Letter: Socialists and Nuclear Disarmament (1959)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrades,

Although I am a supporter of the S.P.G.B. for the last ten years, it is not my usual practice to write to you whenever I happened to disagree with the Party on minor issues; but now I am compelled to write this letter, because the point I should like to raise here is a very important and a serious one—it is the Party’s relation towards the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (C.N.D.)—I have read your short A Point of View (May, 1959). I entirely agree on every point you raised and explained in relation to the cause of war and its remedy; but what I don’t agree, is your attitude towards C.N.D. It crystallizes in one single sentence in the first para. “We hold that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is on an unsound basis and inevitably leads in the wrong direction.”

I think this tendency to disassociate with a movement of this character and make judgment that it is uon an unsound basis” is due to your incorrect or false evaluation of the social forces. Most of you may be probably still thinking that it is a movement started by a few non socialists like Canon Collins or Michael Foot or Bertrand Russell or perhaps they (the leaders) might be conscious of the dangers of the present situation, but the people in general who follow them have no clear understanding of our society. This view or any other similar view which is trying to picture that movement as if it is completely dominated and controlled by such a leadership, is superficial, grossly incorrect and an oversimplification of the whole social process which brought C.N.D. into being.

New Consciousness

In the first place I should like to point out that it is not the leaders that came before the movement, but the movement armed with a new social consciousness pregnant with a new force of energy, which appeared first and then a set of leaders are born out of that specific social situation. In the last ten years powerful nations on both sides were boasting that they have more effective and better weapons of destruction than the other side. Many influential politicians and military leaders in Britain, Russia and America repeatedly stated that they are developing bigger and better bombs.

Along with this all round boasting they were actually strengthening all their forces of destruction and arming up to the teeth. Almost every aspect of society was alerted. A new awareness or perhaps consciousness began to develop among all sorts of people of the seriousness of the situation in which they are involved. They began to be conscious of the weakness of their social and political institutions which hitherto they supported, to prevent a new world war. They began to doubt the chance of their survival in the nuclear warfare. They felt it is their duty to “revolt” against this ridiculous situation where two great rival nations threaten each other by clenching their fists. It is this new social situation which gave birth to C.N.D. But this new social consciousness is blind. It has no eye to see the barrier in front of it which is to be removed for their survival. As one of the leading members (sociologist?) of the U.L.R. (Universities and Left Review) pointed out it is a “leaderless” movement. Unfortunately what he implied, later in his speech, was that U.L.R. should try to assume its leadership if not of the whole at least its youth section. Hundreds and thousands of people, especially youths, turned up and joined the C.N.D. fully conscious that they need something new, yet they did not know what they wanted!

It is true various types of political factions in C.N.D. are trying to utilize this blind consciousness as a ladder to climb to political power or at least to strengthen their original position, being utterly unaware of the significance of this new development. But it is the Socialists’ duty to move along with them in order to provide them with an eye so that they can see the barrier which stands in their way. In other words, we should try to create a situation so that the Socialist concept, as an eye, should assume the leadership of this new consciousness.

Isolation

I strongly hold the view that it was our duty, Socialists’ duty, either individually or collectively organized on a party basis, to march along with them with our own banners and slogans and take the opportunity of speaking to such a huge conscious gathering. We lost that opportunity! No Collins or Foots or Taylors can claim even the partial control or ownership of a movement of this character. Nor does it belong to them. It belongs to the whole society. In my view this kind of participation in C.N.D. is only a logical extension of what we had already been doing—selling our literature, discussing with non Socialist marchers etc. Now I begin to feel that it is this type of social isolation or regimentation of S.P.G.B. from the rest of the conscious and militant social forces (as Rosa Luxemburg indignantly pointed out about another aspect—the relation between the masses and the political leadership) which makes our unassailable case ineffective instead of being a powerful political force.

H. J. Panikkar. 

London.

Reply:

We regret that Mr. Panikkar’s letter was too long to publish in full.

During its 55 years of existence, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has seen many organisations which like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, have been pledged to abolish a particular evil of capitalist society. The hunger marchers and the pacifists of the 1930’s were described as movements “armed with a new social consciousness.” Today, members of Road Safety Committees can possibly be described in the same way— at least their death statistics are less in dispute than those of the C.N.D. In truth, as capitalism throws up problems, so it throws up organisations which try to deal with one or more of them in isolation. There is no doubt about the sincerity of some of these movements, or that they concern themselves with very real and terrifying matters. But because they do not demand an understanding of the roots of the problems, their efforts are doomed to futility.

Because of this socialists have no place in these organisations. But this does not prevent them stating, at every possible opportunity, the socialist attitude to such horrors as war. We do not isolate ourselves from our opponents, we are always eager to put our case to them. Mr. Panikkar cannot have missed, on page 78 of the May Socialist Standard, the account of our activities at the last Aldermaston March. This is typical of S.P.G.B. work, whatever non-socialist organisation we are dealing with.

Weapons of war are inseparable from war itself. To abolish them, we must get rid of war. These are caused by the clash of interests between groups of capitalists who want to protect or exploit markets and fields of valuable natural wealth. The need to do this is the result of the fact that, in capitalist society, goods and services are produced with the motive of profitable sale. Obviously, each group will strive to arm itself more powerfully—which means more destructively—than its opponents. Hence the development of modern weapons and the horrors of nuclear warfare. We can solve this problem by abolishing private property. Only a socialist movement can effectively advocate this.

In contrast, the C.N.D. is in favour of the continuation of capitalism. It does not even oppose capitalism's wars, but wants them to be gentlemanly affairs in which people are killed by conventional armaments. Even on the score of nuclear weapons, the C.N.D. is confused. Many of its members support the return of another Labour government—yet the last one started the British H-bomb and missile programmes. This confusion is typical of organisations which may be well meaning, but lack the essential knowledge with which every socialist is equipped. Mr. Panikkar claims that C.N.D. members are ". . . conscious of the weakness of their social and political institutions . . . to prevent a new world war.” Our guess is that the next election will see them voting for the very political parties which administer the capitalist basis of those social and political institutions.

Marches and demonstrations are glamourous and exciting. Alongside, our insistence on knowledge may seem rather dull. But the marchers are going to dissension and futility. The socialist movement alone offers the world any hope.

Editorial Committee.

Blogger's Note:

This is the 16,000th post on the blog.

A Message for Aldermaston Marchers. (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

When your house is on fire you drop everything until you have put out the flames: and if your neighbours come in to help, you are glad to see them, without asking whether they are vegetarians or teetotallers or anything else. So might the campaign for Nuclear Disarmament argue, to justify the political diversity of their membership, united as it is only in the desire to abolish nuclear weapons.

We can all agree that these weapons are monstrous. The two Japanese cities were terrible enough: since then, the bombs have been made many times more destructive. The Home Office publication Nuclear Weapons estimated that a bomb a little smaller than that exploded by the Americans at Bikini in 1954 would cause total or irreparable damage for a radius of six miles and would certainly kill everybody within half a mile, by burns if not from other causes. A Chief Inspector of Fire Brigades has said that a hydrogen bomb on London could cause 100,000 fires—and might temporarily alter the course of the Thames. These forebodings are several years old. Now we have even bigger bombs, and rockets which can deliver them over thousands of miles. Yes, nuclear weapons must be abolished. How can it be done?

What if the governments yielded to the pressure of the nuclear disarmers and agreed to scrap their bombs? This would be worth no more than all the other solemn vows to disarm, or to refrain from taking up arms, or to be non-aggressive, which governments, when it suited them, have broken in the past. The fact that Germany in 1919 signed an agreement not to arm did not prevent her becoming a powerful military nation a few years later. The non-aggression pact of 1939 between Germany and Russia did not prevent the conflict of 1941-45. But let us suppose that governments, strangely, kept the promise to forego their nuclear weapons. That would only take us back to 1945, when wars were fought with blockbusters and flame throwers and Napalm bombs. There is nothing desirable about that. Or we could make a really good job of it and go back to the weapons of 1914-18. Or 1870, or 1415 or 1066.

Of course, it is foolish to expect a modern government to run an army of longbowmen. It seems too obvious to say that as one country develops a weapon, so the others must find one similar or better. That is how the military aircraft and the nuclear bomb, for example, were born. Nowadays, no foreign minister has much of a say unless he has a fistful of H-bombs. In the last election campaign, Sir Winston Churchill said, ". . . you are more likely to obtain a hearing for your views if you have some substantial stake in the balance of world power. And these stakes . . . are still much measured in military terms." To win a stake in world power, the French and Chinese are working up their atom bombs—and the established nuclear powers, to keep their stake, have to make rockets and missiles with Hydrogen bomb war heads.

When the first French atom bomb was exploded a few weeks back. General de Gaulle exclaimed, “Hurrah for France! " He knew that he was really saying hurrah for destruction and death, because that is what military power means. But military power is only necessary to modern states because in peace and war, they are struggling for economic advantage. This is a world where everything is produced with the intention of selling it profitably, which means that sellers compete for markets, manufacturers for plentiful raw material sources and transporters for trading routes. These are the disputes which, when everything else fails, are settled by force—by war. So France hangs on to Algeria for, among other things, the oil that is there. So Britain fought for years in Cyprus, because it is a base near the strategically important Suez Canal and the vital Middle East oilfields. So the last two world wars were started—and so a third could start if, for example, Russian economic influence in the Middle East or the Caribbean became too great a threat to British and American interests.

In these conditions, national states are bound to maintain a military machine to fight for the interests of their ruling classes and to equip that machine with the most powerful—the most deadly— weapons possible. It is futile to expect them to do otherwise. In 1917, it would have been suicidal for them to have thrown away their tanks, or in 1944 their bombers. In 1960 they are similarly reluctant to give up their nuclear bombs. There is only one way to deal effectively with this problem. Go to the roots. The capitalist system is the cause, from beginning to end, of modern war and the horrifying methods of its prosecution.

Marching from Aldermaston, sitting in the mud at Swaffham, or lying in jail, the nuclear campaigners deserve our respect for their concern with one of the horrors of modern society. But we can only regret that so much energy is wasted in such a topsy-turvy movement. If it is desirable to abolish one weapon of war, how much more so is it to get rid of them all? Or to get rid of war itself? Our house is burning because it is made of inflammable materials—and people will keep dropping lighted matches. It is useless to tackle each fire as it breaks out. We must build ourselves a new house.

Ivan.

Why has CND failed? (1963)

From the April 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

The way from Aldermaston is now a well trodden road. For some unilateralists, perhaps too well trodden; it is no secret that this year’s march may be the last.

CND have always made the most of the art of clever publicity; possibly this is what they will be remembered for before anything else. They have sat in the roadway, planted seeds on the other side of airfield wire, auctioned the Air Force’s nuclear bombers. This, said CND, was the way to attract support for the case for banning the bomb. Have they failed, or succeeded?

CND has failed. This country is now no nearer to abandoning its nuclear weapons than it was when CND came into existence. The present government, as well as any which is likely to take power in the foreseeable future, is firm on this. That affable, informative fellow the Average Man, when asked if he is in favour of getting rid of nuclear weapons, will reply that of course he is in favour—provided Russia and America and the rest of the world give up theirs as well. That is the answer he would have given before the first Aldermaston march. With him, in other words, we are back at Square One.

Whether they admit to it or not, CND implicity recognise their failure. They have still not tested the effect of their smart publicity at the polls. The few unilateralists who are in, or near to, Parliament are careful to stand first under the banner of one of the big capitalist parties, who are all committed to keep the bomb when they are in power. A pure CND candidate would win very few votes. In fact, the marches and demonstrations have not affected the enduring support which the mass of the British working class give to their masters’ interests. This is what CND have been up against and they have made no headway. But the weapons which they set out to abolish have made headway. They have got bigger and stronger and more terrifying and they can reach ever further across the world.

The Campaign is not the first reformist organisation to come roaring onto the scene, full of enthusiasm and good intentions, only to fail. There have been plenty of others before and they have always failed for the same basic reason. The Aldermaston marchers have been travelling in exactly the wrong direction, have been coming in at the wrong end. Their propaganda has taken no account of the reasons for the existence of nuclear weapons. This has not necessarily been through ignorance of those reasons; perhaps some members of CND know them well enough. But such organisations cannot, by their very nature, concentrate upon the cause of the evils they try to deal with.

Reformists always treat their problems in isolation from the rest of capitalism. Pacifists think of war as a problem on its own; charitable organisations consider poverty to be something like a personal accident. CND regards the Bomb as an evil which can be separated from its surroundings.

But nuclear weapons have not come upon us haphazardly. They are, in fact, another stage in the development of weapons which has followed closely the economic and social growth of society. Ever since primitive man first fumbled with his crude missiles, weapons have been important to men. At first they were productive—they could bring man his food. But the development of class society brought men into conflict over wider issues than the possession of a carcass, and weapons were used in these conflicts. They were also used to suppress the under-classes in society. This was the situation which capitalism found waiting for it and which, like previous systems, it adapted to its interests.

Capitalism separated its workers from weapons in the same way as it separated them from the means of production. Its wealth is made in concentrated factories, from material which has been brought from all over the world. The people who make this wealth do not own the factories, the material nor the finished product; they only work, in fact, when it suits the capitalist to allow them to do so. Similarly, the people who use capitalism's weapons do not own them and are only brought into contact with them, in the Armed Forces, when capitalism’s interests demand that they should be. This social development has taken place at the same time as capitalism has expanded its weapons in the technical sense. Today, the dominant armaments are of such a nature that it is quite impossible for the people who operate them to own them.

The development of capitalism’s weapons has been a natural result of the expansion of its productive powers. It is a drab, familiar story. One of capitalism’s first modern wars—the American Civil War—gave birth to the Gatling gun, a forerunner of the machine guns which, with their pitiless killing, were a dominant weapon in the First World War. That war also saw the beginning of the answer to the machine gun—the tanks lumbering painfully across No Man’s Land. It also saw, more ominously, the first organised air-raids against a civilian population. We may wonder, now, at the terror which Breithaupt and Mathy and the other Zeppelin commanders struck into London, with their tiny, scattered bombs, for these weapons were the predecessors of those, smaller than a Zeppelin, which can now wipe out London in a few seconds.

Nuclear bombs were the child of the Second World War. It is grimly appropriate that the destruction of Hiroshima should have been watched by one of the successors of the Zeppelin commanders— Leonard Cheshire, who was awarded the V.C. for his part in the terror bombing of German cities. Since 1945 baby has grown up a lot and is now frightening the life out of us with his destructive potential. Baby has many names—Skybolt, Polaris and whatever the Russians call their mass killers.

Protests

Capitalism’s contribution to the development of man’s weapons has been that, more than any other social system, it has organised human skill and knowledge to make it possible for man to destroy himself. We might expect that there will be protests about this. CND protests; so do many other organisations. Some of them tell us how much better the world would be without war. The Guardian of March 11th last gave an account of a report by a study group of an organisation called the United World Trust:

It concludes by emphasising “ the enormous benefit ” that disarmament would bring to every section of the community. “It will provide a unique opportunity for the Government to promote a faster rate of economic growth and prosperity for all,” it claims.

This seems quite unexceptional, until we reflect that the same argument is used about all the other wasteful problems of capitalism. We all know that life would be very much better if they were all abolished. But that is where the reformists always fail; despite all their efforts, the problems remain and life is not so good. 

So what are we to do about it? Human knowledge and technical skill are bound to develop with the passing of time. There is nothing wrong in this; in a sensible world it could be of immense benefit to humanity. Certainly we cannot turn time backwards. Man cannot lose the knowledge he has gained—even the knowledge which is useless and harmful. He cannot forget how to fly, nor how to make explosives, nor can he lose the principles of nuclear power. Such knowledge could be an asset to society. If it is a curse, as it is at present, our job is to find the reason for this; rather than blame the knowledge, we should try to discover why it is put to such anti-social uses.

Modern war springs from the basis of capitalism. A social system which makes its wealth for sale has got to have an interest in its markets and in fields of cheap, accessible raw materials. But it will find that its markets, for one reason or another, are limited and so it will have to fight over them. It will find that it's impossible to agree over the right to the raw materials and so it will have to fight over that as well. Capitalism causes modern war and so it needs the best of modem weapons to fight them with. That is why it so readily adapts its techniques of social production to the making and the using of weapons and harnesses invaluable human knowledge and skill in the dreaming up of ever more horrific armaments.

Capitalism debases human ability and diverts it from what is its most useful and sensible field. Capitalism makes clever scientists into destructive fiends. It searches out the cataclysmic secrets of the very substance of matter. It takes the boy next door and turns him into a paratrooper or a bomber pilot; it transforms gentle men into brutal killers.

CND, and some of the other reformists, see part of this and they do not like what they see. But they blame the government, or perhaps the soldiers, or the scientists. That is all futility and failure. The right place to start solving these problems is at the bottom—at the basis of capitalist society. Until Socialism is established, there will be many more Aldermastons and even bigger and worse bombs will be made there. The unilateralists have failed, but that is not to say that the energy and social conscience which some of them may have cannot be put to good use.

Why don't you come our way?

Ivan

CND at 30 (1988)

From the May 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

For their own sakes it is to be hoped that the marchers on CND's 30th anniversary trek this Easter did not think they had any reason for celebration. They were repeatedly urged not to be nostalgic, for as Pat Arrowsmith, who was on the first march in 1958 and has been on unnumbered protests since, put it. "The issues are still alive and the young people here today are fighting an even harder battle than the one we began 30 years ago". Wait a minute: issues still alive, after 30 years? Harder battles than ever? CND was formed, and launched its protests, on the theory that huge public demonstrations were the quickest and most effective method of persuading the government to get rid of nuclear weapons. This was, in 1958, an urgent matter, to be dealt with before we could turn our attention to any basic changes in society. If something was not done quickly things would get a lot worse; why, there could be submarines cruising the oceans capable of firing nuclear missiles while still submerged; or missiles which could slip through radar screens by a low-level flight to their target; or a galactic nuclear conflict as the super-powers strove to disable each other's missiles out in space.

Early optimism

Since 1958 we have had four changes of government and numerous CND marches. The governments have been unmoved; the situation has got worse. Not only have the disowners failed to remove the problem quickly but what effect they have had — or can now hope to have — can be assessed by the fact that they still feel a compelling reason to protest and that another of their veteran campaigners can say, in 1988:

 But although we know atomic weapons will never disappear, it is clear that their development is being intensified against all political claims of disarmament. (Liz Baker, Observer, 3 April)

In spite of that rueful admission that CND never had a hope of persuading the government to change its mind and, whatever the other powers did, throw away its nuclear weapons, it is true that the early CND marches encouraged a measure of optimism. In June 1960, after observing the march that year, a contributor to the Socialist Standard could write:

  Yet there is some comfort in this march. After the barren years of the delinquents, large numbers of people seem to be getting active in a movement of protest against a social problem.

That was a reaction, not so much to the promise of CND as to the frustration of confronting years of complacency among a working-class who seemed popularly to agree with Harold Macmillan that they had never had it so good. Especially galling was the fact that this cynicism was so apparent in young people, who excused it with the assertion that social problems were peculiar to, and the fault of, an earlier generation. CND was significant for puncturing that complacency and. by focussing the unease about nuclear destruction, encouraging young people to question what capitalist society was all about. A few youngsters even got the answer right, left CND and joined the movement for a socialist revolution. Many of the rest could not surmount the reformist obstacle of a preference for massaging symptoms rather than excising their cause.

Changing tactics

But misplaced enthusiasm can breed only confusion and CND was quickly blundering from one desperate expedient to another. There was a heavily publicised split over the emergence of the Committee of 100, much of whose appeal was that they had attracted Bertrand Russell to their ranks. Surely, someone who could write all those clever books on philosophy couldn't be wrong about the way to get rid of nuclear arms? The Committee's argument was that the government would take little account of orderly marches and rallies; what was needed to make them sit up and take notice was a lot of people sitting down in the middle of the road. The resultant disruption and publicity would soon bring the government to its knees, willing to throw away its nuclear armoury rather than subject the motorists of London to another moment's delay in a traffic jam. What actually happened was that the police were sent in to lug the demonstrators out of the way and to arrest those of them who particularly did not want to be removed. Meanwhile. far away from the scene of it all, the production of nuclear weapons continued its uncongested way.

Since then CND has changed its line often enough to satisfy the most erratic of reformist tacticians. At one time it was into direct action, by which it meant diverting a few of the more athletic demonstrators into attempts to storm Regional Seats of Government. If CND expected a great howl of outrage at their revealing the existence of these places they were badly mistaken; a more likely response from the working class was one of gratitude, that the government should so thoughtfully provide somewhere for what was left of British capitalism to be administered after the nuclear holocaust. There was another spell, when CND seemed likely to cease being a single-issue movement and join itself to the long list of organisations which campaign, day in and day out. about wages, housing, poverty, health and the rest. It has tried high-profile leaders like Joan Ruddock and Bruce Kent and low profile, like the present. One tactic it has not considered: a campaign against class society as the cause of war and all weapons, nuclear and conventional.

Courting Labour’s leaders

Much of CND's energy — its enthusiasm and its despair — has gone into its long battle to win over the Labour Party. To some extent this was understandable, since so many Labour leaders have been keen to be associated with them. The most prominent of these, Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock, have been at the head of many a march, and Foot told the rally at the start of this year's march:

  I came to the march in 1958 with a different dog but with the same wife. This march is a sign that the campaign will go on until nuclear weapons are wiped off the face of the galaxy. It has nothing to do with nostalgia.

A strong, ambitious way of imparting the same message of failure as Pat Arrowsmith and Liz Baker. But there is one very important difference. Not so long ago Foot, as Labour leader, was bidding to become prime minister, to lead a government whose party had in theory committed it to unilaterally getting rid of British nuclear weapons. How strong, how ambitious was he then? Well, at Labour's 1982 conference he was arguing for multilateral nuclear disarmament — for all the nuclear powers doing it at the same time — which was a long way from CND policy. Foot's words then might just as easily have been in the mouth of Reagan or Gorbachev or of any Tory claimant to a policy of peace and disarmanent:

  The greatest task which this Labour Party will have to take (sic) is to carry out our policy for securing nuclear disarmament in this country, and throughout the world.

During the 1983 general election, pushed into a comer by Tory propaganda that a Labour government would eagerly abolish the military power of British capitalism — a myth which won the Tories a lot of misinformed votes — Foot firmly pledged a "strong defence (his word for it) for Britain and Britain's allies" and a continuing adherence to the nuclear armed, American dominated, power bloc of NATO. Asked about Labour's commitment not to abolish British nuclear arms but only to get rid of one kind of them the Polaris missile — Foot was clumsily evasive: "Read the statement carefully and read the manifesto carefully and clarity will descend on all quarters".

CND’s “successes”

What did not descend on all quarters was the assurance that a Labour government would be be less resolved to keep a British bomb than would a Tory one. Foot was trying to juggle with his misled party activists on one hand and the voting British working class on the other. The activists were of course let fall. By 1983, with Kinnock in the leadership, the confusion was less; Labour's election manifesto was quite clear that a Labour government would keep the bomb while trying to start negotiations to remove some of the weapons from Europe as a step, they argued, towards them being abolished together, all over the world — much the same as the recent deal between Russia and America over the INF missiles.

Which brings us to what CND claims to have been its successes. The "success" of the 1963 Test Ban Treaty can be gauged against the subsequent developments in nuclear warheads and delivery systems, not to mention the increase in the number of weapons in the world since then. It is a strange sort of remedy, which is followed by the complaint getting worse. Last year's INF treaty should remove some of the less powerful weapons from some places but it was followed by the nuclear powers scrambling to plug the gaps which the treaty opened in their armouries. It is a peculiar type of success, which looks likely to leave us worse off — more threatened, less secure — than before. In any case CND had mixed feelings about each of these "successes", fearing to make too much of them in case they convinced too many people that the cause of nuclear disarmament had won the day and need not be supported any longer.

Foreseeable failure

In human beings the age of 30 is seen as an important threshold, when workers have a rough idea of how the rest of their lives will be spent — what type of exploitation they will get their living at, how long they will be chained to their mortgage, what they feel about the people they have agreed to spend the rest of their lives with. Personal horizons, over which we disappear when we die, can be described, albeit a long way off. Failures, mistakes and prospects can be evenly assessed. CND at thirty might try the same exercise, asking themselves why all that well-intentioned energy has been so sadly misplaced. Is their fear of nostalgia more a morbid suspicion that their failure must extend into the foreseeable future?

Ivan

Wonders of modern science (1981)

From the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

In this age of advanced technology, we may often wonder at the marvels modem science can perform. One research organisation, in its guide for applicants tells us:

  Already, using novel and indeed sometimes revolutionary techniques, we have subjected materials to pressures greater than those at the centre of the earth, accelerated them to speeds greater than escape velocity and heated them to temperatures only exceeded at the centre of some stars.

  Observational techniques form an integral part of such experimental studies and provide a challenge in themselves. The extreme states with which we are concerned can only, for the most part, be maintained under laboratory conditions for intervals of a microsecond or less. We have therefore had to evolve diagnostic methods of extreme refinement working to tolerances that even a few years ago would have seemed impossible and are still in many cases almost unique and we have already been able, in only a few years, to extend our know ledge of those extreme states which lie on the frontiers of science.

  However, our activities are not restricted to these areas of physics: a wide variety of work is carried out and some of the other main fields of research are in lasers, effects of nuclear radiation on materials, plasma physics and solid state physics.

  Our programme of research is so wide and our resources so varied that our vacancies cover a wide field ranging from explosive studies to optics and from electrical phenomena to seismology. This booklet describes some of the physics in which we are interested. It serves to give an idea of the range of our work but it is necessarily only a selection.

The organisation is “looking for Science and Engineering Graduates who are willing to give all their skills and talents to this important, interesting and rewarding task”. What exactly is this task, you may ask? Why, building atomic bombs, of course! The Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, located at Aldermaston and Foulness (le nom juste), may well entice several scientifically trained wage slaves into working for them with impressive sentiments like these. In a socialist (sane) society, they could have the satisfaction of using their “skills and talents” for the benefit of all humanity. In the madhouse of capitalism they can use them to develop weapons that will wipe out large sections of humanity instead.

BKS

50 Years Ago: A Message for Aldermaston Marchers (2010)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the first French atom bomb was exploded a few weeks back, General de Gaulle exclaimed, “Hurrah for France!” He knew that he was really saying hurrah for destruction and death, because that is what military power means. But military power is only necessary to modern states because in peace and war, they are struggling for economic advantage. This is a world where everything is produced with the intention of selling it profitably, which means that sellers compete for markets, manufacturers for plentiful raw material sources and transporters for trading routes. These are the disputes which, when everything else fails, are settled by force—by war (…)

In these conditions, national states are bound to maintain a military machine to fight for the interests of their ruling classes and to equip that machine with the most powerful—the most deadly— weapons possible. It is futile to expect them to do otherwise. In 1917, it would have been suicidal for them to have thrown away their tanks, or in 1944 their bombers. In 1960 they are similarly reluctant to give up their nuclear bombs. There is only one way to deal effectively with this problem. Go to the roots. The capitalist system is the cause, from beginning to end, of modern war and the horrifying methods of its prosecution.

Marching from Aldermaston, sitting in the mud at Swaffham, or lying in jail, the nuclear campaigners deserve our respect for their concern with one of the horrors of modern society. But we can only regret that so much energy is wasted in such a topsy-turvy movement. If it is desirable to abolish one weapon of war, how much more so is it to get rid of them all? Or to get rid of war itself?

(From article by Ivan, Socialist Standard, April 1960)

To Campaigners for Nuclear Disarmament (2008)

From the March 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

The first ban-the-bomb march from Aldermaston to London took place at Easter 50 years ago. We reprint here a leaflet we put out for the 1961 CND March.

“Writing only a few years after the end of the second world war and witnessing on every hand the active preparations for another on an even more gigantic scale, it is not necessary to emphasise that war is literally an issue of life and death for men, women and children in every part of the globe. Nor is it necessary to prove at length that another war may be immeasurably more destructive of life and the means of sustaining life than were the wars from which the human race has suffered already during the present century. Everybody who takes even a casual interest in news of the atom and hydrogen bombs and other weapons of mass destruction of cities and peoples has received some impression of the agonising fate that may be in store for all the centres of civilisation if the Powers again come into armed conflict.” (From Socialist Party and War, June 1950).

Ten years ago the writer stood on a Socialist Party platform in a North London suburb, flourishing a copy of the “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.” The atomic scientists had written with concern – many with disgust – about the horrible effects of the weapon (conceived in 1942), which in desperate haste, the American Government was developing in an attempt to maintain its atomic supremacy – the “Hydrogen Bomb.”

Few stopped to listen. People did not want to hear about nuclear weapons or war or politics. They had had their fill. The piteous agonies of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively unknown and their import not understood. Such knowledge tormented only an insignificant few who lacked the resources to make known all the terrors of the past and the perils of the future. Others even more knowledgeable, such as the Labour Cabinet, under Mr Attlee, whose representative was present at the bombing of Nagasaki, quietly arranged the making of a British atomic bomb – thereby smoothing the way for nuclear weapon development under the Conservatives. The so-called Communists who in 1945 had called for further attacks on Japan, were engaged in nullifying the Western monopoly of atomic striking power by a hypocritical “Ban the Bomb” campaign.

Later, in 1954, the tragic incident of the Japanese fishermen aroused the anger of millions in Japan and stirred many thousands in other countries to protest. In Britain information about the nature of atomic weapons was gradually assimilated and after a number of false starts, the National Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapon Tests came into being. From it, in 1958, sprang the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Long before the emergence of the anti-nuclear movement, members of the Socialist Party had become aware of the problems associated with nuclear warfare and weapon tests. Did the use or testing of nuclear weapons make it necessary to modify our political standpoint in any way? Must we deal with the nuclear menace first in order to make the world safe for Socialism? Much discussion ensued and in this article, therefore, we put forward a point of view which is neither a dogmatic response to a new situation nor a hastily conceived compromise designed to gain political support.

As there are still a number of “Campaigners” who are attempting to change Labour Party policy, it may be useful to comment briefly on the Labour Party’s actions in the past. In its history it has supported several major wars; it was in office when the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. It has supported the testing of nuclear weapons and in fact, is committed to the use of hydrogen bombs in an “all-out” war.

Those who support the Labour Party – which is alleged to have been struggling for Socialism and the “Brotherhood of Man” – are now reduced after fifty-four years of “Socialist” thinking and re-thinking, to seek CND support on grounds which, were the issues not so tragic, would be laughable. After having played a vital part in the making and using of atomic weapons they have the effrontery to claim a sympathetic hearing from “Campaigners” on the grounds that a minority of the Labour Party are now wholly or partly opposed to nuclear weapons – and this is supposed to be a “Socialist” Party!

In 1950, the writer recalls asking a Labour Party member how he could reconcile his party’s support of atomic weapons with its professed concern for human brotherhood. After a very apologetic defence, his parting words were. “Ah! Wait for the Conference! We’ll show the right-wingers!” Every year we have heard the same pathetic tale. Now, when pressure from CND and elsewhere has made an anti-nuclear weapon vote a possibility at the Labour Party Conference, the Parliamentary Labour Party is considering ways to avoid implementing such a decision! It is a tragedy that so many well-meaning people spend their lives attempting to build a more sensible world through the Labour Party. If they pondered deeply they would see that in the early days of this century, when Labour Party supporters chose to disregard the sounder theoretical (and therefore more practical) position of the Socialist Party, the path was taken which eventually led to Labour Party support of the trench massacres, the deliberate saturation bombing of working class dwelling areas, the atomic bombings, nuclear weapons and their testing and other chemical and bacteriological weapons. May we say to those young people who seek to use the Labour Party as an instrument of social change, that the problems which now confront us are, in fact, the result of the allegedly more practical policies of those parties prepared to administer capitalism. It would be quite illogical to assist those who bear a share of the responsibility for a world where our innocent children play in the shadow of deadly rockets, as yet unaware of the insidious strontium in their bones.

Do not fall under the spell of left-wing orators who one minute talk feelingly of a world socialist community and who, in the next breath, admit that the Labour Party is hardly ‘socialist’.

Whenever the deeds of the Labour Party give rise to dismay among its active minority, wherever there is the possibility that numbers way break away, there always appears to be on hand, a ‘militant’ left-wing leader to challenge’ the leadership, to thunder against capitalism or “the Establishment” and to give fresh hope to the doubtful.

When, however, it is time for voting, it is not unknown for these ‘militants’ to seek support for the Party whose policy they had bitterly opposed!

We do not question their sincerity. We merely point out that this kind of action is inevitable while these left-wing leaders give their support to parties which are prepared to administer capitalism.

What is required is not a trust in leaders and their promises but an attitude of self-reliance and a determination on the part of ordinary people to understand the nature of world problems.

The Communist Party?

In 1945, two days after the bombing of Hiroshima, the Russian Rulers fearing, perhaps, a belated American attempt to deprive them of some of the spoils of Yalta, hastened to declare war on Japan. A right to participate in the final share-out of the Far Eastern loot; a desire to safeguard their sphere of influence, these were the real concerns of the Russian Government. No protest at a sickening outrage. No sorrow expressed at the agonies of the Hiroshima victims, the seared, stunned survivors; the radio-active remnants of what had been men, women and little children! So much for the party of Lenin and Stalin in the glorious fight for Peace!

The Russian Government has not hesitated to test high-yield nuclear weapons when it has considered this necessary, and it has contributed its share of Strontium 90 to the atmosphere. It Is obvious that the major H-Bomb Powers have carried out sufficient large-scale nuclear weapon tests for their Immediate needs – this is the main reason for the suspension of such tests. It should be noted, however, that in common with the Western Powers, the U.S.S.R., in spite of its propaganda sallies, did not commit itself to unconditional, unilateral cessation of these tests – it reserved the right to resume if it deemed that its security was in jeopardy. Time-honoured diplomatic double-talk!

It must not be thought that Russia comes into conflict with the other powers because of. ideological reasons; because its social system is alleged to be “Socialist.”

Russia is a capitalist country. All the basic features of capitalism exist there; class monopoly of the means or production, backed up by a powerful state apparatus, the dominance of commodity production and the profit motive, the subjection of the majority to wage-labour, the “anarchy or production” called “state planning;” all are there.

All modern nations have these basic attributes. They may have particular features arising from the different national and economic backgrounds from which capitalism developed in each country. Each emerging capitalist class was born into a certain historical situation. The new industrial capitalists of England in the nineteenth century had the world at their feet; the later arrivals to the capitalist jungle, while having advantages in being able to learn and apply the latest techniques, found themselves surrounded by already entrenched rivals.

It is not what men think or say about themselves that is crucial to the analysis of a social system. It is how they are related to other men about the means of production, what role they play in the productive process, what, in fact, they do. In struggling with the traditional capitalist groups of the world, the top representatives of Russian capitalism, are different in no fundamental way. They are all as helpless to prevent war, and all as ruthless in its prosecution when diplomacy has failed.

The Campaign?

What have we to say about the Campaign itself? To Socialists, to see so many people expressing their displeasure, after a long period of political inactivity, at the stupidity and recklessness of their rulers, was a refreshing change. Discontent, however, if it is not to undergo an eventual decline from determined idealism to a hopeless cynicism, must partake of sound theory. What has held “Campaigners” together, so far, has been a common revulsion against one of the weapons of mass-murder and a belief that even if the movement was divided in its aims and methods, it was the only means by which the semi-apathetic majority of ordinary people, on whom the pro-Bomb parties relied for support, could be shaken from their dangerous lethargy.

When one examines the propositions of the Campaign (“Sanity or Suicide” Page 8), its inadequacies can clearly be seen. CND says that all wars, even if they did not start as nuclear wars, would become nuclear wars, because the losing side would use nuclear weapons. If it accepts that all wars are going to be nuclear wars, then it follows that it should oppose all wars. It does not take up this position, however, at no time has it advocated opposition to conventional programmes.

The fundamental weakness of the Campaign is emphasised in one of its own comments on the subject of nuclear weapons, for it says: “Even if they had been outlawed and stocks destroyed, the knowledge would be there in the heads of the scientists and they’d be made again.” In other words, even if the Campaign achieved its aim it would soon have to start all over again . . . and again! If, as it suggests, however, society would not survive another war, it would be wiser to take sound political action rather than wait to see the awful results of an admittedly futile policy.

Some “Campaigners,” while agreeing that capitalism is the cause of war in the modern world, maintain that although a new social organisation may be necessary, a nuclear war would prevent the establishment of this, perhaps for all time, and therefore the anti-nuclear movement should be given priority over Socialism. This argument is logically unsound; it assumes that which has yet to be demonstrated. It presupposes that the campaign will be able to prevent a nuclear war occurring. For the Campaign to “succeed” it must have a majority of people who are opposed unconditionally to nuclear weapons, in the major countries of the world. These majorities must be prepared to oppose their own governments, to put aside all nationalistic or racial feeling, and be immune to all attempts of their rulers to influence them during periods of international crisis and tension. Is it possible that such international solidarity could be achieved by a movement which is composed of so many fundamentally diverse elements and which lacks any clear conception of an alternative to our inhuman social system? Only a revolutionary Socialist consciousness could ensure such a united unshakeable attitude and in that event the question of opposition to nuclear weapons alone would be redundant.

Some members of CND are conscious of its lack of a positive social policy and they have devoted much effort to examining the causes of war and other current social problems. It does not seem, however, that the depth and value of the genuine Marxist analysis of society have yet been understood. The leaders of the Campaign still have many illusions about the effectiveness of the United Nations Organisation as an instrument for peace, although they are not unmindful of the economic and political pressures which can be brought to bear on it by the two great power blocs. Sincere attempts to initiate a serious discussion within their movement seldom go beyond a humane liberalism; even the contributions of its associates in the New Left movement are devoid of any ideas radically different from their political predecessors of past decades.

The Vote

It is worth recalling that, during the last General Election, the CND was reluctant to demand of its members that they should abstain from supporting candidates who were not unconditionally opposed to all aspects of nuclear weapon policy.

The S.P.G.B. is opposed to war, and is opposed unconditionally to all weapon tests of any kind by any government. We do not seek support at election times on specific issues other than that of Socialism in the sense that we mean, i.e. a world-wide system without frontiers, where the means of production and distribution are held in common and production is carried on solely in order to meet human needs.

In our election literature we write to ensure, as far as possible, that only people who agree with our fundamental position will vote for our candidates. No advantage can ever accrue to a genuine socialist party from vote catching.

Members of the S.P.G.B. vote only for S.P.G.B. candidates or, where there are none, they abstain or spoil their voting papers. Our view is that there is no way out of the contemporary dilemma other than by the building of a new kind of society.

Conditions favoured the rapid growth of the CND. Who could foresee the results of active, determined, knowledgeable support of genuine socialist ideals, by those who have become disenchanted with the political parties and groups that sought to lead them?

Branch News (1962)

Party News from the June 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Branch news usually means what it says, but this month we are happy to include so much news of Socialist activity throughout April and May concerning England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, New Zealand and Canada that to give the full reports of activities the whole of the Standard could well be used. Nevertheless, although it is greatly condensed. it is with pleasure that we report on the splendid work done by comrades during the past two months.

Glasgow. Municipal Election results. 

• Pre-election outdoor and indoor meetings to audiences of from 20 to 100:
• Literature sales—30s.
• Collections. £2 10s. 0d. (at April 30th meeting at Woodside Halls).
• Literature canvassing—Over 700 Socialist Standards (February. March and April). Pamphlets—6s. 8d. 
• Total sales—£17 18s. 2d.
• 8.000 Election Manifestos distributed also 1.500 “Introducing the S.P.G.B.’’ leaflets.

Publicity: the most spectacular effort in this direction was Comrade Mulheron's appearance on the Scottish Television programme:— “Here and Now”. This was a programme which dealt with the North Kelvin Election and interviews with all six parties. Regretfully the interview was brief, but our spokesman crammed as much as possible into the few seconds allowed him. Although the propaganda value of this very brief appearance was perhaps not very great, it at least sets the precedent for future appearances.

There was very little Press publicity apart from many mentions that the SPGB was one of the six contesting parties. But the Scottish Daily Express did consider that they considered the Party a “far left group”.

Polling: 76 votes were registered. Members of the Glasgow Branch summed up as follows: “We consider this, our first effort at a Municipal Election in Glasgow, a success from two standpoints:—

1. The experience gained of organising meetings in the area, distributing Manifestos and literature, and of the legal set-up at election time.
2. The amount of literature sold, the valuable opportunity of getting our case over to the workers, and the prestige gained for the Party in Glasgow.

We see no reason why we should not contest more and more elections in Glasgow in the future, with, we are sure, greater success in the light of this experience.

World Socialist Party of Ireland. Much activity is afoot in Belfast where for the first time the Party is contesting the forthcoming National election in the Pottinger constituency of Belfast. Like the Glasgow comrades (except that as yet there are not so many of them), the Belfast comrades are extremely energetic and enterprising and they are planning their election campaign with vigour and foresight. We all wish them every success. Whatever help can be given from London certainly will be forthcoming.

May Day Rallies. The first to be reported is the London meeting held on Tuesday, May 1st at Caxton Hall. Westminster. An audience of over 150 listened with interest to Comrades D’Arcy and Fahy who spoke on the implications of May Day and Socialism and answered questions followed by discussion for the second half of the meeting. A collection of £26 15s. 0d. was taken and literature sales were particularly good. It was pleasing that the Party, for the first time for many years, was able to hold a meeting on May 1st. It is hoped that this will be a precedent for future years.

Glasgow. Comrades Fahy and Corry travelled to Glasgow on Saturday. May 5th fully able and willing to assist the Glasgow Comrades in their May Day propaganda meetings. They joined the Glasgow comrades in Exchange Square (first meeting at this station this year) and by 3 pm they were well away with the meeting, which lasted until 5.30 pm. Many comrades travelled long distances to give support to the meeting.

The terminus for the May Day procession on the Sunday was at Queen's Park, but only the “official” Labour Party meeting was permitted there. The SPGB outdoor meeting was held in the Recreation Ground. The ILP with loud speaker and lorry etc, had little support and after half an hour they succumbed and the SPGB carried on until 5.30 pm. Literature figures for this outdoor meeting are not available at the moment, but a 30s. collection was taken. All this was a prelude to the indoor meeting at the Cosmo Cinema. The audience numbered 170. and £18 was collected. Comrade Fahy was somewhat abashed, after speaking for some time, when he suggested that questions from the audience were in order, only to find a couple of minutes go by without a question. He need not have worried. Before he could dwell much on the situation (wondering whether he had converted them to Socialism or whether he had failed to make the case dear) he was asked question upon question and found himself racing against time to clarify all points that were raised before the meeting had to end.

To quote Comrade Fahy. “For us this was a memorable occasion. The enthusiasm, drive and energy of the Glasgow comrades, not to mention their hospitality have to be seen and experienced to he fully appreciated. For their meetings they produce all their own posters, and chose their sites carefully; in fact we saw many posters advertising Gilmac’s meeting of some months ago still intact and legible. In conclusion, to any London comrades feeling dispirited with the struggle, we would say ’Go North Young man for the week-end.’” Comrade Corry spoke at both the outdoor meetings.

Hyde Park. Although the weather was certainly not at its best, London comrades rallied to Hyde Park for the May 6th meeting. This was well supported and good literature sales were made. As there was no evening indoor meeting (one having been held on May 1st) the meeting carried on longer than usual.

Nottingham. Meetings were held throughout the day at Slab Square. The audiences were not large, although in the evening after the noise of bands and singing by other factions had ended, the comrades were able to hold an interesting meeting. Throughout the day. members of the Branch and from London were selling literature. As this was the first propaganda meeting this season it is hoped that it has sparked off the outdoor meetings. If comrades from London and elsewhere can make occasional trips to support the Nottingham members, it should help them carry on the good work previously done in this town. Apart from the London members, others came quite long distances to support the May Day Rally.

At Bristol (Durdham Downs) and Swansea, as well as Belfast, meetings were also held and the Party members in these towns, although few in number, are working very hard to spread the Socialist message.

Coventry Group were unable to hold a May Day Rally, but its members, determined to make some extra protest against capitalism, decided to "cover" the Labour Party meeting. Quite a bit of heckling took place and the comrades sold 20 copies of the May Socialist Standard in addition to some pamphlets. As the secretary of the Group commented: “A pleasing evening's Socialist propaganda work.” More good news about Coventry activities next month.

The Annual Conference got off to a good start on Friday. April 20th and by Sunday afternoon the Agenda had been completed and many good debates had taken place. The Social on Saturday was well attended. The Sunday evening Party Rally was also successful, on the platform Comrades Montague (Ireland). Donnelly (Scotland) and Joyce Millen (London).

Also at Easter week-end, the Paddington Branch organised their literature sales drive in connection with the Aldermaston March. Forty comrades supported the venture including Party members from Ireland, one from South Africa, together with provincial comrades. 9.500 leaflets were distributed 426 Socialist Standards, 125 war pamphlets, and other literature was sold despite the fact that it was more difficult this year as the march did not go to Trafalgar Square and all the work had to be done whilst the March was in progress.

Rather than shorten two stimulating reports one from British Columbia on activities there, and another from New Zealand, where Party members are having success with tape recordings of lectures--it is hoped to give full details in next month’s Socialist Standard.

By and large, it is obvious that the work of comrades over the years, throughout the SPGB and Companion Parties, is bearing fruit and it cannot fail to stimulate greater efforts and thereby bring Socialism nearer fruition.

A pleasing postscript. We have received the sum of £100 from a comrade who wishes to remain anonymous. Whilst respecting his wish, we feel that this generous donation should at least be recorded with our appreciation.

Phyllis Howard

50 Years Ago: A Message for Aldermaston Marchers (2013)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

This might be your last Aldermaston. The March has lost its impact and become an “Easter habit.” These marches were originally organised in the belief that with mass support you would be able to force the British Government to renounce nuclear weapons. You have had the support. You have engaged in all types of activity on a vast scale. You have captured the energy and enthusiasm of tens of thousands; you have distributed leaflets and pamphlets by the million. And yet you have failed.

The past six years has seen the development and stockpiling of all types of nuclear weapons in this and other countries. Polaris submarines (and no doubt their Russian counterparts) keep their patrols day in and day out. Bombers with their loads are on round-the-clock alert. The neutron bomb—”the ultimate weapon”—is on the point of production. In fact, nuclear-wise the world is “hotter” today than ever before. Russia, alike with the other capitalist powers in her concern for expansion and supremacy, proudly tells of her multi-megaton explosions. The British Government defence estimates of £1,838 million will be passed by Parliament without any real opposition. The United States armaments bill this year will be about £19,000 million.

Your protests, both constitutional and direct action, have had no effect on the Government. The Labour Party, like the Conservatives, are committed to nuclear weapons. Your own leaders have spoken evasively and you have found yourselves wavering (…)

We can understand your desire to abolish these weapons, but the position you take is inconsistent and unrealistic. Socialists are opposed to war in all its forms. But first and foremost we are opposed to the capitalist system which gives rise to war among other social problems. You are concerned with removing evils in isolation. This cannot be done.

(From editorial, Socialist Standard, April 1963)

Aldermaston Marchers (1960)

From the June 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Easter Sunday and we are standing at the roadside between London Airport and Hounslow. Standing in spring sunshine edged by a cold wind blowing across the subtopia of Hounslow Heath. The traffic is humming along in unending stream, intent upon its own Eastertide massacre.

Small, expectant crowds gather, staring down the road to Aldermaston. Suddenly, the marchers appear, black banners tossing in the wind. They have the appropriate, pilgrimage atmosphere, with people falling in and out of the column, adding to the Indian contingent a lot of white faces and mixing young females with the section which, by its banner proclaiming “Eton Boys,” would have us believe that the famous school is in revolt. It is these youngsters who catch the eye. Are their funny hats, weird hairstyles and beards a substitute for argument? Or colourful manifestations of sincerity? Their political development seems to be youthfully low.

Yet there is some comfort in this march. After the barren years of the delinquents, large numbers of young people seem to be getting active in a movement of protest against a social problem. Comfort, yes. How much?

Illustration from the original article.

The marchers are a mixed bunch, ranging from Communists to Unitarians, but all united (at least on the surface) against nuclear weapons. We should remember that “Ban the Bomb!" is only the latest cry of the Communists, who have shouted their way from demands for “Second Front Now!" to ”Peace!" Anyway, they are only opposed to nuclear weapons this side of a line through Eastern Europe. Of the others, pacifist groups like the Quakers have at least stated an opposition to all wars. We are left with those who are more concerned with the Bomb than with war itself.

To these we say, simply and clearly: H-Bombs or blunderbusses, or any other weapons, are the expression of technical social skill manifested in the field of war. Wars are caused by the conflict between capitalist groups over raw materials, markets, zones of influence and profit. Get rid of capitalist society and we have rooted out the cause of war. Then social skills can be applied to society's benefit instead of to its destruction.

For years, Socialists have been urged to neglect the case for a new society and join the general clamour against some current evil. This has been the argument of, among others, the tail end of the pro-Boer left wingers, the United Free lrelanders, the supporters of Colonial Freedom, the pro-Soviet-anti-Fascist groups and a host of movements for simple Peace and Plenty. In I960, after the De Valeras, the Nkrumahs and the Verwoerds, we can see how shallow were the arguments for these causes. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament will go the way of the rest.

For demonstrations, of course, are nothing new. The over-40's will remember the many pre-war occasions, their slogans fierce and denouncing compared to the Aldermaston youngsters piping, "We ain't gonna study war no more!” The police were more numerous in the 20's and 30's, now, they follow the anti-nuclear marchers in a motor coach. But for all the changes, the reformist arguments are the same.

And will these marchers go the way of the pre-war demonstrators? Will they become bemused by full employment, settle down with a little car, a little house and a large mortgage? Become humdrum ratepayers, respectfully voting for the respectable party? We have seen it all before.

The need for Socialist propaganda is greater than ever, to urge people to look deeply into the terrible problems of capitalist society, deeper than the slogans and the banners. As they swing away down the road, that is the thought the Aldermaston marchers leave with, at any rate, one of their observers.

Jack Law

Aldermaston (Easter 1958) (1958)

Aldermaston March 1958.

From the May 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Text of leaflet distributed to demonstrators on the march 

This Demonstration is evidence of the strong feeling throughout the country. We share your revulsion that the threat of nuclear weapons has aroused against the Hydrogen Bomb and are fully aware of its devastating consequences. But we disagree with the manner of your protest, which we hold is basically unsound and can only prove ineffective.

Mere emotion, however passionately directed against the horror of war, does not prevent war. Effective protest and action demands both an understanding of the cause of war and a practical idea of how war can be prevented.

The cause of war today is the capitalist organisation of society, a society based on the private ownership of the means of life and on production of goods and services to make a profit. Capitalism creates ruling groups who constantly struggle with each other for control of the wealth of the world. Governments represent the interest of these ruling groups. Their conflicts are economic ones: the competition for markets, the race for sources of raw material, the mastery of strategic positions.

Russia, with its state-controlled capitalism, is no less involved in this sordid business than are the U.S.A. and Great Britain.

Governments cannot be moved to disarm by appeals to their humanity. History shows to the contrary that governments always prepare for war, that the horrific consequences of war do not minimise the likelihood of war, and that “agreements” between governments are no guarantee of peace.

  Effective protest against nuclear weapons demands protest against the whole monstrosity of war.    The abolition of war tan only be effected by the reorganisation of human society.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain in its pamphlet on war states: 

    “War can solve no working class problem. It cuts across the fundamental identity of interest of the workers of the world, setting sections of this class at enmity with each other in the interests of sections of the capitalist class. 

     “War elevates force into the position of arbiter in place of the common human desire for mutual peace and happiness. Its effect is wholly evil. It depraves all the participants by forcing them to concentrate upon the best methods of producing misery and of annihilating each other. 

    "War elevates lying, cheating, disabling and murdering opponents into virtues, confers distinctions upon those who practise these means most successfully.  

    “Young men and women, in their most impressionable years, have the vile methods of warfare impressed upon them so thoroughly that they lose a balanced outlook on life and are impregnated with the idea that force, with all its baseness, and not reason, is the final solution in all problems. 

   “Socialism is completely opposed to war and to what war represents. At the same time it is the only solution to the conditions that breed war. It is a new form of society in which the people of the world will work harmoniously together for their mutual benefit, for there will be neither privilege nor property to cause enmity. 

   “No coercion will be needed in Socialism because each will gain from co-operating harmoniously with his fellows. But it is a new social system that demands understanding of its implications from those who seek to establish it. 

    “With the establishment of Socialism war will disappear and humanity will have taken the first step out of the jungle.”

Exhibition Review: The Peace Museum, Bradford (2017)

Exhibition Review from the July 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are plenty of museums that cover wars, the armed forces and military history, but rather few that deal with peace and peace movements. The only accredited one in Britain is Bradford Peace Museum, founded in 1994, which has connections with the International Network of Museums for Peace (museumsforpeace.org) and the Division of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford. In 1997 the local council declared Bradford a ‘City of Peace’, though it is hard to see what that achieves.

It’s not a large museum, but there is plenty of interesting material, covering the period from World War One down to the present day. There are original documents, banners, posters and other objects relating to the two world wars, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, in the main, as well as material on migrants to Bradford, including recent refugees and asylum seekers. Aldermaston Marches and activities at Greenham Common illustrate some of the efforts of peace movements. In the last two years of World War One there was an active, if nowadays little-remembered, anti-war movement among women in Bradford.

A copy of the 1919 Versailles Peace Treaty is accompanied by a quote from Ferdinand Foch, who was Supreme Allied Commander during the war: ‘This is not peace, it’s an armistice for twenty years.’ He meant that Germany had not been punished sufficiently, but even talk of an armistice was a bit optimistic, considering all the fighting that took place between the two world wars.

There is a mention of a claim made (it is not said by who) in 2003, that there were two superpowers, the USA and worldwide public opinion, which is just wishful thinking. A quote is shown from Norman Angell (who wrote a best-selling book The Great Illusion in 1910, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1934 and was for a short period a Bradford MP): ‘The obstacles to peace are in the minds and hearts of men.’ Unfortunately this naive remark underlines the fact that the museum exhibits do not include any attempt to explain why wars break out, or references to the role of capitalism. 

Paul Bennett

The Aldermaston March (1959)

From the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The arrival of the second Aldermaston March in London on Easter Monday was a grand opportunity for the Party to make itself felt—and it did! The awakening political interest in this country, which was briefly indicated at the time of Suez, is bringing many young bewildered people into the political arena for the first time. Their rallying point, at the moment, is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Encouraged by our successful and inspiring Annual Conference, during the preceeding three days, an impressive body of Party members reported at midday to the Party Literature Depot that had been set up in a comrade’s car by the Albert Memorial. This was the last halt for the many thousands of marchers prior to their final “assault” on Trafalgar Square. Over Conference week-end, both Paddington and Wood Green Branches had prepared leaflets specially for the occasion. One dealt with the futility of the Campaign in general. The other concerned the controversy within the Movement for Nuclear Disarmament as to whether or not they should withhold their votes from parliamentary candidates who do not promise beforehand to oppose the British manufacture of nuclear weapons, once elected.

Interest in our leaflets was so great that the Party Organiser and a few other comrades went back to Head Office to roll off another 2,000. In all 5,000 leaflets were distributed during the day. Once the March was on the move again the literature depot was set up, this time near to the Square.

Thirty-three comrades drew supplies of literature from the depot but a number of others helped too, so that everywhere you looked the SOCIALIST STANDARD and the pamphlet on War were to be seen. Sales were remarkably good—234 STANDARDS and over 160 War pamphlets—getting on for £15 worth, and these figures do not include a certain amount of literature that had been brought along by individual members.

A most heartening aspect of the day's effort was the number of provincial comrades who were doing their bit. Obviously enjoying the feel of an all-out Party effort were members from Bradford, Manchester, Newport and Nottingham and, as was to be expected, nearly all the London area Branches were represented. Specially noteworthy were the high sales recorded by a Manchester comrade and the number of accepted challenges to debate issued by the Newport Group secretary.

As for assessing our impact, it was noticeable how many more people than last year were prepared to accept the Socialist contention that the real problem is the continued existence of war-prone Capitalist Society and not the nature of current weapons.

PADDINGTON BRANCH.

*      *      *

The following was distributed as a leaflet during the March:

A point of view

“. . . We march in hope. We are building the foundations of a better, saner future, free not only from the horror and cruelty of our time but also its blindness, double-talk and unreason.” (Tribune, 27 March 59.)

If only this were true, how worthwhile this large and impressive march from Aldermaston would be! After your four days on the road, our view of the Campaign may not be popular but it must be put. We hold that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is on an unsound basis and inevitably leads in the wrong direction.

The Campaign fails because it is not concerned with removing the cause of war. In opposing “The Bomb ” to the exclusion of everything else, the effect is to oppose neither bombs nor war. . . . One year of ceaseless activity: Aldermaston, last Easter—Mass Lobby in June—Direct Action at Swaffham in December. Hundreds of thousands have heard your appeal to ban the Hydrogen Bomb, but have you made any impression on the present Government? And do you really believe another Labour Government would be any better?

The truth must be faced. Over these practical questions the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is rent with dissension. 

A large body of the Campaign is working for the return of a Labour Government. How futile! The Labour Party is committed to war and the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

An active minority is advocating “direct action” and is trying to persuade people not to vote for any candidate who does not oppose the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Put to the test. Labour as well as the Conservatives will manufacture and possibly use the Hydrogen Bomb. The supporters of “direct action” sense this without understanding why and their methods, the outcome of despair, are a repudiation of democracy.

The Hydrogen Bomb is a monstrous thing. We say war in any form is monstrous!

The risk of nuclear weapons is inseparable from war, and war is inseparable from the way human society is organised today. The world we live in is dominated by the private ownership of the means of life, production for sale and profit, and by economic competition. The struggle between governments represents the rivalry of capitalist ruling groups—a struggle that continually threatens mankind with war.

Russia, with its state-controlled capitalism, is no less involved in this sordid business than are the U.S.A. and Great Britain.

Socialists want to abolish capitalism and to replace private ownership by common ownership. Socialists want a world in which the privilege of a few to monopolise wealth can be replaced by production of goods and services solely to satisfy human needs.

Socialists want a world in which “ Community,” “ Co-operation ” and ”Peace” can become realities not hollow slogans.

Effective opposition to the Hydrogen Bomb demands opposition to the whole monstrosity of war.

Opposition to war demands opposition to capitalism.

Opposition to capitalism demands working for the re-organisation of human society—for socialism.