The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (1960)

From the August 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

When Capitalism throws up some unusual problem or, what is more often the case, a. new variation of an old problem, there are always plenty of sincere but misled people ready to throw their weight behind the movements that mushroom into being for the purpose of trying to deal with these phenomena in isolation from their cause. Failing to see the inter-connection and common origin of all the problems of Capitalism these people merrily waste their time and efforts tinkering with effects. One of the most plausible sounding of these movements is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. After all, the H-bomb is such a hideous and terrifying weapon that anyone who wants to ban it is sure of a fairly wide appeal

Nothing is more plausible than to see the H-bomb as an evil in isolation from everything else in society and set out to ban it as though it were a self-made monster without reference to the system which produces it.

Although we readily acknowledge the sincerity of people who support CND and understand their horror at the thought of nuclear war, there is no greater folly nor a more deadly danger than approaching the problem in this way.

The hydrogen bomb is the result of technical and scientific development within capitalism. Ban this weapon and keep this system with its world market and profit strategy, and science will still produce other such monsters. It must do so while science remains the servant of the capitalist class who pay for it. In fact, it is already common knowledge that other terror weapons exist. CND argue that time is short the way the world is today, so that the H-bomb must be treated as an immediate priority. If they mean this and mankind is really balanced on the edge of oblivion, then there certainly is not time to deal with all existing and all possible horror weapons one at a time as they come up. The stark reality they must face is that to deal with capitalism is the immediate priority.

Is the CND prepared to switch the attack, get down to causes, and deal with capitalism? Alas, the very nature of the movement precludes this. Their membership is drawn from all shades of political and religious opinion. They may think this their strength, but in fact it is their most fatal weakness.

An organisation with such a widely mixed membership can agree on one thing only—the demand for nuclear disarmament. In fact, this is all they are required to agree upon. Outside of this they are just as “British-and proud of it” as any other supporter of Capitalism. They have the same nationalistic prejudice as other non-socialists. They uphold the same basic features of capitalism, wages, profits, trading and competitions for export markets, as the rest of the misled working-class. The sad truth is that the CND member is as surprised to learn and as reluctant to accept that the conflicts within capitalism give rise to war as any other workers.

Workers who vote Labour, Conservative, or so-called Communist have made their major blunder at the ballot box. They have voted capitalist politicians the power to maintain capitalism. They have given them the power to build armaments to maintain capitalist interests. To do this and then to march, demonstrate and protest at the effects of their own action presents rather a bewildering spectacle to say the least. After the elections, the capitalist class know that they can count on the overwhelming majority of the electorate for support in war preparation by appeals to patriotism and by posing as the champions of peace. Which all sides do.

To properly understand the arms race it must be seen as something complementary to the struggle for markets, oil and trade-routes. Not as a determined struggle between national leaders over their ideals or national ways of life. The only “way of life,” so far as the competing nations are concerned, is the capitalist way. The details of administration vary amongst the countries in both the great-power blocks, but their aims and methods of achievement are the same. It is not different ideals that set them at each other's throats; it is the scramble for resources and trade. In as much as the struggle for markets in pursuit of profit is fundamental to the capitalist scheme of things, so the conditions of conflict and war are all part of this system.

The production of armaments is a priority commitment of industry and resources for all major powers, both for their own use and that of their junior partners. To a tremendous extent since the end of the last war, world industry has been devoted to the production of means of destruction. Thousands of millions of pounds, dollars and roubles, etc., representing colossal amounts of materials and labour-time have been poured into the world war machines. The louder the competing States have voiced their peaceful intentions, the more and more murderous have become their inventions. Weapons have been developed and scrapped. Weapons have brought forth counter weapons and counter-counter weapons in the frenzy to make us feel secure. Great hopes are pinned on summit conferences, negotiations and mass demonstrations as the working class desperately looks for a way out of the capitalists’ nightmare.

To campaign for nuclear disarmament implies acceptance of so-called conventional armaments. The Socialist Party rejects this most dangerous attitude. We are often accused of taking an ivory-tower view of things that go on in the world from day to day. This accusation is made by people who do not understand what Socialism entails. Ours is a class attitude to capitalism in general and to war in particular.

We take the view that workers of all lands have fundamentally common interests. Workers own nothing of the vast vested interests of capitalism and have nothing to fight for since no working-class issue is involved in its thieves’ quarrels. This international Socialist outlook has kept us firmly in opposition to two world wars. We stick to our path not out of sectarian cussedness, but because the evidence shows it to be correct.

Harry Baldwin