China and America (1971)

From the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

After more than twenty years of waging a propaganda war against each other and working up suspicions and hatred among their respective working classes, the American and Chinese mobster politicians are to seek some kind of reconciliation.

To those numbered in their millions all over the world, who mouthed and continue to mouth the slogans of Chinese capitalism denouncing “American imperialism”, and equally to all those who mouthed the phrases of American capitalism denouncing “Chinese expansionism”, it must seem as bewildering as were the Catholic church to suddenly get together with the League of Militant Atheists. After mountains of vitriolic propaganda, oceans of hate and the widespread belief that a real and unbridgeable ideological chasm separates the two sides, what explanation can there be for such a momentous reversal of attitudes?

Such about-faces are far from unheard of in the double dealing world of lies and hypocrisy which is capitalism. Stalin and the Bolshevik heads of Soviet capitalism got together with Nazi Germany and, after denouncing the war as imperialist, wound up on the side of British and American imperialism against their former Nazi friends. Conversely, Churchill who had spent twenty-five years denouncing the Soviet regime as a “cancerous growth”, wound up as head of British capitalism, supporting Soviet state-capitalism against Hitler and Mussolini (whom he had formerly admired).

Russia and China are capitalist countries, whose foreign policies, quests for world markets, world investments and military power only make sense when seen as part of the world-wide rivalry that characterises capitalism everywhere.

If the British capitalist class (or most of them) are jubilant at the prospect of multiplying their profits in the European market of 250 million people, large sections of the American capitalist class must have been biting their nails for years at the frustration of missing the pickings of the Chinese market.

During the years since 1948, trade, and even more so investment, has been rigidly restricted between Western capitalism and China. Successive American governments have pursued a policy of “containment”. For many years developing Chinese capitalism depended heavily on Russian equipment and technicians. But during the last ten years when the Russian and Chinese rulers have been embroiled in mutual abuse, technicians have been withdrawn. All this has forced capitalism in China to rely on its own resources and know-how. It has been found that containment and trade embargoes only meant less reliance on the outside world and a greater impetus for developing internal technology.

The priorities of capitalism in China are the same as in other powerful capitalist countries. They exploded their first A-bomb in October 1964 followed by their first H-bomb two years later. From then on it was only a matter of time before they mastered the rocket techniques for delivering them. This marked a significant turning point in how the West regarded the threat of China. When China put her first satellite into orbit in April 1970, Time magazine (11 May 1970) discussed the prospects of rockets and guidance systems and declared, “Peking beyond any doubt will, within weeks or months, possess at least the first elements of a nuclear missile force.” The article went on to review the likely impact on other countries and said “As Japan assumes a larger role in Asia, the country may feel the need for the superpower weapons to match its growing international status”. Which is all very ominous and shows how commercial struggles and military power go together.

During this period there was diminishing opposition to China’s entry into the so-called United Nations. It became known that despite all the mud-slinging, American and Chinese representatives had for years been meeting secretly in Warsaw.

True to their dedication to profits and military force, it took the possession of nuclear weapons to make American capitalism take Chinese capitalism seriously.

Nixon has pulled off the political coup of a life time—if things continue to go in a direction favourable to both sides. Which is not bad considering he does not officially recognise the existence of the Peking government. However, these get-togethers can burst into flame one moment and freeze over the next. But no doubt the masters of mass head-fixing on both sides will be ready to blame each other if it all turns sour. Just as Nixon and Chou-En-Lai will be seen on television smiling and embracing each other, having forgotten the threats of war and mutual destruction so the threats will be revived and the smiling forgotten, if after all it does not come off. An additional irony is that it should fall to Nixon to go sweet-talking in China, since it was he who first made his name as a red-baiter in the post-war years.

Peace is avowed as the heart-felt desire of both sides. And no doubt many millions of ordinary workers will welcome the prospect of diminished hostility. Any sign of hope will be grabbed at by a generation that has seen nothing but wars and military build-ups. But here again there is plenty of evidence to show how hollow these hopes are. There have been hundreds of conferences since the end of the Second World War and the major powers (America, Russia, France, China and Britain) have endlessly negotiated and yet there have been 73 wars including Korea and Vietnam, between 1945 and 1968. Many times hopes have been built up of reducing nuclear weapons, but despite negotiations they have steadily proliferated. After years of friendly relations, Russia and China came close to war in 1969. These two giants keep up the pretence of being different from imperialist America and Britain and used to heap admiration upon each other as “socialist” brothers. Yet they were driven to each other’s throats by the same sordid territorial ambitions as any openly capitalist countries.

What chance is there of China and America forming a relationship where commercial, strategic and territorial ambitions do not clash? It is precisely these interests which make capitalism what it is. The struggles for trade, investments, strategic positions and profits, make clashes inevitable.

The war in Vietnam has dragged on despite years of negotiations. All the suffering, death and destruction are as nothing to the negotiators who ruthlessly stick out for the interests they represent. China may now be expected to use her influence to pull American chestnuts out of the fire. Despite their support for North Vietnam and all the years of anti-American propaganda, such a service to American capitalism must now be regarded as a good bargaining lever. During 1966 China supplied the American air-force with steel for building air-bases in full knowledge of what this meant for their allies in the North. So both sides are well versed in the arts of cynicism and double-cross.

The Japanese government seems enthusiastic at the prospect of a new approach to China. Japan fought a long and bitter war to get her hands on the loot from China. What they failed to achieve by arms they now hope to achieve through the circulation of commodities. Japan is in an expansion frenzy and is hungry for raw-materials and markets.

There may be a period of mad scramble to get into China with capital investments to develop industry and extract minerals, but in the long-term, another massive rival for markets will emerge. Capitalism can operate in no other way. The smiles and frowns of politicians only reflect the prevailing situations presented to them by capitalism.

The final irony, to this latest stage of developments between China and America, might be Russian opposition to China’s entry into the UN. The Russian ruling class too have established “better relations” with Washington, so they may well play it cool. Their reaction will in any case be calculated to create whatever pressure is need to make Russian interests felt in what is going on.

Regardless of the public face they show, Russia, China and America will watch each other very closely. They are each in the same game for what they can get. The fact that friendly relations may exist for a time between each of them, should delude nobody. Trade does not mean trust. They will continue to spy on each other. Investments do not receive peace. They will each maintain their nuclear and other weapons.

Only the working class can get rid of this system of mutual suspicion, rivalry and war. This will involve establishing a world community where trade and investments and military force will have no place. Neither will the cynicism and hypocrisy of politicians.

Harry Baldwin

Alberta Calling—and the Socialist Reply (1948)

From the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Most people, I suppose, regard Karl Marx as the prophet of Communism, but that is not really correct. 

“Communism — meaning the common ownership of goods—was known in the world for many years before Karl Marx was even heard of. What Karl Marx preached was Marxism—a form of Communism which relies upon force and oppression.”

This statement, together with many others equally vague or inaccurate, comes all the way from Alberta, broadcast by one Richard J. Needham. Unlike most modern critics of Marx—who usually commence by paying him tribute for the scientific character of his works—Mr. Needham tries to belittle him by referring to him as prophet arid preacher. A good critic should never belittle the object of his criticism at the start, that should emerge as he unfolds his criticism. If Marx had been a mere ranter there would be no special virtue in having exposed him. But what is of even greater importance, Mr. Needham should have made himself acquainted with Marxism before he rushed to the microphone to talk about it.

It is true Communism existed before Marx. It was practised in ancient society, was, in fact, the normal mode of social life, but was obviously not known by that name at the time. The word was first used in the early days of the working-class movement and was derived from the French commune, or village community. The communal way of life prevailed, too, among savage tribes discovered in fairly recent times. It is said to have been practised by the monks in the early days of the Christian era. But none of these examples, as Marx said, is to be compared with the higher communism to come; which is only possible when the working class have come to realise that class ownership of the means of life is inconsistent with the free development of humanity.

To Mr. Needham Russia is the embodiment of Marxism. Soviet Russia, for him, is Marxism in practice, hence, for him, to expose the Russian way of life is to smash Marxism. He says :

“This, of course, is what has happened in Russia. Capitalism has been destroyed, but we can scarcely say that Communism has taken its place. What has happened is that a dictatorship has been set up—not exactly a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship acting in the name of the proletariat. Sympathisers with Communism tell us that this dictatorship, as Marx proclaimed, is purely temporary, but it does not seem very temporary. Although it has been in effect thirty years, it still shows no signs of giving way to parliamentary democracy as we understand it.”

Capitalism in Russia destroyed; a temporary state called dictatorship established; and, as yet, no signs of parliamentary democracy as we understand it, Which means: we destroy capitalism, establish dictatorship and progress backwards, or is it forward? to capitalism. What is the truth?

America and Russia are the two greatest capitalist powers in the world, the two greatest powers in the present conflict of power-politics. America with her dollars and her atom bombs, and Russia grabbing oil fields, plutonium and other raw materials in readiness to answer the American challenge for world supremacy.

From this survey of the external facts it would appear that Russian capitalism is very much alive. What about the internal facts? The Supreme Soviet of Russia with all its political and industrial machinery is built on wage labour. The surplus value, over and above the cost of living of Russian workers, now flows into the coffers of the totalitarian state and is divided among officials, political, military and industrial, according to their usefulness in the Soviet schemes for power.

The leaders of the so-called Russian revolution have achieved power over the mass of their fellow countrymen. They lead, or push them into the industrial or military conflict for world domination in a capitalist world, under the dictates of the supreme Soviet. They are as firmly in control of their subjugated millions as the American capitalist class with its control of the political machinery. No Russian worker can escape the efficiency and widely flung tentacles of the Russian Government.

Orders are issued from the top, and they must be obeyed. They are obeyed. What would Wall Street not give to have their wage-slaves under such perfect control? Scared stiff by Hollywood reds and talk of Communists in official positions, they would care little at being dubbed fascist or gestapo, if their power to enforce their orders were equal to that of the Russian leaders.

It is obvious, that there is no dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, nor anywhere else, nor at any time, now, or in the future. When the working-class is in a position to dictate they will be democratically organised for the purpose they have agreed upon, and their organisation will be intellectually and technically equal to the task. Until then it is the capitalists that dictate, and the workers’ task is an individual one: to understand and help to organise for the day when deeds of ownership and share certificates in the land and means of wealth production will be abolished; and the working-class will carry on production, in a truly democratic manner, for the satisfaction of their needs. Next Mr. Needham quotes from Marx as follows:

“In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole means at the same time accumulation of misery, toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality and mental degradation at the opposite pole.”

All this is substantially true. With regard to the accumulation of wealth Mr. Needham might have discovered that it was beyond dispute. An American work entitled The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means, gives the information that one half the corporate wealth of the United States is controlled by no more than 200 companies. While 2,500 officers and directors own between them two thousand million dollars of capital; most of it in the hands of about 250 men who occupy the decisive executive positions.

Mr. Needham does not agree that this accumulation of wealth at one pole means poverty at the other, he says :

“The wages paid to factory workers in Canada and the United States are higher than have ever been paid to factory workers anywhere—not only in the money sense, but also in actual purchasing-power. Millions of factory workers in North America own comfortable houses and up-to-date automobiles.”

A higher standard of living is only made possible by the industry of the workers. But enjoyment of that higher standard by the workers is always opposed by the capitalists. The realisation of it can only come through hard bargaining and often strikes. Higher wages are not the result of generosity or fairness. They are paid for special qualifications, or as a compromise against still higher demands.

But ownership of a comfortable house and automobile is not confined to America. In most capitalist countries, there may not be millions, but there are more or less in a comparable position. This was proved in the last depression, when many thousands worsened the crisis because they could not keep up payments for cars, radio sets and refrigerators.

From the millions of factory workers owning houses and cars take a look at the other side of the picture. Of the slums in all the large towns, where millions do actually live in the grip of perpetual poverty. Where the conditions of existence are below any decent civilised standard. An American periodical, “Fortune,” ,says:

“About 31 per cent. of American homes lack running water; more than ten million dwelling units have no modern plumbing facilities. Eighteen million families are without baths. More than eight million families are without electric light, or power.” (Quoted in Daily Worker, August 1st, 1947.)

These figures possibly cover America’s notorious slums, but weighed in the balance against Mr. Needham’s doubtful millions, the misery side of the scale sags definitely. From the mortgaged or slum home to the factory:

“The factories, of course, have vastly improved under capitalism. People do their jobs under conditions strictly laid down by law. The manufacturing plants of Canada and the United States are the roomiest, the best lighted, the safest and most comfortable in the world. The milk and bread, the fruit and meat consumed by Canadian and American workers has to pass the most rigid tests.”

Who makes the factories roomy and keeps them clean? Not the capitalist owners. Neither is it permitted by them out of consideration for their wage-slaves. The housing of the machine must keep pace with its development. Machines are expensive, and must be suitably housed and protected from weather if they are to replace their value with the sale of products before they are worn out. While the workers who keep them running at top speed must work with ease if they are to last out the shift. And the capitalists who rely on these workers will not tolerate any tampering with food that would diminish their workers’ efficiency or constitute a danger to themselves.

According to Mr. Needham Marx made many mistakes. No doubt he did in minor matters, but in the general analysis of the capitalist system, and the part the workers should play to achieve their freedom he was sound. Mr. Needham says :

“Marx made the greatest mistake when he told the workers to rise up, in blood and fury, and destroy their compatriots: He made his greatest mistake when he called upon them to engage in class warfare.”

Is there a class war? Is there class hatred? The Socialist knows that the capitalists in America, as elsewhere, suppress strikes in blood and fury.” He knows that those strikes are evidence of the conflict of interests in. the basis of capitalist society. Evidences of these conflicting interests are present all over the world; in America, the most advanced capitalist country, more so than anywhere else. The workers all over the world to-day struggle blindly on the industrial field to maintain their meagre standard of living. When, they realise that their struggle is inherent in the system because of its class ownership of the means of life, they will organise consciously for control of the machinery of government, in order that they may abolish class ownership and establish Socialism. A truly democratic system of all the people, who will control production and distribution according to their needs.

F. Foan

“The Third Way” by Wilfred Wellock. A Review (1948)

Pamphlet Review from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

This topical pamphlet accepts the common outlook to-day that the people of Britain must choose between “Russian Communism,” the “American way of life,” or “a third way,” and Mr. Wellock gives us directions so that we may go with him along his “third way.”

In the present state of world affairs, Mr. Wellock realises that the policies of the great powers in scrambling for export markets is a hopeless solution to their national problems and that when the markets of the world are again glutted a slump will occur. He also realises that the logical end of such policies is a third world war, complete with atomic atrocities.

He also mentions the point that many countries which previously were good markets for the older established producers are now producing many things within their own frontiers which hitherto they have purchased. The extension of this process makes it much more difficult for the, older nations to export more than they used to.

In order to gain the support of the workers for their programme of increased production the Labour Government has produced its version of the old illusion that only by this means can they raise their standard of living. Mr. Wellock, although an ex-Labour M.P., disagrees with this policy, but from a peculiar point of view.

He is much concerned with the spiritual uplift of the people. “The unbalanced economics of to-day are the product of greed and naked power politics, have wrought untold economic and spiritual harm, and must he superseded by an economy that is based on human need, spiritual and economic.” (P. 23.)

He appears to think that an increase in the standard of living will simply result in the workers spending more money on beer, cigarettes, football pools, and other frivolous pleasures and pastimes. The development of mass production has produced the “mass mind and the mass man.” Is the drive to increase the standard of living worth while, then? Mr. Wellock does not think so, unless we change entirely our scale of values, and in doing so revise entirely our concept of the meaning of “standard of living.”

“Our job, in fact, is to find that better way of life for which the whole world is looking, and not- east the people of Britain. That ‘way’ will place in their right order material and spiritual factors so that both may make their maximum contribution to the achievement of that abundant life which the human soul in its silent and better moments knows to be within man’s reach.” (P. 24.)

Following such a “change of heart,” society would demand, according to Mr. Wellock, a reversion to decentralised small-scale economy in which each individual could feel he had a responsible place. Machines would be put to “their right use which is to assist man in making things of the highest quality and beauty.” Consequently, Mr. Wellock visualises a return to an economy of craftsmen and craftsmanship, and his “way” calls for nothing less than the rebuilding of civilisation on new foundations, which are, he believes, the creative and social values of Christianity.

Like the bulk of these petty reformists, Mr. Wellock has a totally false conception of the world in which we live. Whilst he is able to see a lot of the evils which exist, on the surface, they are the results of causes which he has not yet grasped, causes of which he has no knowledge.

All the evils which Mr. Wellock criticises—modern war, dictatorship, “money values,” monotonous labour, etc.—arise from the kind of society in which we live, capitalism. These evils arise from certain material causes, e.g., war from national capitalist rivalries over sources of raw materials, markets, trade routes, etc. ; “money values” from the production of commodities for sale at a profit; monotonous labour from the introduction of machinery for the purpose of cheapening prices. These bad things do not exist because man is bad. These bad things are the normal workings of capitalism. Neither are these bad things bad for everybody. There is no doubt they are had for the workers, the vast majority of the people—not because workers have bad thoughts but because they have no property. Conversely these things are good for the capitalist class, or sections of it, because they serve a purpose in protecting private property and profits.

Mr. Wellock has no knowledge, or studiously avoids disclosing it, of the division of society into two classes, propertyless workers and propertied capitalists, or of the historical development of human society from primitive communism through chattel slavery and feudalism to capitalism, otherwise he would not be wastiug his time advocating a return to the conditions of a mediaeval economy.

His pamphlet bears the hall-mark of the well meaning social reformer who, failing to understand the material causes which underlie the great and grave problems confronting the working class, takes refuge in the worn-out belief that only by retreating to pre-capitalist conditions will these problems be solved.

Far from it—the clock cannot be put back.

The “way” lies forward, along paths not yet trodden by the foot of man, but clearly marked on the map for those willing to read, “To Socialism.”

N.S.

A Letter from Vienna (1948)

From the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Amongst cables and letters of greeting and good wishes received by our 44th Annual Conference in London at Easter, was the following letter from an early member of the Party now in Vienna.

16th March, 1948.

“Please convey to the Conference a salute and good wishes from a number of comrades and sympathisers in this city.

“If the promises and hopes held out in previous messages to Conferences have remained unfulfilled— which no one regrets more than I do—let us find consolation in the fact that we have at least survived bombs and totalitarian terrorism so that we can still kindle the light that must eventually pierce the dark clouds and penetrate the hearts and brains of the workers. Greater efforts in these past years might very possibly have led to the extinction of even these few torch bearers in this tortured Continent. Remember we are not in England, but East of it. As it is, we can still watch our opportunity, and opportunity is a fine thing for us also. So, when the stock taking is made at the Conference, delegates might be justified in booking even this weak point of contact as a small asset for the movement.

“The existence of the scientific and solid instrument of the S.P.G.B. has always been a strong ray of hope and comfort to me. It seems to shine brighter and brighter as the world situation is deteriorating and increasingly menacing, and confusion in the labour movement is growing apace. As the bankruptcy of ideas, policies, and the general helplessness becomes glaringly more evident, can it be doubted that when the third crisis approaches, the party’s message will at last be heard and taken up in wider circles as the only possible way out of an appalling dilemma?

“I am forever grateful for the education received at the S.P.G.B. University, which puts people on the track of understanding and explaining social phenomena when every other theory and action has failed and events leave men utterly bewildered. The scientific outlook on and attitude to life which Socialism gives, has enabled me, too, to steer clear of all vicious temptations and avoid the pitfalls of quackery and confusion.

“As long as I live, you can always count me amongst the most ardent and steadfast upholders of the cause. My work has in the past had to be on a very limited scale, but who can say whether even the humblest of us will not sooner or later become the medium of quickening the pace of progress and find his hands strengthened and forced by events? At this juncture, we cannot, of course, escape the vital importance of seeing at least Democracy maintained as against the renewed evil onslaughts that are being made in many quarters, including the country from which I write.

“With renewed good wishes for the success of your Conference, I remain, Yours fraternally……”

Rudolf Frank

Although the Socialist message penetrates to and finds acceptance in many parts of the world, the points of contact are small and limited, hut we definitely assure our Viennese comrades that we regard our contact with them as a real asset to our movement. We can also assure all our well-wishers in other lands, that if hopes held out in messages to this Conference remain unfulfilled by the time we hold our next one, it will be our misfortune and not our fault.

Overseas Secretary.

The Jamaica Plan for World Peace (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Standard has received a circular from the United Nations Association of Jamaica containing details of yet another plan for world peace, which the Association thinks we must strive to attain by means of a world peace referendum, in which the peoples of the world could declare that they want peaceful settlement of differences by negotiation, reduction of armaments, and a ban on the use of the atom-bomb, hydrogen-bomb, germ-warfare and other weapons of mass destruction.

This kind of plan is not new. There were a number of them before the second world war. Two that spring to mind are the Peace Ballot of the Peace Pledge Union and Canon W. H. Elliott's League of Prayer, to which belonged five and a half million people all praying that the nations might be guided "as one family into the ways of peace.” Since the last war we have had Communist-sponsored Peace Conferences; a rival non-Stalinist peace conference is reported as planned in Yugoslavia; the publisher Victor Gollancz has been trying to get people together with the object of "halting the drift" to a third world war; and now the Jamaica plan has appeared.

These attempts failed to stop the second world war.

And our experience teaches us that they will also fail to prevent yet other wars. No one questions the sincerity of the people who sponsor them and take part in them. And it is undoubted that people will support them in large numbers. This is not surprising. For if a hundred people are asked if they prefer peace or war, at least ninety-nine of them will say that they prefer peace; and therefore they are willing to sign petitions for peace, or vote for it in referendums. This general desire for peace among the peoples of all countries is well known; so much so as to render almost ludicrous the solemn statement made by a Russian in the new English language paper published in Moscow: she said, referring to a recent visit to England, that "there is no doubt that the average man is very much concerned about peace.” (News, July, 1951.) Why is it that this general desire for peace has such little effect on world affairs?

The reason is that the simple question, "Are you for war or for peace? ” never in fact arises outside the pages of the latest peace pamphlet. For what the organisers of these petitions and referendums ignore is that the world to-day is divided into a number of separate states, which all have capitalist economic systems, whether the private-enterprise brand or the State-owner- ship brand is more in favour in any particular country. And these states, by virtue of the fact that they are capitalist, have interests at variance with those of other states. They must all safeguard their sources of raw materials; they must safeguard their markets; and they must safeguard and improve their strategic position in the world so that they may be able to defend themselves successfully when the next war comes. Now there are not enough raw materials in the world to satisfy all the states at the same time; more important still, there are not enough markets (other than government buying of armaments) to be able to take up continually all the products of capitalist industry when it is going at full blast; and in the all-pervading atmosphere of insecurity^ and mistrust which arises from these continual conflicts' in the economic sphere, two or more states often find themselves contending with each other over the control of some small country or island which both sides consider is vital to its safety in a future war. Each state, then, filled with suspicion at the activities of other states, tries to defend itself by building up more and more armaments. Finally there comes a time when a state sees its interests so clearly threatened by another state that it has to resort to arms to defend them, and history has to record the outbreak of yet another war.

This is half the answer to the question, “Why is the general desire for peace ineffectual in preserving it?" The other half is to be found in the fact that in each state the organs of propaganda—press, cinema, radio—are in the hands either of private capitalists, who naturally support the interests of their own state, or (in the more recently organised capitalist systems) in the hands of the state itself. And when war becomes imminent, the press and the radio do not pose the simple question, “ Peace or war? ” to the populations whose opinions they influence; they put the question in the form, “Are we tamely to submit to the enemy aggressors and imperialists, and allow our friends and ourselves to be attacked, or are we to defend ourselves and our interests in other countries?” And the effectiveness of the organs of propaganda is seen in the fact that at any rate at the beginning of a war, the great majority of the population of any country is wholeheartedly behind its government.

In peace time, no one is more vociferously peace- loving than are the heads of states. “ Our main purpose,” said Mr. Morrison in the article which Pravda printed on August 1st, “is to avoid war, to preserve peace.” Pravda replied that the real champions of peace are the Russians. But in reality there is no state, on either side of the Iron Curtain, whose main purpose is to avoid war and preserve peace. All states believe that there are some things more important than peace. For example, in the “Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks),” the author (Stalin) distinguishes between two kinds of war:

“ (a) Just wars, wars that are not wars of conquest, but wars of liberation, waged to defend the people from foreign attack and from attempts to enslave them, or to liberate the people from capitalist slavery, or, lastly, to liberate colonies and dependent countries from the yoke of imperialism; and

“ (b) Unjust wars, wars of conquest, waged to conquer and enslave foreign countries and foreign nations.”

The definition of "just wars”—wars of defence against attack or to liberate dependent countries— could be stretched to cover any and every war any country was engaged in. And” just wars” are preferable to peace, if the choice has to be made, according to them.

President Truman, though going into less dialectical detail, comes into the same conclusion. “President Truman said tonight that ‘freedom and justice are more precious* to the American people than peace.” (Daily Express, 11/1/1951.)

Events would show us this even if the speeches and writings of the leaders of states did not. When war broke out between North and South Korea, the U.S.A. thought it more important that South Korea should be kept within what it calls “the free world” than that peace should be preserved. And when the North Koreans were retreating rapidly before their enemies, China thought it more important that North Korea should be kept within what it calls “the democratic world” than that peace should be preserved. Whatever Mr. Morrison may say, all states have ends which to them are more important than the preservation of peace.

The Jamaica Plan for World Peace, and all other plans of the same kind, ignore all these facts. The Jamaican circular calls on the peoples of the world “to deliver an irrevocable mandate for peaceful negotiation of differences between nations.” This rather reminds one of the people in a tropical village delivering “an irrevocable mandate” that the tigers in the nearby jungle shall settle their differences peacefully by negotiation. One can stop the danger of fights between tigers by shooting the tigers; and one can stop the danger of war by getting rid of the capitalist system. Until we do that we will have wars. If you support these schemes which leave out of account the great central fact of the existence of the capitalist system, you are wasting your time. The only way to put an end to war is to bring about the establishment of a socialist society.

Alwyn Edgar

A New World Order (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Sunday Observer in an editorial commenting on Mr. Churchill’s address to Congress quoted Mr. Churchill as saying:—

"The British Commonwealth is not prepared to become a State or a group of States in any continental system on either side of the Atlantic.”

And remarks, “He thus ruled out any merger of sovereignty, not only in a European but in an Atlantic context.”

The editorial later continued with another excerpt from the speech. How in the last eight years, "former allies have become foes. Former foes have become allies. Conquered nations have been liberated. Liberated nations have become enslaved by Communism.”

Then asks, “Is that aimless round to go on for ever? Is the world not ripe, both technically and psychologically, for a different system of international affairs, for a new world order?” (Observer, January 20th, 1952.)

The Observer means by “a different system of international affairs” and “a new world order” some sort of political union between the Western countries better fitted “than the present coalition not only to wage war, if necessary, but also to prevent war indefinitely.”

If it is possible “ to prevent war indefinitely ” why that talk of “waging war, if necessary ”?

The Federation of the United States of America and the association of nations united in common allegiance to the British Crown don’t seem to have been very useful in preventing war as the history of these countries show.

Federal union or any other form of union, far from lessening the risk of war, brings with it a greater chance of war—and greater war at that! The present demand for union has only arisen from the threat of war with a rival union of capitalist states. A union of states also involved the risk of a war because some member state wishes to secede.

Mr. Churchill says in the last eight years foes have become allies, allies foes. Conquered nations liberated, liberated nations enslaved. This has not only happened the last eight years. It has happened throughout the last 300 years.

Contrary to the opinion of the Observer editorial, it isn’t the political relationships between states which distinguish the form of the “world order,” but the social relationship men enter into to provide their food, clothing and other needs. Under Capitalism, the present world order, society is divided into two classes. The distinguishing basic social relationship existing between these classes arises because one class, the capitalist class, own and control the means and instruments for producing wealth, and consequently, the other class, the working class, having no other access to the means of living, must sell their labour power to live. To this relationship can be traced the major evil, war. The difference between what the working class produce and what they receive for their subsistence motivates capitalist production. To realise as large a share as possible of the surplus value, as this unpaid labour of the workers is called, the various sections of the world capitalist class come into conflict with each other over markets, where goods can be sold, over sources of raw materials, and over strategic points controlling trade routes. This struggle leads to war. Political states represent the different groups of capitalists, and when the economic interests of any group is at stake the national capitalist state will protect those interested with armed, force, if necessary.

Political union is no solution. The only way to prevent war is to abolish the social relationships which give rise to it The Observer must be taken literally when it expresses the desire for a new world order; but the only new order that matters must be based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of production. Technically the time is ripe for this. Man's control over nature has advanced far enough to enable him to provide sufficient for all without any conflict, nationally or internationally, over the ownership of wealth. But the working class must acquire socialist understanding. They must realise Capitalism is the cause of their troubles and that socialism is the only solution. Bring about the change by endorsing the case of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

J.T.

Peaceful Preparations (1947)

From the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The American Government is going ahead with plans to build up stocks of raw materials required for war. In two years the expenditure on purchases at home and abroad will amount to well over £100 million. Is this good news? The Manchester Guardian rather thinks it is: “This plan will incidentally provide other countries — in particular British Empire countries — with dollars to supplement those earned from normal exports to America.” (February 14th, 1947).

“This,” says the Guardian, “is particularly welcome now that the world banks lending plans are hanging fire” ; not to mention the fact that the “purchases made inside the United States will also help to ward off the much talked-of ‘business recession’ there.”

Thus in one short news item two war-time hopes, of no more war and no more trade depression, are forgotten and here we are back in the pre-war atmosphere of being glad that war preparations keep trade going !

Pathfinders: Big Red Button (2026)

The Pathfinders Column from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last year Hollywood director Kathryn Bigelow caused a minor stir with A House of Dynamite, an earnest and compelling warning against nuclear war in the tradition of Fail Safe (1964), or its comedy twin Dr Strangelove (1964). Unlike her other films it probably won’t win any gongs though, because it annoyed a lot of people.

Note, this paragraph contains spoilers. Critics complained that the film wasn’t a ‘proper’ story, with a beginning, middle and end, but instead was a looping repeat of the same chain of events from different character viewpoints. Nor did it have an ending. The viewer is just left hanging. Does the missile blow up the city? Does the US launch a retaliatory strike, and against whom? We don’t find out. But that’s ok, because the ending wasn’t the point.

The point of Dynamite is how we got ourselves into this situation in the first place. ‘We all built a house filled with dynamite… and then we just kept on livin’ in it,’ says one character. Jacobin magazine sniffily objected that the film doesn’t really say anything, and is essentially an ‘impotent and unserious exercise in handwringing’. We might sniffily object in turn that anyone who doesn’t advocate the immediate abolition of capitalism is also merely handwringing. Which would include all of the left including Jacobin magazine.

Because while capitalism has done a lot of good things for humanity, it’s also an out-of-control profit-making machine that comes with some catastrophic downsides. Runaway global warming isn’t even the worst of these. We can probably survive that, as a species. But who would survive nuclear Armageddon? Who would even want to?

For all the Boomer generation’s supposed privileges, like free higher education, affordable houses, job security and career advancement, they still had to grow up in the Cold War under the shadow of the Bomb, not knowing whether each day would be their last. Now Gen Z and Gen Alpha, on top of their other problems, may come to know what that feels like. ‘On January 27, 2026, the Doomsday Clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its history’.

Who’s got nukes?

Nine countries today have a total of around 13,000 weapons, down from the Cold War’s 60,000, but arsenals are increasing again. You can see the distribution at a glance at armscontrol.org. Most belong to Russia and the US, but China is fast playing catch-up. These are not just nukes, but BIG nukes. ‘For example, the warheads on just one US nuclear-armed submarine have seven times the destructive power of all the bombs dropped during World War II, including the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. And the United States usually has ten of those submarines at sea’ (ucs.org).

Who wants nukes?

Basically, every country’s ruling elite, following the National Rifle Association’s argument that in an armed society, you’re safer if you’re packing heat too. Ukraine gave up its nukes in 1994 and what happened? It got invaded. Iran keeps being bombed by Israel, but who dares bomb nuclear North Korea? The lesson is obvious and unavoidable. Disarmament is for losers. To paraphrase Mark Carney at Davos, if you’re not at the nuclear table, you’re on the menu.

There are fewer total nukes than in the Cold War era, so why is the threat worse today? Because treaties are easier when there are only two sides to negotiate. After the panic of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War finally settled into stasis with arms control treaties. Now there are three major nuclear powers, and more on the way. In February this year the 2010 START nuclear non-proliferation treaty expired, and no nuclear power shows any interest in reviving or replacing it. Instead, with Russia fighting in Ukraine, China threatening Taiwan, India and Pakistan having cross-border skirmishes, and the US under Trump threatening to remove the ‘extended deterrence’ umbrella from its own NATO allies, the gloves are off. Any country that can get its hands on nukes and more nukes is going gangbusters to do just that, and never mind other internal costs like health and social welfare.

The upshot is proliferation. Now even America worries that, despite its gigantic arsenal, it won’t have enough to go round if adversaries like Russia and China decide to join forces. There is a terrifying escalatory logic at play, as the Economist points out. A country may opt for ‘minimal deterrence’, having just enough nukes to survive a first strike and still deliver unconscionable devastation on enemy cities. But beyond minimal deterrence, military planners aim for ‘damage limitation’, which means having enough missiles to take out all the other side’s nuclear silos, submarines and mobile launchers. If this capacity is achieved, it only drives the other side to acquire further weapons, and so on indefinitely (‘Nukes of Hazard‘).

Even if war is not the immediate result, this multi-sided arms race makes the prospects of any binding arms treaty look more remote, and the chances of a Fail Safe-like accidental launch greater than ever. But we, the vast majority of the world’s people, didn’t do this. We are merely the grunts who do all the work of maintaining what we like to call civilisation. It’s the rich who have built a world of dynamite and are sitting on top of it, smoking fat cigars. Our only mistake is continuing to support and vote for the market system which created the rich, and their nukes, in the first place.

J Robert Oppenheimer, the self-styled ‘destroyer of worlds’, was along with Einstein a founder of the Doomsday Clock that now ticks perilously close to midnight. There’s still time for humanity to claw its way back from the brink, and use its miraculous science and technology purely for the collective benefit, but only if it stops deluding itself. Capitalism is not sustainable, nor our best option. It’s a death cult with a Big Red Button.

Paddy Shannon

What 'peace dividend'? (1991)

From the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many workers believe—or, until the Gulf crisis, believed—that with the end of the Cold War peace has broken out and that as a consequence the demand for war weapons has gone into a permanent decline, so that the money spent on them can be directed to improving living standards and the industries producing them converted to peaceful purposes.

Talk of this so-called “peace dividend" began following Gorbachov’s speech at the United Nations at the end of 1988, since when there has allegedly been “no enemy in Europe". Tom King, the Defence Secretary said as much in a statement to Parliament on 18 June last year justifying reductions in defence spending. Then in July, as part of the defence review, he announced the cancellation of an order for 33 Tornado aircraft for the RAF. British Aerospace responded by announcing a cut of 800 in their manning on Tornado assembly. This was followed up by the announcement in November of a "restructuring” involving a cut of about 20 per cent in staff and the closure of two large sites, in Kingston and Preston. Again the recent changes in eastern Europe were cited as a factor. The future of the European Fighter Aircraft (EFA), already hazy, has become more doubtful still following German reunification and the resulting reassessment of German military requirements.

Arms still in demand

This is not a new situation. The demand for arms fell temporarily after the Boer War and after both World Wars. In 1902 and 1918 workers lost their jobs as a result. There were also campaigns for diversification and the manufacture of alternative products at armament plants such as Woolwich Arsenal, which had little success despite some support from local councils and chambers of commerce. In 1945, while there was again a temporary slump in arms production, capitalism went into a boom phase which minimised the disruption. In none of these cases, however, had peace broken out. Indeed in 1945, following the defeat of the Axis powers, two new aggressive power blocs formed immediately and the demand for military equipment duly recovered.

This conflict—the Cold War—has now come to an end, at least temporarily. The main reason for this has been the need for Russia to take time out to give urgent attention to its ailing economy. But the basic cause of war, the struggle of competing capitalist rivals for raw materials, trade routes, markets and strategic areas, remains untouched. This may cause the Cold War blocs to re-form at some future date. Or future superpower conflicts may increasingly take the form of local wars on the Korean and Vietnam lines, as this in theory reduces the chances of a nuclear holocaust which would be an overkill even from the capitalist viewpoint. The danger of such a holocaust, however, will remain as long as capitalism does. None of these scenarios, needless to say, in any way remotely resembles peace.

The truth of this is underlined by the current Gulf crisis and the Iran-Iraq war which preceded it. This conflict is so brazenly a struggle for control of the world’s oil supplies as to be reminiscent of the period prior to World War 1, before so-called "communism” and fascism arose to be used to mask the true cause of capitalism’s wars. Indeed so clearly does this current conflict illustrate the truth that further comment would appear superfluous.

Patriotic unions

The current "crisis" in the arms industry (notice how any suggestion of peace leads to talk of a crisis!) will not prove lasting. That does not mean that the working class, through the trade unions, should not do all they can to minimise the effect of the present downturn. Just as pressure to defend real wage levels can succeed, because the cost to the capitalist of a strike may he greater than that of conceding, so for a similar reason redundancies may be reduced, by determined militant action, below the original figure demanded by the employers. Socialists fully support and participate in such efforts.

However, what we have been seeing from the trade unions goes far beyond this and is not acceptable from the socialist viewpoint. Basically it amounts to an attempt to reform capitalism in order, so they hope, to keep their members in employment. MP's are lobbied, the capitalist government is approached, searches are made for other possible sources of investment and if found support for them is asked for. The unions have even been demanding that the government revoke its cancellation of the Tornado order!

That is not to say that such attempts are doomed to failure. By and large, however, they come from an attitude in which fantastic and utterly useless remedies are being put forward, something that is not confined to armaments workers of course. Sometimes sections of the capitalist class lend some support if they see a prospect of profit, but it will of course be support on capitalist conditions, which cannot be of any real benefit to the working class.

We can see in such thinking a reflection of the attitude of the Labour Party to which the unions are unfortunately still wedded. The Labour Party is mainly composed of workers who believe that Labour politicians can run capitalism better than the capitalists. The example of Solidarity in Poland, originally a trade union, but which sprouted a political wing that now forms a government which is enforcing draconian austerity measures ought to serve as a warning to the super-reformist (and often super-patriotic) British trade unionists who are so numerous in the aircraft industry.

There can be no compromise with capitalism, and no matter how desperate the short-term situation may be, workers should not entertain such ideas. What may look on the surface to be just a compromise, will always prove in the end to have been surrender.

E. C. Edge

News in Review: Mr & Mrs Average (1961)

The News in Review column from the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr & Mrs Average

According to a new Stationery Office publication—Britain, 1961 Edition— “ Mr. and Mrs. Average " are described as having a TV set, vacuum cleaner and occasionally a washing machine and a 'fridge. The acquisition of these goods is equated by advertisements, films and magazines to true, lasting happiness. We all know the phrases “No more washday fatigue with Blank's wonderful washing machine", etc. The mere fact of possessing these goods, however, does not produce happiness as soon as the gadget is installed. On the contrary, they often produce problems, mainly financial, and occasionally their "happy" possessors are driven to desperation, as in the case of a young couple in Birmingham, who clearly were "Mr. and Mrs. Average". The husband was the envy of the neighbourhood. He had bought a five-piece living room suite, washing machine, bedroom suite and TV set on hire purchase, and had redecorated his 15/- a week house from top to bottom. On 28th December I960, with the Christmas decorations still hanging gaily, the husband, wife and their 2 year old daughter were found dead in their gleaming, gas-filled kitchen. The wife was expecting her second child the following week. A note said that they worried about their hire purchase debts.

Never had it so good . . .

Airways Strike

The maintenance staff of BOAC and BEA staged a four-hour stoppage on Wednesday, January 2nd, in support of a wage claim that has been going through the laborious negotiating machinery. This, of course, caused some dislocation of airline schedules. This undoubtedly caused a lot of hardship to some passengers, but the unfortunate fact is that for the aircraft workers one of the few ways in which the employers and their own union officials can be gingered up is by resort to a strike. This was bound to be unpopular: remember how the press and the Government castigated the railwaymen and the busmen in the past for their strike action that "inconvenienced the public"?

But what happened when the strikers at the airport reported for duty after the four-hour stoppage? BEA immediately suspended them for a further 24 hours, causing six times as much inconvenience to the public. 

One would have thought that this would have brought howls of protest from the press and Government. But the only newspaper comment was typified by the Daily Mail of January 6th, which said that BEA was determined to push home the lesson to the strikers. It seems that what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

On the Brink

Both Russia and the United States waxed indignant about each other's interference in the Laos disturbances. Sheer hypocrisy of course, because they had both been dabbling their fingers in that particular pie.

The Russians have supplied arms to Captain Kong Lae's army. Since 1954, the United States has pumped between forty and fifty million dollars into Laos. Washington wants value for its money: in 1958, it played its part in the dismissal of Prince Souvanha Phouma's government, after the elections in May of that year had returned a lot of communist members.

China is probably interested in the strategic potential of Laos, as a buffer between her and SEATO member Thailand. The Americans, notoriously trigger-neurotic in the Far East, seem to want the country more firmly under their control, and not simply neutralist.

The Laos dispute may be small in itself, but it is a miniature of the clashing interests of two giant power blocs. It could be another Korea. Or even a Sarajevo or a Danzig.

This must be the fear which overhangs every minor upheaval in the world. We are as far away from peace as ever.

Yes to De Gaulle

General de Gaulle came to power to joyful motor horns tooting the rhythm of Algerie francaise in the streets of Paris. This was an exuberant indication of the hopes of the general's supporters, that he would ruthlessly crush the FLN and maintain French rule over Algeria.

In the event de Gaulle, by resolving to come to terms with Algerian nationalism, has shown the more realistic assessment of the interests of French capitalism. In this, like many other politicians, he has disappointed a lot of his former supporters.

Last month's affirmative vote for the general's proposals gave the go-ahead to the organisation of another referendum, to be held in Algeria alone. This could express a preference for an independent country.

The second referendum will be held if security conditions in Algeria allow. This could mean that there will soon be further talks between the French government and the FLN, and that the end of the present fighting in Algeria may be in sight.

Evidently de Gaulle was determined to get his way. The questions in the referendum were loaded, the government hogged most of the propaganda and left the French army in no doubt as to how it should vote.

If this is the beginning of the road to peace in Algeria, there is no cause for another joyful tooting of horns. We all know that there will be other Algerias, with their own bloodshed and misery.

Canadian Illusion

It was not so very long ago that some of the air and sea lines in this country were working hectic overtime to accommodate all the people who were clamouring to emigrate to Canada.

These people must have gone with great expectations of a country full of good things, where everybody was happy. How has it turned out?

It is now expected that this month, Canada’s unemployment will reach ten per cent, of its working population, which is the highest since the war, and several times higher than in Great Britain.

The solutions which have been recommended for Canada's slump are not new. Some economists favour higher import tariffs and a strong effort to replace imported goods with home products. Others advocate a freer economy, with fewer fiscal restrictions.

Perhaps these are the same economists who were telling us, only yesterday, that the days of boom and slump belonged to an old era of ignorance and were gone for ever.

The emigrants must know differently. But there is little hope that they will lose the illusions which they took west with them.

Some may return to this country, or travel on to other lands. Others will stay in Canada. But wherever they go capitalism, and its problems, will be waiting to greet them.

Battle of the Roads

Despite the reduction in road deaths over the recent Christmas period as compared with that of 1959, the Ministry of Transport and the various road safety organisations are still faced with the task of exhorting the restless tide of humanity, to walk and drive carefully. Each year hundreds of proposals for road safety are considered. One of the main difficulties is that of the separation of pedestrians and traffic, but since this can only be accomplished at enormous cost, it is not considered practical, and consequently palliatives and not remedies are preferred.

There is a mistaken belief among some people that these road problems are only a recent phenomenon, but as long ago as 1846 the daily newspapers were complaining of the inadequacies of the principal thoroughfares and of the fact that all that could be done was to patch up and mend. In today’s battle of the roads one can see all the contradictory nature of capitalist society. Whilst Mr. Marples is making his appeal, we are being told about the super-petrols which are supposed to make cars go faster, not to mention the prestige value of the bigger and faster car.

But big problems are often solved by simple remedies. The question of cost in relation to profit is at the root not only of the road problem, but of most of the major problems facing society today. The road problem is aggravated by the thousands of commercial and business vehicles which congest the highways and bye-ways, taking back and forth goods which have covered the same ground several times before. There are also thousands of small, medium, and large size shops selling identical goods to the people in the already overcrowded towns and cities. We can only wonder that the accident rate is not higher than the statistics show.

Appeals for less density of commerce and industry in the larger cities have failed. London, for instance, seems to be going the same way as New York and this fact alone should dispel any illusions the long suffering travelling public have of ever avoiding the “ peak hour ” chaos—a battle of the roads with no holds barred.

Cuban Background (1961)

From the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

To anyone who follows the Latin American scene, so many aspects of Cuban politics seem familiar that there is a danger of failing to see just what distinguishes the Cuban question from the traditional turmoil in that part of the world.

When Spain’s colonies in the New World fought for independence a hundred and fifty years ago, their main source of inspiration was revolutionary France and the young United States. However, in one fundamentally important respect they fell short of the requirements of real social change; a unified and coherent class demanding the overthrow of the outmoded system on the strength of its mastery of the new productive and social forces.

As the present situation in the Congo shows, not all independence movements are the expression of a powerful embryo bourgeoisie, ready to effectively take the place of the former Imperialists on the backs of the local working-class and peasantry. The ousting of Spain from the Americas was due more to the weakness of Spain than to the strength of its colonies. The social vacuum, the rapid collapse into anarchy could not, in those days, become the concern of a United Nations Organisation acting as a broker and a policeman of international capital. The high-flown language of the constitutions drawn up by the South American disciples of Washington, Jefferson and even Tom Paine was not matched by the level of economic and class development in their respective regions. From Mexico in the north to Argentina in the south, the whole continent was to relapse into a state of autocracy where power rested with decadent, constantly feuding landowning interests.

At the turn of this century, the needs of European Industrialism led to the “Scramble for Africa”. Perhaps less spectacularly, and certainly without the formal annexation of territory as was the case in Africa, a similar process began in the Americas. The outcome of this process has, to a remarkable degree, run parallel to Afro-Asian developments. Britain, France, the USA and then Italy, Germany and Japan have, over the years, poured capital in and drained profits out. Vast rail networks were established. Soon hides and grain, meat and coffee, sugar and bananas, were flowing onto the world market.

The precious metals that had provided the funds for Spain’s “siglo de oro”, its century of supreme power and culture, were no longer of prime importance. Not silver from the mines of Potosí, but tin from neighbouring parts of Bolivia, was to become the source of immense wealth for the mighty foreign Corporations who were equally busy in their exploitation of copper and nitrates from Chile, petroleum from Venezuela, quebracho from Paraguay, and so on. Countries, most of them larger than any in Europe, were to become utterly dependent upon a single crop; here coffee, there bananas or sugar.

Guatemala, which in its time played the rôle of David to the American Goliath, is known as a banana republic. In Cuba, on whom the mantle has fallen, it is sugar that dominates. True, tobacco from these parts is justly famous throughout the world. In view of Cuba’s increasingly intimate relationship with the Russian Capitalist bloc we may yet witness the paradox of the Havana cigar as a status symbol of the Russian ruling class. We shall see bloated Commissars yet! Nevertheless, it is sugar that is Cuba’s economic life. As goes sugar so goes Cuba—boom or slump; it is the basis of its foreign trade which in this context means, overwhelmingly, trade with the USA. Fidel Castro now challenges the status quo.

As a “middle-class” Robin Hood, Fidel readily appealed to an American public weaned on the exploits of Davy Crocket. At the point where it became evident that in serving the needs of aspiring Cuban Capitalism the existing order of things would be upset, Castro fell from his pedestal. He was unmasked as the harbinger of “Communism” (read, Russian influence) in the Western Hemisphere. The bearded warrior of the mountains was romantic no longer.

The modern history of Cuba could be written around its relations with the United States. Of all the former Spanish colonies it was the last to break from the grip of the old country. It did so only to find itself a virtual colony of its erstwhile ally; to such an extent that there was an American governor at first, and US troops were not withdrawn from the island until eleven years after the signing of the peace treaty with Spain in 1898. US marines returned “to restore law and order” in 1920. The United States census of 1947 revealed that their industrial investments alone were only slightly less in Cuba than in Brazil; $64,000,000 as against $65,000,000 (Germán Arciniegas, The State of Latin America, p. 302). This figure later increased.

Trade Unions

Through this century, Cuban government has been a succession of “strongmen,” as Time magazine likes to call them, who have depended upon American patronage. Fractional alterations in US sugar tariffs in line with the protectionist demands of Hawaii or Porto Rico have had overnight repercussions on the Cuban economy. Laws passed by the US Senate actually reducing Cuba’s sugar quota, as in 1951, when the quota was varied in favour of Trujillo’s Dominican Republic, Peru and Porto Rico could mean and often did lead to gross economic instability. In working-class terms this means unemployment, destitution.

Out of bitter experience there grew in the 1930’s a significant labour movement. In a limited sphere, in the cigarette and cigar factories and the Havana docks, Spanish immigrants of the Anarcho-Syndicalist school had introduced the principles of trade-unionism at the turn of the century. In more recent times a far wider range of trades has become involved although at the price of Stalinist influence out-weighing that of the old Anarcho-Syndicalists who, for all their faults, did not compromise their class interests with the state requirements of a world power as do the so-called Communists. In fact, the Communists’ record in Cuba puts them in a rather curious position in relation to the current “togetherness” of their home and “mother” countries.

Batista, murderous and corrupt, Farouk to Castro’s Nasser, had been given Communist support in his early years of power (M. Poblete,  El movimiento obrero latinoamericano, p. 196). It was he who gave the Party legal recognition. Batista came to power first in October, 1940. In December of that year the second congress of the Communist-slanted Workers Federation of Cuba, T.U.C. of sorts, drew up a statement with which a Socialist could scarcely disagree.

“Cuban workers …. resolve to struggle against the Imperialist war, to expose its Imperialist character and the war-aims of both belligerents and to develop a nation-wide movement to ensure that our country keeps out of this criminal conflict“.

When “you know what” happened, new instructions were given out. The first resolution to be carried at the third: congress of the C.T.C. went as follows:

“The supreme task of the labour movement at the present time is to concentrate all its efforts and to use all its might towards the defeat of the Axis. Workers organised under the C.T.C. are willing to collaborate with all those in favour or national unity, that is to say, willing to subordinate any grievances that may arise within the country in their over-riding interest in destroying the foreign enemy. For the duration of the war, Cuban workers wish to avoid strikes and disputes likely to interfere with production.”

The congress called upon working-class youth to volunteer for service at the war-front.

C.P. just in time

Communist support for Castro’s guerrilla struggle came late but, like Russia’s entry into the war against Japan, in time. At this stage, however, it would be a mistake to regard Castro as a Caribbean Kadar, a mere puppet of the Eastern bloc. Like many a Nationalist before him he is attempting to play off one great power against another in the hope that advantages will accrue to the would-be elite he represents. It is the universal demand of the Latin American bourgeoisie to free their respective national economies from the preponderance of Anglo-American capital.

As early as 1926, in a polemic with Lozowsky, chief of the Profintern, Haya de la Torre, of Peru, pioneer student of the development processes of backward countries within the Imperialist orbit, denied the accusation by the Communists that he favoured unconditional support of Japan in the event of a war between that country and the U.S.A. Nevertheless, he considered it would be a valuable opportunity to take advantage of their rivalry (Haya de la Torre, El antimperialismo y el APRA, p. 101). A mightier rival appears on the scene and, one by one, the Latin American rulers see how to use their bargaining position to diversify their means of production and to intensify or quite often to initiate industrial development. Back in Havana from Prague just recently, a Castro man announced he had secured promises to establish thirty new industries by East European concerns. Of course, for a small power to attempt playing off the great powers involves considerable risks. It is sometimes swallowed up in the process.

The overthrow of the Batista clique with its record of gangsterism in the Chicago tradition, has been followed by a vigorous and forward-looking regime under a new dictator; what in Spanish is wryly called a “dictablanda” rather than a “dictadura”, a mild dictatorship whose authority is used towards social reorganisation rather than to feather the generalissimo’s private nest. Be that as it may, the massive programme of nationalising most Western owned utilities, agrarian reform meaning the breakup and redistribution amongst the rural population of the great estates (a retrograde step from the long term point of view), the attack upon widespread illiteracy add up to a really serious attempt on the part of Cuba to enter the Capitalist arena on a more equal footing.

“In Europe, Imperialism is the culmination of a series of developments within Capitalism and is characterised by the export of capital and the capturing of markets and sources of raw materials in the economically backward countries. However, what in Europe is (according to Haya de la Torre whom we are quoting) ‘the last phase of Capitalism’ is in Latin America the first. For us Indo-Americans, imported capital marks our first step in modern capitalist society” (Haya de la Torre, El antimperialismo y el APRA, p. 51).

Pending a dramatic awakening of working-class consciousness within the metropolitan powers, the repetition elsewhere of our own bitter experience seems inevitable, though tragically so. But this much, at least, we can say: that the Socialist, on the strength of his Marxian analysis, cannot be deluded into believing that this latter-day development of Capitalism, the most inhuman of all social systems, whether of the state-owned variety or not, is the first stage of our revolution; the beginnings of a society built democratically by a conscious, international working-class to serve human needs on the basis of common ownership of the means of living— Socialism. Would that it were!

Eddie Grant

Notes by the Way: Something to Cheer About? (1947)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Something to Cheer About?

On November 6th Molotov announced that Russia had solved the secrets of making atom bombs.

The following is from the Daily Worker (7/11/47) : 

“When a mass meeting of 15,000 in the largest hall in Paris were told of the Molotov atom bomb statement, they rose to their feet and cheered enthusiastically for 20 full minutes.”

* * *

Scientists in Russia

In “Scientist in Russia” (Pelican Books Edition, 1s.), Professor Ashby tells what happened to a Russian scientist who opposed the scientific theory backed by the Russian Government. He writes as follows :

“The argument by heresy-hunt was used with deadly effect against the most outspoken and devastating critic of Lysenko, the famous Russian biologist N. I. Vavilov. Vavilov probably went beyond safe limits in condemning the new genetics as an outbreak of medieval obscurantism. He paid a high price. He was accused of dilatoriness in getting practical results, of lending support to fascists by his theory of centres of origin of crops, and of aligning himself with Bateson, the leader of genetics in England. In 1940 he was deprived of his directorship of the Institute of Plant Industry. He was subsequently imprisoned and he died, without any announcement or explanation, probably in 1943. The type of argument used against Vavilov is well illustrated by a comment made to me by a prominent animal physiologist in Moscow in October, 1945. ‘I reject Vavilov’s views,’ he said, ‘because Vavilov believed in Bateson, and Timiryazev condemned Bateson.’ The same argument has been put on paper by Prezent.” (P. 111).

In a letter to the Manchester Guardian, as in the book itself, Professor Ashby made it clear that such intolerance is not in his view the whole picture. He wrote :

“It is true that Vavilov was killed because he adhered to bourgeois genetics; it is no less true that there are to this day two professors of bourgeois genetics in the University of Moscow—no other kind of genetics is taught there, and the official text-book was written by an American. This sort of inconsistency is, in my opinion, the key to an understanding of Russian policy not only in science but also in public affairs.”—(Manchester Guardian, 1/11/47.)

To which the Manchester Guardian reviewer replied as follows :

“When Russian scientists see a political adventurer, half charlatan and half visionary, attacking the most eminent scientist of the country with pseudo-scientific, slogans steeped in political venom ; when they have to stand by helplessly and watch the victim standing at bay and being hounded in the end to prison and death (the campaign took about, ten years from start to finish) – then I am sure they felt exactly as any of us would if this happened here. The more dearly they love their country, the more bitter is their shame and horror, and their seeming unconcern is simply a token of the reigning political terror.”— (Manchester Guardian, 11/11//47.)

* * *

Why Financiers Like Labour Government

The following is from the Financial Times, (8/9/47):

“Despite a formidable total of bear points—inadequate supplies of coal, steel and other materials, reduced home consumption, dollar shortage, and a possible autumn Budget—there are more favourable aspects which, at the moment the market tends rather to ignore.

“This is the view expressed in their current circular by a leading firm of Stock Exchange brokers.

”‘There can be no comparison with conditions in 1931 when industry was facing a widespread saturation of its markets through over production,’ says the circular, ‘and while the sequence of events ten years earlier after the 1914-18 war were rather more closely comparable, there is one significant difference—the fact that a Labour Government is in office will surely mean that we need not fear widespread or long lasting strikes of the character which then caused the collapse of post-war industrial activity.”

* * *

Machinery and Unemployment

“NEW YORK, Friday.— Mechanisation and other agricultural developments threaten to make displaced persons of many American farmers, according to a report by the House of Representatives’ Agricultural Committee.

“More than 3,000,000 farm labourers were unemployed last year because of mechanisation, although crops beat all records.

“Further displacement of people now making some kind of living from the land is expected, says the report.–Reuter.”—(Evening Standard, 12/9/47.)

* * *

The U.S.A. and the Mediterranean

“Admiral Bieri, commanding the United States Mediterranean Fleet, has given an interview in Naples to the correspondent of the Milan daily Corriere Lombardo in the course of which he is alleged to have said :

”The United States Fleet is here and intends to stay here in Italian and Mediterranean waters. American interests in Europe will not cease with the signing of the German treaty. In accordance with the policy of the United States Navy Minister American forces will be allocated wherever there are American interests, in closest co-operation with the British’.”— (Manchester Guardian, 10/9/17.)

* * *

The Miners’ New Masters

“Mr. Bernard Rees, chairman of the National Union of Mineworkers’ lodge at Arrail Griffin Colliery, Abertillery, where 16,000 miners are on strike, said this afternoon :

” ‘Surface workers are still being paid wages at starvation level and the National’ Coal Board’s policy of subjection has been worse than anything we ever experienced under free enterprise.

” ‘N.C.B. officials are standing over men to time their movements, and the miners say that they are turning our colliery into something which resembles a concentration camp.’ “—(Evening Standard, 21/10/47.)

* * *

NOT the Socialist Party

“One of the richest men in England has just joined the Socialist Party. He is metal-magnate Steven James Lindsay Hardie, 62-year-old Scot, chairman of British Oxygen Company and its associated companies.

“British Oxygen has a capital of £6,000,000 and directly controls eight companies, with interests in South Africa, Australia, India find Norway.

“Total directorships held by Hardie, 27. Among them is vice-chairmanship of the £2,750,000 firm of Metal Industries, Ltd. As an industrialist Hardie makes metal products ranging from screws to ships.”— (Evening Standard, 14/10/47.)

* * *

Erstwhile Internationalist Proclaim National Sovreignt

The report to the Warsaw Conference at which the new Communist International organisation was formed was made by an influential Russian Communist, Zhdanov. Much of it was reproduced by the Manchester Guardian (3/11/47). One illuminating passage reads as follows:

“Taken up by the bourgeois intelligentsia, dreamers and pacifists, the idea of a ‘world government’ is being used not only as a means of ideologically disarming the people still defending their independence from the encroachments of American imperialism, but also as a slogan specially aimed at the Soviet Union, which constantly and consistently defends the principle of true equality and the maintenance of the sovereign rights of all nations, great and small.”

In the meantime Russia,, like the other capitalist Powers, keeps troops in occupation of several countries and is at the moment trying to induce the Persian Government to carry out the agreement to set up a Russian controlled oil concern in North Persia, the agreement having been forced on the Persian Government last year while Russian troops were in occupation.

Editorial: From Comintern to Cominform (1947)

Editorial from the November 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Communist International, formed in 1919 at a time when Lenin and his associates expected the workers of all the leading countries to place Communists in power, continued in existence as an instrument of Russian foreign policy until it was wound up in 1943, presumably because, with problems of the peace settlement ahead, the Russian Government thought it tactful to remove an organisation that was at that time not very useful but was a source of irritation and alarm to the Allied governments.

On October 5th, 1947, the birth of an Information Bureau was announced (named by opponents the “Cominform”), representing the Communist parties of nine countries, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Rumania, Russia and Yugoslavia. According to the statement issued by the new group (Daily Worker, 6/10/47) it represents “the anti-imperialist and democratic camp, the principal aim of which is to undermine imperialism, strengthen democracy and liquidate the remnants of Fascism.”

It will “elaborate an agreed platform of action” directed against “the main forces of the imperialist camp – against American imperialism, its British and French Allies, the right-wing Socialists, in the first place in Britain and France.”

Again according to the Daily Worker, the communiqué issued by the Cominform “names Attlee, Bevin and Leon Blum among the ‘treacherous leadership’ of the Socialist movement,” It is explained by the Russian Communists that the new organisation “by no means signifies the restoration of a global Communist organisation with a centralized leadership, such as the Communist International represented at the time” (Daily Worker, 11/10/47), but it is evident from the declared objects that the aim is just the same, that of smashing Labour parties as a step towards the conquest of power by the Communist parties in the various countries.

What should be the attitude of workers to the new organisation? Are its aims and methods deserving of working-class support? Is it genuinely a body aiming to defend democracy, to oppose capitalism and imperialism, and to work for triumph of Socialism?

Let us first consider who engineered its formation by what methods. It was formed at a secret meeting in Warsaw in September, held on the initiative of Soviet Russia. The meeting was kept secret, not only secret from the openly capitalist press and capitalist parties of the world but secret also from the working class of the world, including the rank and file members of the Communist parties of the nine countries. The formation of the new body, like the dissolution of the old one in 1943 was decided over their heads and with their knowledge. The rank and file and even the leaders of the British Communist Party only learned of it after its secret decisions had been decided upon. The meeting, moreover, was called by Russian Communist Party officials, acting, of course, on the instructions of the Russian Government. In that country the Government is in the hands of the Communist Party, the membership of which numbers only a very small minority of the population. No political party is allowed to exist except the Communist Party, so that there is no political party to put up candidates in opposition to Communist Party candidates at elections. When, therefore, the Communist Party in this or any other country declares its support for “democracy” that is what they mean by democracy.

From the Socialist and working-class standpoint these dictatorial organisations, arriving at decisions at secret meetings, are wholly evil. Their activities are the antithesis of democracy and their work can only hinder the growth of a genuinely democratic, working-class Socialist movement.

There are, it is true, certain differences between the new organisation and the old. Instead of claiming world-wide scope it is at present limited to nine countries, most of them so placed that the Russian Government is in a position to extract direct and powerful influence on these governments with or without the camouflage provided by the Cominform. Its headquarters are to be in Belgrade, not Moscow, which suggests that the Russian Government will be able whenever it wishes to do so disclaim direct responsibility. As far as influence over the Communist Parties themselves is concerned the actual form taken by the new organisation is not of much account because the Communist Parties invariably toe the line laid down by Russia. They did so under the Comintern and continued to do so when the Comintern was officially abolished.

How little the Communist Parties and the Communist leaders in various countries are able to pursue a line of their own choosing was shown in 1939. The British Communist leaders came out in support of the war against Germany but immediately had to recant, make abject apology, and fall into line with Russian policy. It has been shown again by the Russian Government’s decision to support Jewish immigration and partition of Palestine. In the past the British Communists opposed it, now they must reverse their policy. Speaking in the House of Commons on June 19th, 1936, Mr. Gallacher, Communist M.P., declared: “Palestine can never be a home for the Jews.” He said that the Jews “have been fooled by their politicians who, under the leadership of the Zionist movement and who are the agents for British Imperialism against Arab masses.” He described the revolt of the Arabs against the attempt to set up a Jewish state as “a thoroughly justifiable revolt. It demands the end of immigration of a character which threatens the existence of Palestine.” Likewise a pamphlet published by the Communist Labour Monthly opposed partition as a scheme of British Imperialists. (“Who is Prosperous in Palestine?” 1936, p. 41.)

The Communist Parties are merely the propaganda agents for Russian governmental policy. What they is not a consistent policy based on principle but a policy based on the day-to-day tactics of the Government in its fight against the other imperialist powers.

In home policy there is the same want of principle. They alternatively oppose the Labour Party, saying it is a capitalist party, and support it, saying is a socialist party. In 1929 they described nationalisation as “State Capitalism” and the Labour Party as the “third Capitalist Party” (“Class Against Class,” p. 8), yet now pretend that nationalisation is socialism and ask the Labour Government “how is it that only one industry has been nationalised?” (Daily Worker, 13/10/47.) In 1939 they took the initiative in asking Mr. Churchill to form a National Government along with the Labour and the Liberal parties. When this was done they attacked the Labour Party for associating with Churchill! Then in 1941 when Russia was invaded they supported Churchill and now again discover that he has all along been and enemy of the workers.

The future Socialism depends on the growth of democratic, socialist organisations. The new Cominform, as well as the Communist parties that are at present not affiliated to it, are the enemies of both Socialism and Democracy.