find anything better than the foreign policies of the older Powers. Even to details Molotov falls into line. In his October, 1939, speech he ridiculed the idea of a war for the destruction of Nazism and condemned the British and French Governments for proclaiming such a war. The British and French Governments, he said, “do not want war stopped and peace restored, but are seeking new excuses for continuing the war with Germany,” the new excuse being "the destruction of Hitlerism." He continued:-

  “But there is no justification for a war of this kind. One may accept or reject the ideology of Hitlerism as well as any other ideological system, that is a matter of political views. But everybody should understand that an ideology cannot be destroyed by force, that it cannot be eliminated by war. It is, therefore, not only senseless, but criminal, to wage such a war for the ‘destruction of Hitlerism’ camouflaged as a fight for ‘democracy’” – (Page 7.)

Now, in his speech on June 22nd, we find Molotov declaring “all the responsibility for this robber attack on the Soviet Union falls on German Fascist Leader. . . . This war has been forced on us . . . by a clique of bloodthirsty Fascist leaders who have oppressed the French, the Czechs, the Poles, the Serbs, the Norwegians, the Belgians, Denmark, Holland, Greece and other nations” (The Times, June 23rd, 1941).

It will be observed that Molotov here lays the whole responsibility on one man, “the German Fascist Leader.” In November, 1939, the British Communist, Mr. Palme Dutt, in his “Why This War?” was attacking the British Government for this very thing. “They call for the overthrow of Hitlerism,” he wrote, “they declare that the enemy is ‘one man’ – Hitler” (page 6).

The lesson of all this is that, while the forces driving to international conflict and war remain, there are no means of making the world safe for peace. Pacts and alliances, Leagues of Nations and World Courts, Federal Unions. An so on, may control minor disputes and delay the major ones, but they have not succeeded in the past twenty years and will not succeed in the future in preventing war. World peace, like the abolition of property, is something only to be achieved through Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Economic Roots (1989)

From the September 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Chopping up history is a common method of distorting it and preventing anything being learned from it. Chopped-up history comes to us as a series of largely self-contained, unconnected and accidental events which were crucially influenced by the personalities of the leaders of the time. The implication is that there is no overall pattern in what happens in the world, that things would have been different had other people been in charge or if certain events had not coincided. It follows from this that there is no need to make any fundamental changes in society because a bad historical accident at one time can be redressed by a good one at another time.

Mad Dictators versus The Democracies?

The popular account of the last world war goes something like this. After 1918 the victorious Allies made two big mistakes. Firstly, they did not ensure that Germany had been properly finished off as a military power. Secondly, they imposed the Versailles Treaty, a settlement so stringent as to cause a lingering resentment among the German people which was too easily exploited by Hitler, an unusually mad dictator whose consuming ambition was to lead Germany into a conquest of the entire world. Hitler was in league with Mussolini, another mad dictator who was also comical because his belligerent strutting and posturing were a facade behind which the Italian people were disinclined to go to war. His other ally —Japan — was a different matter, for the people there were tradition-bound into a disciplined savagery. These three countries regarded the persecution and murder of human beings as necessary and progressive and they were intent on extending their rule over the entire world. Other countries — Britain, France and America — were democracies. Their leaders were not dictators, they allowed free speech and free association and they treated their people in a humane way. The democracies could not stand aside and allow the dictatorships to take over the world and so, after a few years delay caused by their natural inability to grasp the enormity of Hitler's madness and their laudable reluctance to plunge the world into hostilities, they eventually had no choice out to go to war. After six years of bloodshed which cost at least 15 million dead the dictatorships were beaten, the world recovered from some very nasty historical accidents and all was well.

One of the most obvious flaws in this version is the fact that on the side supposedly fighting for democracy was one of the world's most fearsome dictatorships When Stalin's Russia was forced into the war on the Allied side it had become enduringly notorious for its iron repression of its people, for its ruthless policy of mass murder and for the brutal and cynical way in which Stalin disposed of any opposition among the leadership — normally by killing them off. The fact that "communist" Russia was supposed to be a sworn enemy of Nazi Germany did not stop the two countries, in a typical example of the dirty game called diplomacy, signing just before the war began, a pact of non-aggression guided, they said, "...by the desire to strengthen the cause of peace between the USSR and Germany..." The pact — which, although it was supposed to last for ten years, did not stop Germany attacking Russia in June 1941 — also carved up part of Eastern Europe: Lithuania. Poland, Bessarabia. Russia was not the only dictatorship fighting on the side of "freedom". Poland and Greece could hardly be described as democracies and they too were in the Allied camp.

Meanwhile, neither the "democracies" nor the dictatorships were completely united. Mussolini's government was alarmed by Germany's expansion, in particular the occupation of Czechoslovakia which they saw as undermining their interests in Central and South East Europe. They did consider developing closer ties with Britain and France but instead asserted that the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean were Italian spheres of influence and annexed Albania. The French were mistrustful of British policy which, as the pressure from Germany mounted, did not rule out a settlement through offering Germany some colonies, which the French saw as a potential threat to their interests in the Middle East.

The British Empire

More important —more influential — was the antagonism between American and British interests. One of the reasons for the opposition in America to that country joining the war was the well-founded suspicion that American power would be used to protect British possessions and so shore up the British Empire, which with its system of Imperial Preference hampered American industry's exports to valuable markets and its access to vital raw materials. The "aid" which flowed from America to Britain was thickly festooned with strings. In August 1940 the "gift" of 50 US destroyers (which were in any case well past their prime as death-dealing machines) was conditional on American occupation of 8 bases on British territory, from Newfoundland to what was then British Guiana. Purchases of American war equipment were to be paid for by the liquidation of overseas assets and lend-lease was agreed to only on the condition that the British ruling class had exhausted all other ability to pay. In August 1941 the Atlantic Charter was exultantly publicised as a declaration of faith in the war for democracy and the well-being of the human race. In reality it was an undertaking to ensure self-determination and free trade in the post-war world — which effectively meant the end of Imperial Preference.

So the objectives of the war were not as chivalrous and humane as its supporters would have us believe. Of course it is true that Nazi Germany was a vicious dictatorship where all opposition was ruthlessly stamped out and where millions of people were systematically killed simply because they were Jews or gypsies or homosexuals or handicapped. And of course the Allied victory did mean the end of the extermination camps — at any rate in Germany, for genocide, atrocities and mass political murders did not end in 1945. But these were not the objects of the war, except to those who chop up history. The war came as an episode in an established and continuing system of international relations which were an inevitable result of the social system we live under — of capitalism.

Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Russian revolution and America's withdrawal from the post-war settlements left Britain and France dominant, with the onus to strike a balance between the elite powers. As an outcome of the war these two states, already possessing huge empires, also absorbed former German and Turkish colonies so that Great Britain controlled a quarter of the world and, with France, a third of it. "We have got most of the world already, or the best parts of it" was how it was described in 1934 by the First Sea Lord. The fact that the advantages of empire were largely illusory for the ruling class — and wholly illusory for the working class, who were nevertheless so proud and ready to die for their masters wealth and possessions — did not prevent imperialism being seen as vital to everyone's interests. The "have-not" states — Germany. Japan and Italy — demanded to be let into the power system, to expand to be a part of the balance. "As a result of restrictions our economic situation is such that we can only hold out for a few years... There is nothing else for it, we have to act", said Hitler in August 1939.

These demands were given an emphatic political voice, and a great deal of energy, by the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy. In many ways the policies of both were, to put it mildly, bizarre; they not only hampered the full development of each state's power but also gave the Allies, when the war came, a brilliant propaganda theme which they worked for all it was worth. Telling us all about the racism of Nazi Germany, they forgot troublesome facts like the collusion and encouragement the Nazis had received from so many respected and bellicose British politicians and the persecution of blacks in America.

German Industry and Commerce

The Nazis were not the first post-war German government to work for the overturn of the Versailles Treaty and the re-establishment of Germany as a major European power. These policies had also been expounded by the politicians of the Weimar Republic and the implications were the same for them as they were for the Nazis — the annexing of Austria, perhaps also of Czechoslovakia and the extension of Germany's sphere of influence into eastern Europe and the Balkans. Behind the policy stood German commerce and industry with their insistent need to throw off the shackles of the post-war settlements and to expand. When Nazi Germany moved militarily the country's commercial and industrial interests eagerly followed the victorious armies. German banks quickly took over their competitors in Austria and Czechoslovakia and the industrial combine IG Farben did the same to its rivals in those countries so that it became the dominant chemical concern in South East Europe.

Although the Versailles Treaty was supposed to have sorted out the world's problems (for what else were those millions of workers killed in the first world war?) the stresses and crises which followed in peacetime produced a clutch of other treaties, each attempting to deal with a separate point of tension. But the diplomatic edifice erected in the 1920s was severely damaged by the world economic collapse. Collective action became distinctly unfashionable as each country scrambled to protect the wealth and the standing of its ruling class. Tariff barriers went up and Britain abandoned free trade in favour of imperial preference. The industrial powers suffered massive unemployment, with up to a third of their workforces being idle. The despair and disillusionment with parliamentary democracy which this caused undoubtedly helped the Nazis rise to power as they could blame the economic collapse on alleged corruption and bungling of the Weimar republic and assert that it would not have happened in a racially pure, virile and disciplined Nazi dictatorship.

In 1931, in response to the slump, Britain went off the gold Standard — that is, declared that the pound was no longer convertible into gold. As a result a number of ad hoc arrangements for international payments emerged with the "outsider" powers such as Germany and Japan entering into bilateral trading deals. This effectively divided the world into two antagonistic blocs — the gold—possessing states and those now reliant on barter. The German ruling class fought their side of the conflict by dumping exports, importing through bulk buying, currency controls and the like. The British government fought back with export guarantees and in 1938 buying up the entire wheat crop of Rumania in an effort to prevent that country being absorbed into Germany's sphere of influence. In general the Germans made the running in this race and British and French capital became more and more excluded from eastern Europe.

For the British and French capitalists the German threat to Poland was the sticking point, beyond which there could be no further attempts at diplomatic appeasement or economic warfare. The invasion of Poland left the Allies with no choice but to try by military means to force Germany back into "normal" trading relationships. Behind all the talk about a war to defeat dictatorships and to liberate Europe from the Nazi thrall the real war aim of the Allies was to restore the financial and trading arrangements which benefitted their ruling classes. In July 1944, while some of the war's fiercest battles were being fought, the bloodless battle of Bretton Woods settled a lot about the economy of the post-war world The Conference set up the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as the main instruments of a new international payments system based on currencies convertible at fixed rates into gold and, as the Daily Express complained for years afterwards, was another large nail in the coffin of Imperial Preference.

Far from being an historical aberration the Second World War was a predictable episode in capitalism; it was normal to a social system which throws up rivalry and conflict all the time. Those who chop up history, treating the war as if it were a separate incident, unique because of the personalities of the leaders at the time — lunatic Hitler, conceited Mussolini, and Chamberlain — spread confusion and misunderstanding. To understand why that war happened is to understand a lot about society today, and about why it operates as it does. This is a matter of great urgency, if we are to organise the world so that war is abolished. After all, those millions who were killed in the war were supposed to have given their lives to make the world safe for peace yet look at what has happened since 1945...

Ivan