Troubles of the Post-War World (1942)

From the September 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that World War the Big has already been going three years politicians are working hard on the “after-the-war” racket.

We know from the evidence of experts in industrial fatigue that the rate of the workers’ output cannot be raised above a certain level determined by the machinery at their disposal. According to Mr. Bevin this has been reached now in Great Britain.

“The great test now was not between British and German man-power, but between British and German managerial ability.” (Bevin, House of Commons, May 31st.)

The Economist considers that Russia has reached the peak of productive capacity.

It is held by some that German production is already declining. Though it should be added that statements about the internal condition of Germany frequently evoke scepticism.

Nevertheless, it would seem that a certain war-work weariness is due to set in, which inevitably produces a corresponding listlessness in regard to actual alleged “aims” of the war themselves.

Therefore, the Labour Party Conference, the T.U.C., the Co-operative Party and the various Trades Unions have all concerned themselves with “two issues. . . in the forefront … in all the conferences. One, the demand for the more vigorous prosecution of the war, the other . . . the conditions which must follow the victory of the forces of democracy.” (Transport Union Record, June, 1942.)

Probably the most typical and oracular was the Conference of the Labour Party.

“Two problems dominated Conference—the war effort and the problems of the peace that will follow. It was clear that the delegates were united in desiring a greater drive to win the war but they attached no less importance to the work of reconstruction, and they thought still more could be done to prepare for the peace now.” (Transport Record, June.)

And so, after the usual resolutions nationalising coal mining and transport now (to the consternation of the Labour Leaders, it looks as though the former is actually going to be partially applied), Mr. Harold Laski moved a resolution “asking for the socialisation of the country’s basic industries and services, after the war.” It affirmed that “there must be no return to an unplanned competitive system after the war.” And after all, perhaps some not very critical workers may be forgiven their pathetic faith in Labour Leaders when they read : “The organising of the world order which will make available to the people the goods they have produced is not impossible. It has long been the aim of the Trade Union movement. To-day the Atlantic Charter … to which the Soviet Union is now a party, and recent speeches of men of Cabinet rank, including Ernest Bevin, encourage us to believe that at last it has been brought within reach of achievement.” (Transport Record, June.)

At the risk of incurring some antagonism from those misled workers we have to state bluntly that the Atlantic Charter will do no such thing. Indeed, before the end of the World-War-the-Big is even in sight, there is documentary evidence giving proof in practice of what Socialists were stating theoretically before the Atlantic Charter was drafted.

Capital as an economic system causes antagonism between capitalists, to-day organised in colossal trusts. These conflicts of economic interest often lead to war. The Atlantic Charter is a document pledging the signatories not to exercise “undue discrimination” against each other in tariff barriers and customs duties. The result of this may be in practice that the weaker Allies are to throw their countries open to markets for the exports of the stronger, the final conquering of the world market by the U.S.A., and the collapse of the foreign trade monopoly in the Soviet Union, so highly prized by Lenin.

Already, as pointed out by Mr. Hobson, the News-Chronicle’s expert, these ideas clash directly with the Ottawa agreements, as the National Union of Manufacturers point out, while already industrial capitalists (e.g., Mr. R. Stokes, the “Labour” M.P., in his managing director’s address to the forty-sixth annual general meeting of Ransomes & Rapier, Ltd.) are protesting that “unless the Lease-Lend arrangements were fairly worked we would end the war with the whole of our export trade in the iron and steel industry gone . . . surely it was never intended that they should refrain from shipping any machinery abroad to any market, unless the Americans specifically stated they did not want that market.” So the most cunning capitalists find themselves beaten by the capitalist system, and the Atlantic Charter, so far from eliminating capitalism, and “organising a new world order,” may exacerbate it and “organise” a new world war.

So far as Mr. Bevin is concerned as a guarantee of a new world order after the war, he can best speak for himself.

Replying to Debate on the Essential Works Order, he claimed support for these orders on the ground that those hitherto casually employed had a guaranteed week. It cannot be denied that this is a great improvement in the lives of many dockers, building workers, etc., but like many such innovations it has been introduced because the war has created temporary insatiable demand.

Even so, some thick-headed employers are still. against it.

Says Mr. Bevin : “One of the greatest things that would smooth the working of the war would be for industry to come forward now and agree whole-heartedly to accept the basic principle of the Essential Work Order not only for the war—but for after the war.”

Two points emerge from this. First, the “working of the war” is apparently NOT smooth. Secondly, Mr. Bevin would regard it as a great achievement after the victory, if employers would pay regular weekly wages to casual workers.

Not the Atlantic Charter, not Mr. Bevin, but Socialist workers equipped with Socialist knowledge will bring the real new order—Socialism.

H. Y.