50 Years Ago: The war in Cyprus (2024)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Greek nationalist agitation for enosis (ie, union) broke out in 1931. It was suspended during the war, when Cypriot troops were part of the Allied armies, and resumed not long after it. The Atlantic Charter of 1941, a set of wartime humbug-platitudes, laid down the principle of self-determination for “all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live”, but in 1947 the British government ruled out any change of status for Cyprus. In a plebiscite in 1950 the Cypriots – of whom Greeks form four-fifths – voted overwhelmingly for union with Greece.

From 1954, with Archbishop Makarios as leader of the Greek population, the guerrilla organization EOKA waged war on British rule. A military governor was appointed by the British government, and in 1956 Makarios was deported. Besides the EOKA campaign, Turkish Cypriot nationalists pressed claims for a partition of the island and fought the Greeks. The “solution” of 1960 was a constitution in which Greeks and Turks shared in government – no enosis, no partition; Greece and Turkey stationed token forces there; and Britain retained sovereign rights in certain areas for military purposes. Near-war again in 1963, and shells and bloodshed in 1974.

Why is Cyprus important to Britain and other world powers? Its economy, apart from some minerals and a lot of cheap wine, is insignificant. But in the Middle Ages Cyprus was a vital entrepot for commerce with the east, and every trading state established stations and bought trading rights there. In the 19th and 20th centuries it has remained a vital strategic point. Disraeli in 1878 wanted it as a link in a scheme to defend British interests in India; Eden in 1956 declared that the possession of a British base in Cyprus was necessary to protect British and West European oil supplies. (…)

While Turkey and Greece fight for advantages and pickings from the other’s need for Cyprus, their peasants and workers remain poverty-stricken. Futile bloody slaughter, indeed: capitalism lives, and the workers die. Stop it. Stop your nationalism, and your support for this wretched system – quickly!

(Socialist Standard, September 1974)

“The Transition From War to Peace” (1944)

Book Review from the April 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Transition From War to Peace by A. G Pigou. (Oxford University Press, 6d.)

We have received the above for review. Professor Pigou deals almost solely with the post-war problem of the difficulty in finding employment for large masses of workers, who will find themselves out of a job when peace arrives. In various parts of the pamphlet he records accurately the facts and figures of the labour market after the last war, and on page 6 says:—

“The transition from war to peace, throwing as it must do, vast numbers of men and women out of direct and indirect forms of war work, is bound to create, as it did create in 1919, an assembly of persons, less vast indeed, but nevertheless large, for the moment deprived of employment and anxiously seeking after it in one or another civilian occupation.”

With regard to the immediate post-war situation, he remarks that “a vast process of re-stocking will be called for.” During this time—six months or so after the war, he estimates—it is probable that the problems will arise in the transfer of workers from one job to another and not in the actual finding of work.

He makes an important point with regard to this “period of transfer and adjustment” on page 9 when he says:-—

“With the large number of persons that must be then suddenly thrown on the labour market, there is a risk that wage earners, at all events in some occupations, will find themselves at a disadvantage in bargaining and so may be forced to accept large reductions in. rates of pay.”

To obviate this after the last war the Government passed Temporary Wage Regulation Acts in 1918 which were extended to 1920. He mentions that it would be sound policy for the Government to do this again after the present war—presumably for the same purpose of preventing unrest amongst the workers who come back from the battle fronts eagerly searching for the “Four Freedoms” or signs of the already moribund “Atlantic Charter.”

Manifesting in no uncertain fashion the character of post-war “reconstruction/’ the pamphlet continues (page 11) :

“The transition is bound to be a long drawn out affair, of which the first year or so of peace constitutes only the initial phase . . . Thus we should expect a second phase following the first—a phase of relatively contracted demand, in which a number of would-be workers may well find themselves without a job—a delayed post-war depression linked with and partly caused by the high activity of immediate post-war days.”

Here again he draws upon the history of the period following 1918 depicting clearly the catastrophic nature of the slump of 1920 and the years following, when prices came tumbling down, and wages following after.

Pigou (who, by the way, is a Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge) states, however, that “it is not inevitable that at the end of the present war these events should repeat themselves.” He says : “The moral of this history is fairly plain. After the war of 1914-18 money got out of hand.” (Page 17.) This is his explanation of the economic phenomena of slump and boom—his solution being that if money is kept in hand by the retention of certain war-time controls these things will not occur.

But the fact that slumps and booms can be controlled or abolished by controlling the movements of money is given the lie by Professor Pigou himself on page 15, where he points out that this boom broke in 1920, not as “a consequence of deflation by the banks, in the sense of a contraction of the quantity of money in existence.”

“It was a consequence of the decisions by business men not to use their money.” (Pigou’s emphasis.)

Why didn’t the capitalists wish to use their money and keep production going? Or, to put the question another way, why from 1918-20 did the capitalists want to use their money to the greatest possible extent, but not afterwards? Obviously we must seek the solution not in the movements of money but in the factors that cause capitalists at one period to wish to use their money in production, and at some other period not to do so. In other words, we must have recourse to the motive of capitalists in engaging in production. Knowing that, under capitalism, goods are produced with the intention of their being sold at a profit, it is easily seen that when the prospects of profit are great the capitalist will jump in on production and when the prospects of profit are very doubtful he will jump out again.

Applying this to the situation in 1918 it is clear that the capitalists fell over themselves to get in first during the “re-stocking” period when demand exceeded supply, prices were high and profits good. As soon as the markets by about 1920 had readjusted themselves (by means of the “healthy competition of private enterprise”) and the normal chaos of capitalist production had its effect, numerous industries were faced with declining demand for their products. Prices slumped, and the prospects of profit disappeared. Then the capitalists were forced to think more than twice about putting their money into further production.

This pamphlet, like others in the series of “Oxford Pamphlets on Home Affairs,” offers a good deal of sound factual information, but fails to offer a correct explanation or adequate solution of the problem with which it deals.

So long as capitalism exists with its private ownership of the means of production and its scramble for markets, so long will exist the economic phenomena of crises and booms, together with all the other problems which face the working-class, such as poverty, mass unemployment and wars.

No! The solution does not lie in the control of movements of money, but in the abolition of a system of society based on private ownership with its consequent need of money and the establishment of a system of society based on the common ownership of the means of wealth production where the need for money will disappear.

N. S.

Editorial: Rifts in the Atlantic Charter (1943)

Editorial from the October 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

When this war began, as when the last war began, there was a general chorus of “Never again.” To those who accepted the theory that wars are caused by the malevolence and greed of one man, Hitler, or of a group of Nazi leaders, it was easy to sketch the future peace. Remove the aggressors, disarm the aggressor Powers, then, in the words of the Atlantic Charter, a peace will be established which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries. But the Atlantic Charter, like Wilson’s 14 Points of the last war, is founded on a myth, the myth that nations in a capitalist world are just associations of human beings, able and willing to dwell within their own boundaries and to enter into mutually beneficial trading relationship. Capitalist states are entities in which one class, the owning class, lives by exploiting the property-less class, and must, in order to realise the profits of exploitation, sell goods in the world market in fierce competition with the capitalists of other states. There will be no enduring peace in the world until the world’s capitalists are dispossessed; the means of production and distribution made the common property of society as a whole; and goods produced not for sale at a profit but solely for use. The Atlantic Charter is silent on this point, but whenever the statesmen descend from the clouds of rosy hopes to the practical business of international relationship it keeps on breaking through. After the last war Lord Keynes told America that the only way, short of making an annual present to Europe, was that “America must buy more and sell less”: but the capitalists who own and control America’s great mass production industries (like their fellows in every other country) are not in business for charitable purposes, and their ruthless determination is to sell more, not less. In this war discussions have been going on round rival British and American plans for financing international trade. We need not go into the details, it will suffice to emphasise the fact that they are rival schemes, each group being concerned to safeguard its own interests. Here is the comment of a British Financial Editor (Manchester Guardian. August 24. 1943) on the latest version of the American plan : —

“As it now stands the American plan is entirely unacceptable to any country which has learnt by bitter experience that the attempt to prevent variations in exchange values by internal deflation is bound to produce mass unemployment. This is a grave matter. For three years the pessimists have been telling us not to expect any genuine co-operation from the United States in the financial and economic field and to prepare instead for an independent policy. . . . This plan . . will enormously strengthen British commercial isolationism. If it is persisted in those in Britain who are working for a truly international economic policy will be disastrously weakened. . . Let is be said at once that no British Government could accept anything remotely like these proposals and remain in power beyond the first post-war election.”

Here is the voice of the British capitalist, on the matter nearest to his heart—trade and profits. How far removed it is from the woolly optimism of the Atlantic Charter !

Then let us look at the question of territorial claims. The Charter has it that the signatories “seek no aggrandisement, territorial or other”—but what about the real post-war world in which the armed Powers again look to their defences, strategic frontiers and so on, and invoke the old principle of seeking security by alliances and the balance of power? On August 31, 1943, the Daily Mail, in an editorial headed “Where We Stand,” made a very forthright declaration of British imperial interests. Affirming that the American and Russian Governments at the proposed three-Power conference would “resolutely defend the vital interests of the American and Russian nations,” the Mail summarised the vital interests of the British Empire. Accepting the doctrine of the European balance of power, the Mail says that Britain “went to war, and not for the first time, so that no single Power or coalition of Powers should dominate Europe.” For this reason, says the Mail, “she is pledged to restore the independence of Poland—of all Poland and not half of it. She is pledged to restore the independence of Yugoslavia. She is in honour bound to liberate all the nations, big and small, who have fought on our side. . . . And this is so of all Europe, not only of Western Europe. Eastern Europe is as important in the balance of power as Western. The independence of the south-eastern countries of Europe is as necessary to the security of the Eastern Mediterranean, and therefore of Imperial communications, as the independence of the Low Countries is to the security of home waters.”

The significance of this is that the Russian Government, though pledged to restore “a strong and independent” Poland, has declared its unwillingness to restore Poland’s 1939 frontiers (statement published by Russian Embassy in Washington, Daily Mail, February 27, 1943).

The Daily Mail regards these rival interests as being capable of settlement, but with Germany and France for the time being too weak to exercise much influence, it is obvious that the relationship between America, Britain and Russia after this war will be a crucial question. An American writer on foreign affairs, Mr. Walter Lipmann, in his “U.S. Foreign Policy,” puts the issue in dramatic form when he writes that if the post-war settlement of the European States on Russia’s borders discloses a conflict of interests between Russia and the Western Allies, “then every nation will know that it must get ready and must choose sides in the eventual but unavoidable next war.”

In this connection it will be recalled that Russia has its own version of the balance of power; in the words of Foreign Commissar Molotov : “We have always held that a strong Germany is an indispensable condition for durable peace in Europe” (speech to the Supreme Soviet, October 31, 1939).

These are the European and Anglo-American problems that will confront a capitalist world after this war, but each continent and ocean contributes its own further problems. China hopes to emerge as a dominant Pacific Power controlling lands formerly held as colonies by Western Powers, and bent on speedy industrialisation and entry into the world market as a powerful competitor. The South American Republics have their rivalries with each other and with U.S.A. Africa will again be the scene of struggles for trade between European, British and South African interests and the Eastern Mediterranean has its problem of Jew and Arab—”Trouble is brewing in Palestine,” says the Cairo Correspondent of the News-Chronicle (August 30, 1943). “Both Jewish Zionists and Arabs are armed and both are preparing to use their arms against each other. … As the menace of the world war ebbs from the shores of the Mediterranean, a wave of civil war threatens to break over Palestine.” The struggle between Indian and British capitalism has yet to be decided, under the slogans of national independence. Turkey and the proposed Federation of Arab States have to carve out their place in the sun.

In short, the world will still be a capitalist world based on private ownership and competitive struggle. The remedy lies neither in the amiable hopes of the Atlantic Charter nor in the so-called “realism” of the Daily Mail, but in the achievement of Socialism, which alone can destroy the forces which make for wars and organise world co-operation of the human race.

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.

Trade relations after the war (1942)

From the February 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Notwithstanding the hopes of some worker-optimists and the fears of some capitalists, capitalism will not disappear after and as a consequence of the war. It will change some of its features but it cannot disappear until such time as the working class of the world is ready to establish Socialism, and that cannot be until much more has been done to propagate Socialist ideas.

Nevertheless there wilt be changes, if only because the war will leave behind it a different relationship between the Powers, large and small. It is a fairly safe assumption that there will be re-grouping and that in place of the present multiplicity of States the world will be effectively controlled by a smaller number of large Empires and Federations. Beyond that it is difficult to go because there are no simple over-riding factors which will determine the grouping. Much depends, of course, on the degree of defeat and exhaustion suffered by the respective warring States. Within limits, therefore, it is true to say, as does the Times City Editor, that “we do not know . . . what sort of world the post-war world is going to be” (January 19th, 1942).

There are, however, two things that we can see clearly enough, first the continuance of the main capitalist rivalries in international trade, and secondly the ideas which will guide the efforts at reform on the part of various interested parties.

Let us first dispose of the idea that the acceptance of the Atlantic Charter, with its broad generalisations about international co-operation and care for the welfare of the population, settles the problem of capitalist profit-seeking and consequent international rivalries. What hope is there that the Allied “New Order” will bring to an end what Major-General Fuller describes as “the now century and a half old competitive economic struggle between the nations, which undoubtedly has in the past led to revolution within them and wars between them”? (Evening Standard, January 5th, 1942.) Will the Governments be able to agree, or even want to agree, to do away with the various practices, backed up by armed force, through which they have in the past sought to further the trading interests of the capitalist class? Most of the comments on the Atlantic Charter made by the Press have shown that even the question of Anglo-American relationship bristles with difficulties.

The Charter demands a gradual return to the long ago abandoned system of free trade, but “with due regard to existing obligations.” Some important existing obligations are the Ottawa agreements on the side of the British Empire and the United States import tariff and trade agreements with various countries. Sir Patrick Harmon, M.P., a representative of British capitalism, speaking on the question recently “expressed vigorous criticism of the trade policy of the United States” and declared that the Atlantic Charter can hardly be applied in the presence of those American trade agreements (Manchester Guardian, December 19th, 1941). The Manchester Guardian, while traditionally in favour of free trade, points out other obstacles, and is unable to go further than to suggest that concessions by Britain be made dependent on a change of attitude by U.S.A.

“What Americans strongly oppose . . . is a continuation after the war of the Empire preferences and the sterling area of exchange control. It ought to be made plain that the removal of these unwanted safeguards will depend on a much greater degree of American co-operation than has yet been envisaged.”— (“Manchester Guardian,” December 19th. 1941.)

The “Round Table” which represents influential British financial and industrial views, published in its December issue an article on Anglo-American co-operation and stressed the same difficulties of reconciling American and British standpoints. While the United States will expect the most favourable terms of trade from Britain and will want to export to this country large quantities of American goods, the capitalists of this country, owing to a greatly weakened financial position, will want preference to be given to those countries which buy British exports. This, says the “Round Table,” is a situation full of possible mischief unless the two Governments can reach understanding. An extreme view was expressed in a speech a year ago by Mr. Virgil Jordan, president of an American employers’ organisation, the National Industrial Conference Board. According to a report of his speech published by the New York Herald Tribune (quoted in Labour Research Department Fact Service, January 28th, 1941) he said: —

“If England should emerge from the struggle without defeat . . . she will be so impoverished economically and crippled in prestige that it is improbable she will be able to resume or maintain the dominant position in world affairs which she has occupied so long. At best . . . England will become a junior partner in a new Anglo-Saxon imperialism, in which the economic resources and the military and naval strength of the United States will be the centre of gravity.”

Mr. Jordan may well prove to be largely mistaken as were his forerunners who were making similar prophecies after the last war, but what is relevant here is the fact that he and his fellow capitalists in America, seeking to further their own interests through U.S.A. foreign policy, will be tempted to bring about the condition he envisages, while his opposite numbers in this country will be seeking to defend their interests through British foreign policy. In the resulting struggle the pious hopes of the Charter are likely to be soon forgotten.

A similar field for conflict will exist in the problem of reconstructing the industry of Central Europe. Some interests here and in America will see the prospect of profitable activity for themselves in helping to carry out that reconstruction, and Mr. Leonard Behrens, speaking at the Manchester branch of the Institute of Export, affirms that “after the war we must re-establish in Europe industries which would compete with ours. He believed the hope of our exporting industries lay not in any policy of exclusion but in encouraging increased consumption” (Manchester Guardian, December 10th, 1941). But what will be the view of the British capitalists who see themselves adversely affected by this competition from Central Europe? They will naturally ask for subsidies or tariffs or some other form of protection without giving another thought to the Atlantic Charter.

One aspect of the drive for trade after the war will be the demand for protection for British agriculture. While the present Minister of Agriculture has declared that agriculture must be protected against the importation of cheap food, industrial capitalists will have opposite views, as also will the wheat producing countries. According to the Daily Express (January 22nd, 1942), the glut of wheat in Canada, U.S.A., Australia and Argentina has now reached the “staggering total” of 1,750-million bushels, or much more than double the pre-war average.

Then there is the growing tendency of Governments themselves to conduct bulk trading operations because of the stronger bargaining position this gives them as compared with individual capitalist trading. Russia and Germany are among the countries which had carried this practice far in the years before the present war. Following their example, the British Government in 1940 set up the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation, financed with Government money, with the object of carrying on “a general trading business … as merchants, concessionaires, and financiers … in any part of the world.” In an article dealing with the work of the Corporation and its subsidiaries, the Economist (January 17th, 1942) sees the likelihood that it will have to be retained after the war—”There may be a good case for its continued handling of such trade (i.e., trade in raw materials with Russia) which even under normal peace conditions will have to be conducted with a Government monopoly on the other side of the counter.”

It will be noticed that all of the above mentioned planners of post-war international trade take for granted the continuance of the capitalist trading system with its necessary acceptance of the desire to realise profit out of the export of goods on the most favourable terms. In other words, they all accept the continuance of the economic struggle which has had such disastrous results in the past.

The other side of the New Order is the insistence on the desirability of raising the standard of living of the world’s population. Here you find the Conservative Times and the Labour leader, Mr. Herbert Morrison, agreeing about the form of words to be used. The Times (October 4th, 1941) says that the old conception of “Wealth of Nations” is “finding more positive expression in ‘the welfare of nations,'” and Mr. Morrison suggests “the conception of human welfare as the avowed aim and object of international post-war policy” (Times, June 7th, 1941). But the magic word “welfare” and the seeming agreement get us nowhere. Before human welfare can be the aim and object of international policy that aim and that object have got to be adopted by those who control the Government and that cannot be while capitalism is the established order of society. The aim of the capitalist, whether individually or through capitalist trading and industrial associations or through Governments, is and must continue to be the production and sale of goods for profit.

Governments may come under the control of men or parties which profess other aims, but so long as they have the task of administering capitalism it will be the profit motive, not the idealistic aim, that will and must determine their conduct and policy at home and in the international field.

Edgar Hardcastle

National Independence (1942)

From the October 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party, I.L.P. and Communist Party, the Liberals, and the gentleman of the Atlantic Charter have found a common cause, the cry of "National independence."

I propose to question this "national independence." Upon what will "independence" be based? Will it be race, creed, colour, language or geography? In the proposed restoration of "nations" to their "independence" will the restorers go back twenty, fifty or a hundred years? and having established this "independence" will that be a guarantee against future "fascism," for it must be remembered that "fascism" grew in nations that were already independent.

Modern nationalism manifests itself as the political expression of a rising capitalist class when it considers itself grown up and able to run its industries, banks, etc., without the aid of "foreign" capitalism. This enables the native capitalists to enjoy all the profits instead of sharing it.

In 1860 was established the Kingdom of Italy, and in the next decade it was unified by the adhesion of Rome and Venetia. The Italian "independent nation" soon began to open its doors to "foreign" money, and industrial undertakings were established by firms like Amstrong's and Henry Ford's. The workers now "nationally independent," began producing profits for "foreign " capitalists, with their home-grown masters sharing the swag. The value of their "independence" was then seen by the workers in their mass emigration to U.S.A. to become wage-slaves to another "independent" capitalist class. Having achieved their independence, the Italian ruling class then began the suppression of Ethiopia, Tripoli, part of Somaliland, a few islands from the Greeks, and Albania. Sixty years after its own liberation the " independent " nation of Italy went—FASCIST.

During the greater part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the present one a large ramshackle empire lay athwart Central Europe. Within its confines were a motley collection of "nations" and "races." The war of 1914-18 shattered this empire, and the map changers, by various treaties, plus loans, plus armed threats, restored "independence" to "nations" which had lost it, and gave territory to some "nations" which hadn't lost it. Sheer kindness of heart!

The two nations mainly concerned were Austria and Hungary. For many years the new independent Austria was so "independent" that it had to be artificially fed by Paris finance. Now, here is the strange case of a ruling class which did not want independence, but sought an anschluss (customs union) with its brother ruling class over the border—Germany. The French ruling class, fearful of a rejuvenated Germany, came down with a heavy hand (and bribes) and said, "You will have to be independent," for Austria was so "independent" that France could dictate her actions. In 1934 this independent nation became Fascist under the pocket dictator, Dollfuss.

Hungary, always the land of the hungry peasant and home of the brutal Magyar landowner, was made independent (after slices of it had been given away) by a treaty subsequent to the war of 1914-18. An effort by Bela Kun to Sovietise this land proved a complete failure and resulted in bloodshed with the eventual establishment of a "White" dictatorship under Admiral (Butcher) Horthy in place of the "Red" dictatorship. The Hungarian working class has one of the lowest standards of living in Europe, but at least retain their "national independence." To-day independent Hungary is an ally (and vassal) of Fascist Germany. So far the blessings of "national independence" seem to be more apparent than real, for the workers of Italy, Austria and Hungary couldn't be much worse off if they had been parts of an Empire without "national independence." I hope to continue my enquiry in another issue. 

Lew Jones