The Armed Nation. (1909)

From the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The jingo spirit—commonly known as patriotism—always latent in the bosom of the unthinking worker, ready to be fanned to flame by the wiles of the pressman or orator, the strains of a brass band or sight of a bright uniform, the verse of the poet or the doggerel song of the music-hall artiste, is being aroused for the purpose of saving Secretary Haldane’s “Territorial Forces” scheme.

The beatific unanimity with which all sections of the capitalist platform and Press, from the belted earl to the sainted layman, from the Daily News to the Daily Mail, unite in the good work of persuading the propertyless that their interest, is to defend the propertied and their property—”on the cheap”—is touching in the extreme.

There is one spot of green in the wilderness, however, one oasis in the desert, and that is—the S.D.P. Through the mouths of Harry Quelch, H. M. Hyndman, Will Thorne, Sergt.-Mjr. R. Edmonson, and the columns of our “revolutionary” contemporary, Justice, we are given to understand that there is one alternative between Haldane and conscription, and that is the citizen army, as embodied in a Bill to be promoted by that sole result of 26 years of S.D.P. wirepulling, intrigue and compromise—Will Thorne, M.P.

Between the downright Tory idea of conscription, and the Liberal idea of voluntarism, there is now this difference—the first stands for open coercion, the second for insidious compulsion, as witness Haldane’s high appreciation of the “patriotic spirit” displayed by Rothschild in connection with the Alliance Assurance Company, which has adopted a rule requiring all clerks entering the service to join the Territorial Forces. But when this Bill of Bill’s is examined it is difficult to determine which it approaches the nearer.

There is a pamphlet written by the latest star turn of the S.D.P., Sergt.-Mjr. Edmonson, entitled “The National Citizen Force Bill of Mr. Will Thorue, M.P. : An Appreciation and Explanation.” The writer’s knowledge of army matters is assuredly greater than his knowledge of economics, or his service in the army was, even from a military point of view, a lamentable waste. From amidst a fanfare of trumpets and a dazzling array of ”credentials” at the beginning we gather that a standing army is “an expensive toy for the ruling class.” From the working-class point of view this is a matter of no concern, but no doubt the capitalist class are grateful for the information, and will act upon it. Well, the Sergt.-Mjr. has examined Will Thorne’s Bill, and has failed to put his finger “on any bad or doubtful points it may contain.” That’s unequivocal ! But maybe others can succeed where the gallant soldier fails.

The first clause, which proposes that, subject to certain exemptions, every man “shall be liable to military training” appears to leave room for revision—out of existence. The worker has no property to defend, therefore military training to fit him for defending that which he has not is rather superfluous—but where would Bill’s Bill be then ? This same clause “gives Ireland a chance of proving its patriotism,” and “enables Irish youth to take up arms in defence of the United Kingdom.” The Irish working man who thinks enough of the United Kingdom to put himself out to defend it must be a psychological phenomenon.

The information regarding the composition of the Administrative Council, in clause 2, is interesting, but as borough councillors and the like will not necessarily be altered to suit, this does not carry far.

We now “come to the more serious parts of the Bill,” but don’t be alarmed, ye braves ! as long as “we succeed in viewing it in an intelligent, patriotic light,” and make up our minds that “if a foreign foe attack us,” every male worthy the name of man would do all in his power to drive that foe “back from where he came,” our glorious Empire, of which we workers hold so large a share, will be safe.

And now for the call to the “aristocracy of labour.” “Trades-Unionist, you have something to defend and you know it.” So let your bosoms swell with pride, ye proud Britons, for ye have something to defend—the Sergeant says so.

The 6th clause is illuminating. “One of the duties of the National Citizen Force will be the protection of railways and rolling stock,” the other “chief duties,” presumably, will be the protection of the rest of the property of the capitalist class. That amongst other conditions should, according to the writer, “meet with universal approval.” Surely so ! Millions of working men and women have held railway stocks—or tickets—therefore every man must approve of a condition which gives him scope for the defence of his seat—or standing-room —in a third-class cattle truck.

After further elucidations the information is to hand that the labourer is worthy of his hire. That is a truism ; but when the Sergt. Mjr. informs his reader that “the soldier is very much a labourer,” that is a statement needing a great deal of qualification. The soldier performing no function necessary in an organised system of production and distribution, living, as he does, on the labour of others to whom he renders no compensating service, is to be numbered amongst the parasitic section of the community, however true it may be that he is recruited from the ranks of the working class.

There is apparently so much difference between the “free services of free men” and the “servile obedience” accorded by the rank and file to officers under the old regime, that under the proposed scheme, refusal to accord “free service” on the part of the “free men” is to be rewarded by as much as one year’s hard labour. The method of appointing officers under the Bill is by a ballot of the men, but no one shall be appointed who has not the approval of the Central Administrative Board. Consequently, the men may choose their officer, and the Board may exclude him by the conditions they impose. Staff officers shall be appointed by officers. These two rules strike our friend as democratic, and he opines that they will abolish “distinctions of class.” Proof as to how that or any other clause in the Bill can accomplish any such result is not forthcoming.

Will Thorne is thanked for his endeavours in the following terms. “Thank you, Mr. Thorne, for your brave and patriotic attempt to knock the present military law on the head in time of peace.” As to whether it would have been more or less patriotic in time of war we are not informed.

Clause 23 (and last) deals with the saving to be effected by the reduction of permanent expenses, and this is stated by the writer to be “a most important clause for the taxpayer . . . as well as from the democratic point of view.”

Now it is easy to understand the confusion of thought which has characterised the whole pamphlet. The “General” has tried to square the Bill with the interests of the working class and those of the capitalist class, seemingly in utter ignorance of the diametric opposition of those two class interests, and, naturally, he has fallen between the two stools.

The concluding paragraphs painfully accentuate this confusion, as the working class is alluded to as the “working classes” and “the masses,” and the capitalist class as “the classes” and the “dominant class,” all within one paragraph.

The tit-bit of all is the affirmation that “the National Citizen Force is the only salvation of labour.” This, coupled with a remark in an article in Justice, of February 6th, entitled “War Inevitable” by the same writer, to the following effect, is immense. “However, we are of opinion that he (the working man) would not be adverse to training under civil law, . . . but this would be too democratic for a capitalist Government to try.” If the leaders of the S.D.P. have any sense of the ridiculous they will retire, and thus remove a factor which is potent for the production of confusion in the working-class mind.

It is evident that if the citizen army is the only “salvation of labour,” Socialism cannot be so as well, therefore the S.D.P. can dispense with its affected object. Also, if it is “too democratic for a capitalist Government to try,” why does the S.D.P. accord its support to Will Thorne, and sanction the appearance of articles on the subject in Justice ?

The “War Inevitable” lucubration did not, as might have been supposed, consist of exclusive information in the possession of the T.C.P. or the writer. It was the heading of a full-page criticism of a sensational novel by one Alan H. Burgoyne, entitled “The War Inevitable,” which title, minus the article, figured in large type on the contents bills of that issue of Justice, for the obvious purpose of stimulating sales, in the typical catchpenny style of “yellow” journalism. Such enterprise should cause the Clarion and the Daily Mail to look to their laurels.

There are some curious examples of erudition in the article, amongst them being a statement that wars are sometimes set on foot for the purpose of diverting the workers from the real issue, and incidentally, of “killing off a few thousands.” This cannot be described as anything but balderdash ! The capitalist class have no need to resort to such catastrophic measures for diverting the workers : old age pensions are cheaper and more convenient, and as to ”killing off a few thousands,” from the point of view of that section of the community, the more the merrier. Besides, wars are expensive, and must imply, for a time, an excess of wages to the wage-earning class. This is not the policy of the wage-paying class—elimination of waste, not the opposite, is recognised as more to the point, as witness the growth of trusts.

Thus may one occupy the anomalous position of having as an objective, the extinction of waste, and yet of recognising that in society as at present constituted, the more waste the less want. War is instigated through the economic interests of the capitalist class of one nation or group of nations clashing with those of another. It may be engineered, partly, by a group of financiers interested in the production of stores and munitions of war,—instance, Boer War—but this alone would not be sufficient.

The working class has to clearly understand that the taking up of arms against other nations means the straining of the bond between the workers of the respective countries. The foundation of Socialism, which must rest upon the international solidarity of Labour, cannot be built up on citizen armies, neither can it have part or parcel with any scheme of armed nations.

Let there be no misapprehension on the subject of the “Armed Nation,” be it called by that or any other name. Armed forces are maintained for the purpose of holding the property and position of the robber against the robbed.

When the workers are able to dictate to the master class as to whether, or upon what terms, they shall serve in the army, then will the Social Revolution be at hand ; until that day Socialists must concentrate upon Socialism, and leave soup-kitchens and army reforms to those who, no matter what their protestations, are in the enemy’s camp.

D.W.F.

50 Years Ago: Patriotism and Scarlet Coats (1961)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our ruling class can see that their Continental rivals are determined to obtain as large a share of the markets of the world as possible, and that sooner or later this must culminate in world-wide disruption. Hence their anxiety on the score of “patriotism.” Lord Esher gives expression to his anxious thoughts in the suggestion that “patriotism” is an attribute of the empty-headed. “How can you expect,” he writes, “recruits for your Territorial Force, when you dress them unbecomingly?” One paper, commenting on his noble Lordship’s article, suggests “a scarlet coat and a towering headdress” as the most effective appeal to the “patriotism” of the working class, though whether on the old, tried and trusty ground that those who have least in their heads must make the greatest show on them, or on the later calculation that now the workers are discovering how little country they have to fight for they may be induced to fight for their togs if only they are sufficiently removed from the humdrum drab of the corduroy to enable them to forget that they are countryless workers, does not transpire.

[From “The Decline of Patriotism” by J. R. R., Socialist Standard, January 1911.]

Press Cuttings (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

One-third of Recruits Unfit

“Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery, C.I.G.S., yesterday said at the annual meeting of the Royal Eye Hospital, Southwark, of which he is president, that about 19 per cent. of the age group eligible for national service would be unfit for the post-war Regular Army. A further 15 per cent. would not be fit for full military duties.

” ‘There are many causes why a third of those eligible for service are suffering from such a degree of disability,’ he added. ‘They include housing, bad nutrition, and, not least, the preoccupation of the medical profession with disease rather than with the promotion of physical fitness’.” — (Daily Telegraph 10/10/47.)

#    #    #    #

Great Men

“Here are some of the things Sylvester, for 30 years Lloyd George’s personal assistant says about his master :

“He was often peevish and childish; strangely lacking in physical courage; no greater autocrat ever lived; a most unholy muddler, and just a spoiled child.”—(News of the World, 28/9/47.)

#    #    #    #

Labour Party and the House of Lords

“The Party stands, as heretofore . . . for the complete abolition of the House of Lords . . .”—(“Labour and the New Social Order,” Labour Party, 1918, p.12.)

“Since our last report the following have been welcomed to our ranks: Lord Citrine (Sir Walter Citrine), Lord Dukeston (Mr. Charles Dukes), Viscount Hall (Mr. George Hall, M.P.), Lord Kershaw (Mr. Fred Kershaw), Lord Lucas (Mr. G. W. Lucas), Lord Shepherd (Mr. G. R. Shepherd), Lord Simon (Sir E. D. Simon), Lord Trefgarne (Mr. G. M. Garro-Jones), Lord Uvedale (Sir Ambrose Woodall) . . . Our total strength is 46.”—(From Labour Party Report on Labour Strength in the House of Lords. Conference Report, 1947, p.65.)

By the Way. (1916)

The By The Way Column from the September 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

In carefully perusing the daily press unique opportunities are afforded the student of current events to observe the amazing contradictions recorded there from time to time. When one bears in mind the statement which has been repeated on so many occasions that the present conflict is a war of liberty and to secure the rights of small nations, etc., etc., it is exceedingly difficult to reconcile this view of things with the violation of all the pre-existing conditions. One is obliged to ask : What of the suppression of various newspapers, the placing under arrest of those against whom no charge has been preferred, the threatened deportation of political refugees, and a hundred and one other similar questions.

In view, therefore, of these things one wonders when the workers will take the blinkers from off their eyes and endeavour to see things as they actually are, instead of seeing them as labour leaders and other hirelings of the master class represent them to be. A few weeks ago a new and freakish organisation, the British Workers’ National League, organised a demonstration, and, according to a comic cuts or picture paper report, we read that Mr. G. Wardle, M.P., delivered a rousing speech from which I cull the following:

“I believe that out of the evil of this great war there is arising for the democracy of all the countries a new era. Oppression and militarism are already dead. The people of the Allies are all determined that as a final result of this great struggle there shall be throughout the world a better day for all men—the day of liberty, the day of democracy, the day of the people.—”Daily Sketch,” July 15th, 1916.

Doubtless the remark “a new era” is perfectly true. An era of intensified suffering for many, an era of desolation for many thousands of homes and an era of struggles for those left behind to make a miserable pittance stretch over the weekly period. The sentence “oppression and militarism are already dead” is decidedly rich, but maybe Mr. Wardle has just awakened from a long sleep. Oh, the pity of it !

* * *

Perhaps the before-mentioned gentleman in his wakeful moments may have been in the House a few days later when a question was asked regarding the punishment meted out to a driver in France for very slightly exceeding the speed limit, and who was “awarded 90 days’ field punishment, entailing being strapped to a wagon in full view of the troops for two hours a day, and a loss of 90 days’ pay, and the loss to the man’s wife of his allotment.” The official reply was “that the court-martial was quite within its rights in awarding the punishment named. Very strict regulations have been laid down to prevent reckless driving in France the authorities there having had their attention called to a number of cases where children had been injured owing to that cause.” One week after this case was again referred to and the same minister replied “that the G. O. C. remitted a month of the sentence, and it was afterwards wholly remitted. The effect of this was to restore to the man his pay, and also the allotment to his wife. The War Secretary did not see his way to make any alteration in the law in respect to field punishment.” (Quotations from “Daily Chronicle,” Aug. 2nd and 9th, 1916.) The headlines referring to this case are also an interesting study. On the first occasion I notice, “Field Punishment. Strapped to a wagon for two hours a day.” Second, “Degrading punishment of soldiers.” Sooner or later it may possibly dawn on the hon. Mr. G. Wardle that “oppression and militarism” are far from being “dead.”

* * *

A good illustration of precept and practice was brought to the notice of the House the other day on the subject of the soldiers’ pensions. In the course of the debate Mr. Will Crooks told of a soldier discharged with a pension of 7s. 6d. a week, and the letter he received from a lady who knew of the case. An extract is highly interesting reading. It runs as follows :

“I heard you speak in ——. You said that every wounded warrior would be properly looked after by his country. You are a liar (laughter.) And you knew you were a liar when you said it. (Renewed laughter.)”—”Reynolds’s,” August 20th, 1916.

The agitation which is gradually growing on this question is, of course, somewhat serious, particularly to the labour members who in the earlier days of the war placed themselves unreservedly at the disposal of the powers that be and stumped the country in aid of “voluntary enlistment,” the while telling the workers that a grateful country would look after those broken in the war. The columns of cases of hardship grow day by day and these patriotic labour leaders are now seeing that the promises so glibly made are being falsified by later events, and thus tend to place in jeopardy their future career. Hence the vim and vigour they are placing in their united efforts to obtain some measure of recognition for a more generous scale of pension. To show I am not exaggerating the position let me quote another labour man (Mr. G. N. Barnes) in an interview with a representative of “Reynolds’s.” Pointing to a sheaf of correspondence on his desk, he said:

“These things are getting on my nerves. I simply cannot sleep for them. They all refer to the same subject—men broken since they joined the Army and discharged without the slightest provision made for them or their families in the immediate future.” (Same paper, same date.)

One could fill an issue of the Socialist Standard quite easily with cases taken at random from our masters’ Press. Only the other day the “Daily Express” devoted a portion of its front page to the case of a man who was disabled and, owing to the gratefulness not having reached maturity, was obliged to take out a barrel organ in order to maintain a wife, three children and himself. Such is the generosity of our masters. War time or peace time we are sucked like an orange and then discarded.

* * *

In my perambulations recently I noticed several exhortations to “postpone your holidays,” which advice in many cases, including my own, is superfluous, or as Cabinet ministers would reply: “the question, therefore, does not arise.” But about the same time I read :

“The Hon. Mrs.——left for Kilmarnock.

Lord——left for Rufford Abbey.

The Earl of——left for Burton-on-Trent.

Lady——left for Edinburgh.

Etc., Etc.”——Evening News,” August 8th, 1916.

In no case did I notice that anyone left for—munition works. No, that is left for we workers!

* * *

I have been much interested of late in reading about cases before local Tribunals. Just picture the scene for yourself. Council chamber, and local bumbledom (all impartial gentlemen) with all the pomp and circumstance attaching to their high office, about to hear claims for exemption from military service. Recently I came across the following under the heading of “Wisdom of Mr. Solomon” :

“At the Aldershot Tribunal, Mr. Robertson, the chairman, asked : “What is a linotype operator?”

Mr. Solomon (a member of the Tribunal and a camp furnisher) : “One who lays lino on the floor.” —”Evening Standard,” August 11, 1916.

Were it not for the fact that I read this again in a morning newspaper I should have taken it an a joke on the part of the “Evening Standard.” What an exhibition of profundity ! And is this a specimen of judges of domestic or conscientious objections ?

* * *

It appears as if one of the results of the war will be to crush out of existence as such the small capitalist, and force him into the ranks of the workers. That there is some legitimate ground for this belief is evidenced from time to time in the papers. A recent illustration is to hand in an announcement issued the other day that the London Unionist members received a deputation from the small shell makers round London, who converted their plant, formerly used to make sewing machines, bicycles, etc., to the national uses.

“They complain that the subsequent establishment by the Government of great arsenals which can be run more economically has cut into their production, and that they are threatened with bankruptcy.”—”Daily News,” August l0th, 1916.

Here, then, we observe the pathetic wail of the small capitalist who is threatened with death and destruction—not as a result of the establishment of Socialism, which has been asserted by some to he the end of all things, but by the development of capitalism in itself.

* * *

A question regarding the cost of pauper indoor maintenance was recently asked in the House of Commons. The questioner desired to know “the average cost per head of pauper indoor maintenance on 31st March, 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916 respectively ?” The reply was as follows: “The estimated average cost per indoor pauper in England and Wales for the year ended March, 1913 was £32 12s. 10¾d., and for the year ended March, 1914 £34 9s. 4¾d. Complete returns for the later years are not yet available.” (Official Report, Cols. 2488-9, Aug. 22nd, 1910.) An old age “pension” of 5s.per week, or £13 per year, is a grand thing for the capitalist class. The economy campaign commenced before the war. See what you save the master class by holding out your hand for a dollar a week to spend the evening of your days in your own chimney corner,

* * *

A case of exceptional hardship was given some prominence in a recent issue of a Sunday paper. The facts, according to the report, briefly stated are :

“The breadwinner in a military gaol because he remained with his wife when she was in the valley of the shadow.

Separation allowance; stopped.

Windows and door of the tenement removed by landlord’s agent.

Every pawnable possession gone for food. Parish rations.”

The item of news goes on to say that “some may be uncharitable enough to say that her husband should not have overstayed his leave, and then all this trouble would not have befallen his innocent wife and children. But there is no true man who, in similar circumstances, would not be where Private Price … is to-day. About nine weeks ago Mrs. Price risked her life to bring another little Briton into the world.” It continues by stating that the husband obtained leave to be near his wife, whose recovery was not rapid, and that he was confronted with the following dilemma :

(1) Return to duty and leave his wife with children to care for, and without relative or friend to aid her.

(2) Stay with her and chance the consequences.

“He chose the latter and when he returned to barracks was awarded 56 days’ detention.” We are further informed from this Press report that a representative of the “Illustrated Sunday Herald" visited the woman and her children “at their cheerless home” and “he found a spectacle which for sheer desolation and grief could not be found elsewhere in London.” A reference is made to the family subsisting on the following parochial fare:

1 tin of treacle.

1 tin of condensed milk.

2 loaves of bread.

1 lb. of rice.

issued every two or three days”—“Illustrated Sunday Herald,” Aug. 6th, 1916

This from a capitalist paper in every sense of the word patriotic is a striking commentary on the patriotism of our masters.

* * *

The answer to the question with regard to the employment of soldiers at the Llanelly Steel Works, their rate of pay, etc., came somewhat as a shock to some of the labour men in the House when it transpired that these men were doing civilian work for soldiers’ pay, the War Office appropriating the difference. So concerned were the Labour Party that they met to discuss Dr. Addison’s reply, and

“Mr. C. W. Bowerman, M. P., said yesterday that Dr. Addison’s own confession rendered it impossible for labour to ignore such a serious infraction of the arrangements which had been previously made, and he predicted that if parliamentary action did not avail Labour would consider other ways of stopping it.”— “Globe,” August 9th, 1916.

Is this Industrial Conscription ? At last the Labour fakirs wake up, and, they bark. To interfere with the freedom of the men in the matter of the disposal of their labour-power is poaching on the fakirs’ preserves, and if anything like that’s a doing, why, they have got to be paid THEIR price.

The Scout.

Material World: Standing by your trained killers (2025)

The Material World Column from the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 2020, the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force published its long-awaited findings on the behaviour of the nation’s special forces in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016. It became widely known as the Brereton Report, after Major General Paul Brereton, the investigation’s lead.

Its findings were simple: Australian special forces had committed murder in Afghanistan. Thirty-nine cases were identified. The report found evidence of collusion to cover the atrocities up. Troops carried ‘throw down weapons’ to plant on their victims, to claim they were actually insurgents and the slaying was within the terms of engagement. New recruits were ‘blooded,’ ordered by their officer to kill prisoners to get their first kill. The report identified 25 individuals responsible, and stated that no-one above the rank of sergeant was involved or had knowledge of these atrocities.

So far, only one man has even been charged with murder, and is still awaiting trial. The Office of The Special Investigator, set up by the Australian Government, has noted the difficulty in reliably investigating the incidents, especially with the Taliban in power.

It is likely that only political obsessives in Australia, let alone around the world, will have even heard of the very serious findings of the report. It is unlikely that the culture of the Australian forces evolved on its own.

The British government, for its part, sprang into action and passed The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, which created a

‘presumption that it is to be exceptional for a prosecutor to determine that a Service person or veteran should be prosecuted for alleged offences on operations outside the UK […] These measures do not apply to allegations of sexual offences, torture, crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes’.

(Although the law as originally drafted would have included them – tinyurl.com/spgbBRE3).

The BBC has been picking up stories of abuses by British forces. The 2022 Panorama programme, ‘SAS Death Squads Exposed: A British War Crime?’ observed that: ‘British special forces killed hundreds of people on night raids in Afghanistan’, and asked, ‘but were some of the shootings executions?’ More recently, the episode ‘Special Forces: I Saw War Crimes’ (May 2025) relayed stories from service personnel:

‘Killing of detainees “became routine”, the veteran said. “They’d search someone, handcuff them, then shoot them”, before cutting off the plastic handcuffs used to restrain people and “planting a pistol” by the body, he said’.

And:

‘The testimony, as well as new video evidence obtained by the BBC from SAS operations in Iraq in 2006, also supports previous reporting by Panorama that SAS squadrons kept count of their kills to compete with one another.’

The story sounds almost exactly the same as the Australian one.

The BBC has, inevitably, received pushback for this reporting from the usual ‘support the troops’ types, usually of the ‘so what, war is hell’ variety, or ‘who are we to judge the actions of soldiers under pressure’. But the main response has been crickets. There has been no full bore coverage or outrage on the front pages of the national press. The stories have been simply left to sink down into the archives to be quietly forgotten.

This is the propaganda tool of ‘worthy versus unworthy victims’: the crimes of the British state will receive less attention than the crimes of official enemies. A genuinely democratic press interested in holding authorities to account for the citizenry would operate on the opposite principle.

This is hardly new. In her book Legacy of violence Caroline Elkins explores what she calls ‘legalized lawlessness’ which involves ‘legalizing, bureaucratizing and legitimating of exceptional state-directed violence when ordinary laws proved insufficient for maintaining order and control.’

One example she gives is of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar in India in 1919. The event saw Brigadier General Dyer order his troops to open fire on a crowd, killing around 400 and wounding around three times as many. Despite the outrage around the world, Dyer stood by his actions, as producing a salutary terror to prevent an uprising.

His only punishment was dismissal (though the press and well-wishers raised a substantial sum of money for him). In a debate in the House of Commons on the incident, Winston Churchill depicted it as ‘a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation’, that is, as an exceptional one-off, out of character with the spirit of the British army.

The House of Commons passed a resolution of censure of Dyer, but the House of Lords passed a motion condemning the lower house’s resolution. In that debate, Elkins quotes one noble peer, Viscount Finlay stating:

‘One of the mainstays of our Empire has been the feeling that every officer, whose duty it was to take action in times of difficulty, might rely, so long as he acted honestly and in the discharge of his duty, upon his superiors standing by him’.

Looking at Elkins’ narrative, this is a recurring theme: violent excesses by imperial forces are met with official investigation and sanction, only for the perpetrator to be let off after a vociferous public campaign. The most recent example of this being Sergeant Blackman, who was convicted of murder in Afghanistan.

After a strenuous campaign, the charge was downgraded to manslaughter, and he was released after serving four years in prison. Appeal judges accepted he had a stress-related mental illness leading to diminished responsibility.

The British state has opened a public enquiry under Justice Haddon-Cave. This will likely be a full and conscientious enquiry that will shed some light on the operations of the British forces in Afghanistan. The most likely outcome will be that junior heads will roll (gently), and the report will join others on the shelf, forgotten except by historians

The interests served by the British state create a need for killers, and it is unsurprising when they cross the line. What is harder to understand is the minds of people who will determinedly keep violence and slaughter available as a policy option.

Pik Smeet

Voice From The Back: Poverty Recruits (2008)

The Voice From The Back Column from the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Poverty Recruits

“The economic crisis could help the military recruit and retain troops, Pentagon officials said Friday, potentially ending years of extraordinary bonuses and waivers that have become necessary to keep enough troops to fight two wars. “We do benefit when things look less positive in civil society,” said David S.C. Chu , undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.” (Yahoo News, 10 October) In other words, when young workers are desperate enough they join the armed services. The best recruiting agency for the armed forces is poverty. You need to eat? – go kill. That is capitalism for you.

War is Mental

We are all familiar with the TV ads for the British Army that portray an exciting, fulfilling career but what many of the impoverished youths at whom the ads are aimed may not be aware of are the following facts. “The number of British military personnel discharged from the armed forces following a nervous breakdown has risen by 30 per cent since the start of the Afghan war. More than 1,300 have been medically discharged since 2001 when operation first began against the Taliban, new figures revealed. Of these, 770 belong to the army, which has borne the brunt of overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. …The rising numbers of service personnel leaving for psychological reasons will fuel concerns that thousands of soldiers face being traumatised by their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Health charities claim that as many as one in 10 soldiers will develop a mental health problem from the horrors of combat.” (Observer,19 October)

 

The Same Difference

Amidst the misguided euphoria about the election of a Democratic Party president it is a sobering thought that whether there is a Republican or Democratic legislation capitalism carries on as usual. “Although there is a widespread belief that Wall Street prefers Republican presidents, most studies show that the market has actually done better under Democrats. Since 1901, the Standard & Poor’s 500 index rose 7.2 percent a year on average under Democratic presidents and 3.2 percent under Republicans, according to Ned Davis Research. Looking at a more recent time period – 1944 through mid-2008 – the S&P was up 10.7 percent a year on average with a Democrat in the White House versus 8 percent with a Republican, according to International Strategy & Investment.” (San Francisco Chronicle, 4 November) Changing the ruling party doesn’t change the exploitation system that is capitalism.

 

Another Market Guru

Mr Brown blames the unregulated stock dealers, Mr Cameron blames Mr Brown and socialists blame the slump/boom cycle of capitalism, but here is someone with yet another explanation. “From his base in India’s financial capital Mumbai, Raj Kumar Sharma has been tracking the turbulence in the world stock markets and has come to one firm conclusion — it was written in the stars. As an astro-finance specialist, he has made a career on predicting whether the Bombay Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, Dow Jones or FTSE-100 will go up or down by studying favourable or unfavourable planetary alignments. Where many blame banks overstretching themselves or inadequate financial controls and policy, Sharma sees a clash between fiery Saturn and its arch enemy Leo as a key factor in the recent financial turmoil. ‘Leo is the sign of the sun and the sun is the father in Indian astrology,’ he told AFP. ‘But the son (Saturn) and his father (the sun) don’t get along, so whenever they are sitting in the same house together, they always fight and create ill-will and danger in the market,’ he said.” (TIME.com, 16 October)

 

Vatican Bonuses

“The Vatican has reintroduced a system of clocking in, nearly 50 years after it was last phased out. Senior clerics will have to swipe plastic cards when entering and leaving, all in a drive to improve time-keeping and efficiency. … Lay and ecclesiastical staff working in the tiny city state, are now using the swipe cards. The cards have been issued to everyone from the lowest office staff to the heads of departments, even if they are priests and archbishops, though there has been no mention if Pope Benedict XVI carries one. …It is all part of a drive to increase efficiency and to make the Vatican more meritocratic. Next year there are plans to introduce performance-related pay.” (BBC News, 3 November) Capitalism is a social system that needs concepts like “performance-related pay”, but we wonder how it will operate in the Vatican. One miracle equals how many euros? Two visions equal more or less than one miracle? We foresee some difficulties when disputes go to arbitration.

Pathfinders: Burning rain (2020)

The Pathfinders Column from the November 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

In September the UK Defence Secretary was forced to issue a public denial that the military was proposing to get rid of its stock of 227 Challenger 2 tanks, right after a government review suggested that very thing (BBC News, 12 September). True-blue nationalists, in love with the idea of rolling over foreigners in 60-ton behemoths, were understandably upset at the prospect. But the truth is that the Challenger is outgunned and obsolete, several times over. The larger truth is that the tank itself is an obsolete concept in an age of armour-busting drones and long-range missiles.

Actually, most of Britain’s war capability is obsolete, insofar as it exists at all. Years of budget cuts have reduced personnel and equipment to a fraction of their former strength. The air force has dropped to 119 fighters from 850 in 1989 (dailym.ai/33NmVFN). The British navy has scrapped all its jets, and seen its warship fleet decline from over 900 warships in 1944 to 115 by the time of the Falklands war and now to around 24 (bit.ly/2ZTUN2F). In 2010 it was still patrolling Somali waters on a pirate hunt, now it can barely patrol UK waters, and has completely withdrawn from the South Atlantic, thus rendering the original Falklands slaughter even more absurd. In 2014 Russia parked an armed cruiser off the coast of Scotland, causing red faces at the Admiralty, as the navy’s only available warship was at Portsmouth. Later that year, in the Islamic State crisis, the US and France sent aircraft carriers to the region, but Britain had just sold its last carrier for scrap and just had to look on like the poor relation.

Since then Britain’s splashed out £6bn on two new carriers, contracted by Blair’s boom-time Labour government, which Cameron’s later Tory austerity government couldn’t wriggle out of. But as the BBC reported in June this year with unintentional comedy, ‘The National Audit Office highlighted concerns over missing key elements such as aircraft and support ships’ (bbc.in/32LRbS2). What is the point of buying an aircraft carrier when you don’t have any aircraft to carry, you ask? Well quite. But carriers are a mark of prestige and the entry price to the top diplomatic table. If you don’t have them, goes the thinking, Johnny Foreigner can bowl all sorts of low balls while you’re stuck in the pavilion. Witness China, which had to back down ignominiously, after sabre-rattling at Taiwan in 1996, when the US sent two carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Strait. But since then China has been building anti-ship ballistic missiles that can sink a carrier from 1200 nautical miles away, which makes the UK’s new purchases look even more like shiny white elephants, especially as it doesn’t have the sailors to keep both of them at sea simultaneously and only plans to buy enough F35 fighters for one of them (bit.ly/2RH4Jbc).

As so often with today’s political and geopolitical scenarios, TV’s Yes Minister got there first in the 1980s, on that occasion over the question of buying Trident to replace Polaris missiles. ‘Trident is beautiful,’ declaims Humphrey Appleby, ‘it’s the nuclear missile that Harrods would sell. Of course we don’t need it, but you could say that about anything at Harrods’ (youtu.be/XyJh3qKjSMk). The purpose of British defence policy, he explains for the benefit of the naïve, is not to defend Britain, because that’s impossible, but only to make British people believe that Britain is defended (youtu.be/9KId-GgDcGk). The only thing anyone knows about weaponry is that it’s ridiculously expensive, so it must be good, and that goes double for aircraft carriers. England’s NHS budget is £133bn, after all, so £6bn for a bit of nationalistic feel good therapy doesn’t seem so extravagant.

But war has changed. For one thing, it is increasingly asynchronous, and heavy conventional weaponry is not much use against a guerrilla enemy you can’t see. For another, AI is starting to replace people, and can now defeat top fighter pilots in aerial dogfights (New Scientist, 25 August). Meanwhile in dark fetid corners, state-backed spooks continue to nibble away at each other’s cyber security systems. But neither AI nor hackers can do anything without communications, which is why the key arena is now space. Satellites have become the de-facto battlefield weapon, not only for precision-guided munitions but for most other ground-support operations, including knowing where the other side is and what it’s doing. Who wields the big stick on Earth is whoever’s got a sat-nav system in space. Today there are four navigational satellite systems in orbit, America’s GPS, Russia’s GLONASS, China’s BeiDou and the EU’s Galileo. Britain sank a lot of cash into Galileo before being unceremoniously booted out of the partnership because of Brexit, thus scoring a massive own goal the Brexiteers certainly didn’t see coming. Other systems are emerging for India and Japan, and more will follow. The idea of everyone sharing one single system for peaceful purposes is of course silly idealistic nonsense in a world of competitive markets.

Capitalism increasingly relies on satellites for all its communications and financial transactions. Today there are around 2,600 in orbit, but this is set to increase by at least an order of magnitude as more countries and corporations heft their hardware aloft. SpaceX alone plans to put around 42,000 satellites into orbit, in order to provide global internet access. Pretty soon astronomers will barely be able to see for space junk as everyone and his dog scrambles to join the thousand-mile-high club.

In light of all this it’s obvious that if you want to take down a country, you need to take out its satellites, thus a war in space looks ever more likely. The US has since 2010 been experimenting with an uncrewed reusable space plane, the Boeing US X-37B, running highly secretive space flights of up to two years’ duration. India launched a prototype in 2016, and the Chinese recently launched their own secret space plane from a space port in the Gobi Desert (Nasa, 4 September). What are these uncrewed space planes for? That’s anybody’s guess, but military would be a good bet. Whoever has planes patrolling space has their boot on the neck of potential enemies. When the shooting starts, the satellites will be the shooting stars.

In a post-scarcity society of common ownership there won’t be any reason to fight wars, but in capitalism, war is the logical extension of normal business operations. The technology changes, war doesn’t. Generations grew up in the shadow of the atomic bomb, but the next war might be over even faster than it takes for an ICBM to cross a continent. You won’t see it, you won’t hear it. It’ll just be a power cut. It won’t seem like a catastrophe, nothing that spells a return to the middle ages. You’ll just go outside to ask the neighbours what the hell’s going on, and then stare in wonder at a sky full of burning rain.

Paddy Shannon

Blogger's Note:

Via the SPGB website, a couple of comments arising out of the article.

sshenfield

NOVEMBER 1, 2020 AT 5:38 PM

Very illuminating article. Could you please explain what the ‘burning rain’ is? Space junk falling to earth? Do you think that an exchange targeting communications satellites would trigger nuclear war?

PJShannon

NOVEMBER 2, 2020 AT 11:42 AM

Hi Stephen,

yes, it seemed to me an apt way to describe a whole bunch of satellites disintegrating in the upper atmosphere. Whether a space war would go nuclear is the big question of course. I suppose it depends on who’s involved and how it escalates. The big players (Russia & USA with roughly 7,000 warheads each in 2017, more than 20 times what any other country has) would be unlikely to attack each other as the MAD principle still applies, but space planes could certainly be used against lesser players like Iran, which put up a military satellite in April this year. On some measures the most likely nuclear flashpoint is India and Pakistan, but this is not likely to start in space as India dominates in space tech while Pakistan has relied on China to launch its own satellites. North Korea is something of a wildcard, but has no long-range delivery capability nor any satellite fleet, but has made a number of satellite launch attempts which have been branded as covert ICBM tests. But the more hardware goes up there, the more countries have to lose in a space war and the bigger the potential for a nuclear showdown.

Letters: Civil servants (1983)

Letters to the Editors from the September 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Civil servants

Dear Editors

Now a regular reader, I find myself in broad agreement with your views. Particularly. I see people’s faith in the money system as being capitalism’s jugular vein. Your position on Right to Work campaigns is also sound. If this were not so, armaments production could be justified as it provides jobs.

However. I found your April article on the power of the Civil Service's permanent officials to be unconvincing. You say that "the ease with which different governments adopt different policies, and the same government goes in for U-turns, shows that government policies are not determined by the permanent officials." Well, as you have pointed out, how “different” are the policies of Labour and Conservative governments? Secondly: surely, U-turns are more likely to be precipitated by the permanent officials, who remain anonymous while government officials face the music.

A. Beckett 

Great Boughton, Chester

Reply

Mr. Beckett holds that it is the Permanent Officials who determine government policies and reversals of policies; which, he thinks, explains why there is no real difference between the policies of Tory and Labour governments.

However it is a basic error to suppose that the capitalist class is a monolithic body having only one interest, that of defending capitalism and opposing socialism, for within that general framework different groups have sectional interests, absolutely vital to themselves. These lead to conflicts fought out with all the resources at their disposal, including stirring up the workers to support one side or the other.

This aspect of capitalism was already noted by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, 1848:

The bourgeoisie finds itself in a constant battle. At first against the aristocracy; later on with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries.

The struggle for the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1846 was not a sham fight. The factory owners wanted cheap food imports as the way to reduce wages, but the agricultural interests saw in it their own near-ruin.

Other struggles between sections with conflicting interests have been between those favouring the gold standard and those opposing it; (in America the anti-gold campaign by Eugene Debs, with his slogan “Shall mankind be crucified upon a cross of gold?” was backed by the silver mining companies); over a low pound exchange rate good for exporters and a high rate good for importers; over entry to the EEC; over Keynesian doctrines and “monetarism”; and between capitalists supporting the nationalisation of particular industries and those opposing it.

According to Mr. Beckett’s theory it was the permanent officials who made the 1945 Labour government nationalise steel; then made the Tories denationalise it; renationalised it under the 1964 Labour Government and made the Thatcher government get a mandate to denationalise all or part of it. (The Labour Party pledged itself to maintain nationalisation in its 1983 programme.)

But this is quite wrong. Labour Party demands for nationalisation all originated in resolutions passed by their conferences and embodied in election programmes. Likewise, all the Tory demands for denationalisation were, first, items in their election programmes. There can be no explanation why permanent officials should behave in this very peculiar way, giving contradictory advice to successive governments.

Of course the permanent officials have not advised governments to introduce socialism but no government has ever wanted, or would have accepted, such advice. If by chance one of them gave that advice a Tory government or a Labour government, both being firmly committed to capitalism, would get rid of that official or, as has happened in some instances when the advice ran completely counter to government policy, transfer the person concerned to a department in which they would no longer be involved in such policy questions.

Editors.

Crackpot Colonels

Dear Editors,

How is the neutralisation of state power to be made effective? In your publications, you say that with the advent of socialism, socialists will predominate throughout society, including the armed forces, which is fair enough as far as it goes. If the armed forces are for the most part socialists, then they will hardly oppose the new order.

But how will the armed forces first become socialists, in the main? Often the workers mistakenly joining the armed forces will be those who wish to preserve the existing social set up. But that’s not the point, after all, most workers, if not actually desiring the status quo. grudgingly accept it as a fact of nature, and I don’t consider that a barrier! The workers in the army etc. will be subject to more intensive indoctrination and greater isolation than the rest of us. This can only impede the spreading of socialist knowledge, so how do they become socialists? Through their families or acquaintances on the outside? Or perhaps socialists (when in sufficient numbers) will overcome their revulsion at being the boot-boys of capital, and enlist to propagate socialist ideas? Though as I understand it. being a member of the SPGB precludes membership of the armed forces (at least it will with a large socialist movement, hence aware capitalist politicians) and certainly vice versa.

Whatever the outcome, the non-socialists will be in a small minority. Fair enough, we will have abolished the state, and as military geezers are taught to obey orders, they should accept the change with no more trouble than a bit of flag-waving which most people wouldn’t particularly care for. But if there is a comparatively large anti-socialist faction remaining in the armed forces, mightn't some crackpot colonel take it into his head to attempt a disruption of the new society?

H T Muirhead

Dymock, Glos. 

(This letter has been slightly shortened — Editors.)

Reply

Let us be quite clear, that a socialist society will not submit to any efforts on the part of a minority to frustrate the will of the majority. Crackpot colonels will be suppressed with whatever persuasion, or force, is necessary.

But how will a minority be able to resist the revolutionary majority? How will they persuade people who have opted for socialism to turn back the clock to the society of war, famine, poverty, the Bomb? What point of social reference will they have, in a society without classes and class privilege? In whose interests will they advocate the abandonment of socialism?

The argument, of course, is that they will try to win their point not through persuasion but through violence. What instruments will be at hand for them to use in this? If violence is to have any hope against the wishes of the majority it must be a social effort, with popular support in its conception, organisation and carrying out. But the act of setting up socialism, by a conscious majority, will deprive it of these very essentials. The armed forces, for example, do not exist in isolation but rely in all senses on the sanction of the rest of society; deprived of that they cannot exist in any effective sense.

Workers join the armed forces for a variety of reasons; nowadays, probably because they are unable to find a job anywhere else. The armed and police forces are not peculiar in their requirement that their members act against working class interests; this happens in many other jobs as well. Although it is impossible to say why workers take up one job or another, we do know that the growth and the spread of socialist ideas affects them all; none of them are immune. The developing strength of the movement to socialism, then, will enfeeble the coercive state forces and finally the revolutionary act of establishing socialism will entail the working class taking over the state machine as the only public power of coercion. No minority will endure against that.

Editors.