The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour Critics (1938)

Blogger's Note:

 As I just scanned in the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard, which covered in some detail Neville Chamberlain and his actions in and around what is now known as the Munich Crisis, I thought I'd take the opportunity to also post on the blog the full text of the 1938 SPGB pamphlet, 'The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour Critics'.

In its long history the SPGB has not made a habit of rushing out special pamphlets dealing with an 'issue of the day' — that is what the Socialist Standard is in place for  — but the Munich Crisis was self-evidently such a burning issue with the threat of possible impending war that the SPGB felt it was necessary to publish a standalone pamphlet which went into greater detail on the matter. It exposed the hard nosed political hypocrisy of Chamberlain's actions and the double-talk of both the Labour Party and the British Communist Party.

Such turbulent times called for special measures, and the SPGB were to publish another 'issue of the day' pamphlet the following year under the title of 'The Socialist and Conscription'. War was for the working class the issue of the day.

The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour Critics (1938)

 

So the crisis is over. Representatives of the four major European Powers sat round the table and concluded arrangements that carve up Czechoslovakia, freeze Russia out of Europe, and, we are fervently assured, lay the basis of “peace in our time”. Lest there should be any doubt about this peaceful future, a great drive to develop armaments is proposed, and plans are being made to ensure that everybody will have a niche in defensive and offensive operations. The temporary popularity of Chamberlain, the general relief at the banishing of immediate war danger, and the united support worked up on behalf of the Czechs, are being utilised to push forward the increased armament campaign.

On September 30th hysterical crowds went wild with joy and hero-worship. War had been averted, and it was believed that Chamberlain was the man who accomplished that deed. His smiling face appeared on placards, in newspapers, and on the moving-picture screen. His wife shared in his fame, and crowds fought to shake her hand. For a while he was the most popular man in England. Yet the strange part of it is that Chamberlain’s fame is based on the circumstance that apparently his plans nearly went entirely wrong; raised the spectre of war, and eventually brought the Munich instead of the Godesberg Agreement. The British Government have been landed in a position in European affairs that was not expected by them. So far Hitler and not Chamberlain has gained most out of the diplomatic manoeuvres of months past.

What were the real facts of the situation? On what does Chamberlain’s claim to fame rest?

The immediate source of Chamberlain’s popularity is not hard to find. For a few days modern war, with its horrors, weighed like a black cloud on the minds of everybody. The subsequent relief on hearing the message of peace released an uncritical joy that deified the messenger.

What part has Chamberlain really played in this dangerous business?

For a long time the capitalist government of this country has been split into different camps over foreign policy. The reasons for this are too long to go into here. It is sufficient to say that they are partly economic differences and partly differences of view as to what best serves the general capitalist interest. One group favours “minding our own business” and leaving other nations to mind theirs; another group urges a better understanding with Russia and the resisting of the imperialist policies of Germany and Italy; a third group presses for a general pact between England, Germany, France and Italy, and the shutting out of Russia from any influence on European affairs.

The third policy is the one that has been urged by the Chamberlains and their supporters for some time past. It was given expression to by Chamberlain on the eve of the Munich meeting when, in his Parliamentary statement, he criticised the provisions of the Versailles Peace Treaty.

Even while a member of the Baldwin Government, which had taken half-hearted measures to resist Italy’s policy in Abyssinia, Chamberlain made clear his disagreements on foreign policy. Sir Charles Petrie, an admirer of Chamberlain, describes the circumstances of the public statement in 1936 and, at the same time, made plain the nature of the support behind Chamberlain. He describes the incident as follows:

“Mr Chamberlain stepped into the breach. On the 10th June he was the guest of honour at the annual dinner of the 1900 Club, and he took the opportunity to declare against the continuance of Sanctions. The effect was tremendous. An audience which represented the wealth and power of Great Britain cheered the Chancellor to the echo” (The Chamberlain Tradition, page 249).

Since Chamberlain became head of the Government, foreign policy has changed its direction. The efforts of Government diplomacy have been turned towards finding a basis of agreement with Germany and Italy and the weaning of France away from its alliance with Russia.

The Munich conference of the four Powers appears to have been a long step towards accomplishing this object, though it occurred under dangerous circumstances, with the threat of war hanging over it. The fact that Czechoslovakian unity was sacrificed in the process was a small matter to the imperialist powers concerned.

The attitude of the Chamberlain group towards Italy’s Abyssinian venture and Germany’s march on Austria, gave Hitler a hint that further territorial conquests would not be seriously opposed providing these conquests did not interfere with British capitalist interests. When Chamberlain made his first trip to Hitler, on what was wrongly presumed to be an effort to save Czechoslovakian independence, he evidently went with the intention of being a party to the slicing up of that territory. His explanation in Parliament, on the eve of his last visit, makes this clear to those who examine the statement critically.

Taking into consideration the nature of Chamberlain’s foreign policy, as briefly outlined, the war situation out of which he “rescued” peace was largely of his own making.

While the Prime Minister was basking in the sunshine of mistaken adulation, one of his supporters pointed out that the real danger that menaces the interests of British capitalists is outside of Europe. On the morrow of the Munich pacts, while Germany was sending emissaries to Turkey and Yugoslavia, to widen its markets and its sources of raw materials, British politicians were heaving sighs of relief and turning to face “the danger again displayed by the Dominions and India, which has not passed unnoticed in Europe”.

The last remark is taken from an article in the Evening Standard (October 3rd) by Sir Arnold Wilson, who also makes the following significant statement:

“The Parliamentary Opposition parties are representing the redrawing of the map of Europe, now in progress, as a victory for Hitler, which it is, and a defeat for Britain, which it is not”.

This is another way of showing that Chamberlain went to Germany prepared to accede to the plans for dismembering Czechoslovakia. And why not? What does it matter to the British capitalist class whether the Czechs are independent or incorporated in Germany? The “National Honour” idea is a myth only invoked when it suits the interests of our rulers to beguile us with it. If Chamberlain, as is claimed, really set out to help Czechoslovakia, then “National Honour” went down on its knees before Hitler along with Chamberlain. Or, as the Daily Express (October 3rd) put it more genteelly:

“But this fact must be recognised by all: Britain accepted the Munich Agreement because our defences were not in a condition enabling us to take any other decision”.

This plea relating to the defences is being popularised as a means to obtain workers’ support for A. R. P. and similar defensive programmes—with all that these things will eventually mean.

One piece of information, relating to the crisis, that has now some significance was published in the News Review on July 14th, over two months before the crisis occurred:

“‘August, 1914’, is a date poignant with memories. What is it that makes Georges Bonnet, France’s Foreign Minister, so mysterious about August 1938?

To journalists who discussed the holiday question with him last week, Bonnet’s tendered the advice, ‘Certainly, take your holidays in August, but don’t leave Paris if you can help it’.

Though pressed for an explanation, he refused to say more than that ‘there will be a great deal to do,’ and that he himself would be at his desk throughout the month”.

What was in Bonnet’s mind? It could hardly have been war. Was in Godesberg?

The shameless diplomatic methods adopted have misled a number of people into believing that the whole business, including the threat of war, was a fake, deliberately contrived to secure acquiescence in the provisions of the Munich Agreement.

Two writers in the New Statesman (October 8th), J. M. Keynes and Robert Dell, make out a plausible case to show that it was a put-up job. That the crisis and the eleventh hour conference, with its solution, had been arranged beforehand. Although there are curious incidents that lend colour to this view, there are solid objections to it. The risk of war did ultimately enter into the game. Apart from other reasons it is too much to allow that a capitalist government would go into the huge expenses of war preparation, running into over £20 millions, either to lend substance to the shadow or for practice purposes.

The threat of war appeared in the scene because Chamberlain, in shaping his policy, apparently overlooked the fact that Hitler might not be inclined to bargain over territory that he felt strong enough to take if he wished to do so.

One purpose, among many, has been served by the crisis. It has been used as a means for enabling the British and French Governments to recognise officially the Italian conquest of Abyssinia without too much sanctimonious dust being raised about it. Now the way is open for British capitalists to invest freely in Abyssinia and to share with their Italian brothers the wealth squeezed from the Abyssinians.

In this time of stress where did the self-styled leaders of the working class, the Labour and Communist Parties, stand? The answer is easily given. They stood ready, if necessary, to man the guns and shoulder the burden of Empire in the mistaken idea that they were defending democracy against autocracy. Which shows how easy it is to divert movements that are anchored in the shifting sands of mere discontent. Such movements are easily directed into channels that serve the interests of the capitalists. The experience of decades has shown that when the cry “the country is in danger” is raised, the propertyless workers are urged by their leaders to flock to its defence, and to be ready to lay down their lives for a system that does not even guarantee to them the satisfaction of their elementary needs in food and shelter.

Over and over again the workers have been told by the Labour Party and the Communist Party that capitalism is on the down-grade, and that therefore they cannot hope for much improvement in wage conditions. Yet the country has been shown lately to be so wealthy that it could afford to throw away millions of pounds’ worth of goods in defensive measures, when it was believed that war threatened. Under a sensible social system workers would have bread instead of gas-masks.

Now that a great drive for armaments is proposed, the Labour and Communist Parties are logically bound to support it owing to their attitude during the war scare. This fact has been seized upon by all influential newspapers, which point out that the country is united in its desire to build up huge armaments.

Extracts from official sources show clearly the folly and the panic of those who claim to lead the workers.

On September 27th the Daily Herald published an article by the Editor, which contained the following statement:

“If there is war, it will be faced with calmness, with resolution, with unshakable courage. All that could be offered to Germany in honour and justice has been offered—far more than that, indeed . . . But if war there must be, since Herr Hitler is set on war, then it is better that it should be now, when Britain has strong allies beside her and to support her, the united opinion of the civilised world, than hereafter, when Germany, by successful aggression has won the mastership of Europe”.

Again, on September 30th, the Daily Herald spoke officially:

“In these last days two emotions have sustained the British people. One has been the desire for peace, if peace consistent with honour were possible. The other has been the determination to stand firm, if necessary to the ultimate degree—for the great principles of equity and justice in international affairs by which alone civilisation can flourish”.

International Information (September 12th), a typed sheet issued by the “Labour and Socialist International”, contained this statement:

“Whatever the risks involved, Great Britain must take its stand against aggression. There is now no room for doubt or hesitation”.

The above quotations are sufficient evidence of the Labour Party’s readiness to back the Government if war had been declared. The workers should also note also the insistence on “Honour”, “Justice” and “Equity”, all of which, it was contended, would be flouted if Czechoslovakia were split up. It is another example of the fatuity of the utterances of Labour when one remembers the official view of 18 years ago. In 1920 the Labour Party declared:

“Permission to the predominantly German areas of Czechoslovakia to determine their political future should be granted”—Quoted by the Evening Standard (September 16th).

If it were honourable, just and equitable for these areas to determine their political future in 1920, why has it become dishonourable, unjust and inequitable for them to do so now? Above all, why is it necessary that thousands of lives should be sacrificed now for something that was quite proper 18 years ago? The plain fact is that the Labour Party leaders do not know where they are.

The Communist Party is in a like position, and in addition responds blindly to the changing signals from Moscow. On October 3rd the Daily Worker published an article by the Editor. The following extracts from it are interesting as a logical interpretation of the Communist Party’s demand that Britain should stand firm in opposition to Hitler’s designs on Czechoslovakia.

“Had war broken loose on Saturday, as seemed almost certain up till Friday, the corpses of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, would now be strewing the streets of Prague, Paris, Berlin, and even London”.

(. . .)

“That the ‘peace terms’ signed by Chamberlain are such that they strike a mortal blow at the interests and security of the British people”.

(. . .)

“The leaders of the British Labour Movement have to bear a great measure of responsibility for the sullying of British honour. For they who had the power to mobilise a tremendous public opinion, powerful enough to compel Chamberlain to have stood resolutely by France, Russia and Czechoslovakia, fell into the trap of assuming that Chamberlain was intent upon making a stand against Hitler, when actually he had no such intention”.

(. . .)

“There must be no further confidence in Chamberlain. Labour must stand firm in Parliament to-day and give a lead which will rally all the truly patriotic and progressive forces in Parliament against the shameful Munich betrayal”.

Two days later the Secretariat of the Communist Party repudiated the article. But they probably did so because it was too outspoken a statement of the logic of their position—that Britain and France should take a strong line against Hitler. That this would in all probability have led to war is shown by Russia’s war preparations and Litvinov’s explicit statement that Russia was prepared to join Britain and France in going to war in aid of Czechoslovakia if it were attacked.

It must be clear to anyone not blinded by prejudice that the Editor of the Daily Worker (who presumably was familiar with the attitude of the Party of which he was an official spokesman) based his article on Communist policy.

The Communist Party, like the Labour Party, has completely changed its attitude on Czechoslovakia. It has gone even further in its change of front. Consider its present insistence on Britain rallying to the support of Czechoslovakia and resisting the march of “reactionary Fascism”, and then examine the following quotation from The Struggle against War, and the Tasks of the Communists, a 6d pamphlet issued by the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1928:

“In the last imperialist war the Allies made use of the slogan ‘Fight against Prussian Militarism’, while the Central Powers used the slogan ‘Fight against Czarism’; both sides using the respective slogans to mobilise the masses for the war. In a future war between Italy and France, or Yugoslavia, the same purpose will be served by the slogan ‘Fight against reactionary Fascism’, for the bourgeoisie in the latter countries will take advantage of the anti-Fascist sentiments of the masses to justify an imperialist war” (page 14).

“In Czechoslovakia and in the Balkan countries, in Italy, in France, Spain, Belgium and Great Britain (Ireland) there are also oppressed nationalities. The Communist Parties must support the liberation movement of the oppressed nations and national minorities in all these countries, lead them in the revolutionary struggle against imperialism and unreservedly champion their right to self-determination, which must include the right to complete separation” (page 31. Italics in the pamphlet).

It is doubtful if anyone but the Communist Party could make such a blatant and complete somersault in policy. Possibly the greatest joke of the whole tragic business, though it might have been a tragic one, is the spectacle of the Communist Party urging the British and French workers to be ready to lay down their lives in defence of democracy—and “bourgeois” democracy at that!

One thing at least can be said. Chamberlain’s actions were consistent, in line with his views on Czech dismemberment and his desire for unity with European Powers. But the attitude of the Labour and Communist Parties is a complete reversal of their former views. They held previously that Czechoslovakia should be allowed to be split up—in the name of “Justice” and “Liberty”. Now they want it to remain intact in the name of the same deities.

The reversal of policy by the latter two parties, just as much as the tricky diplomacy of the Chamberlain group, should be a warning to workers not to be misled by high-sounding phrases, but to look behind these phrases. Base their attitude on their class interest alone and they will not be led into the support of groups or parties that pursue a policy which obscures the fundamental antagonism of interest between worker and capitalist, of all races, colours and creeds.

The attitude of the Labour Party, the Communist Party, and others of like views, relating to the position of the Czechs, is due partly to fright, which has developed an acute attack of anti-Fascitus. They are prepared to see cities littered with the corpses of hundreds of thousands of working men, women and children, for what? To prevent what would be in the main merely a change of rulers.

While the workers of the world are prepared to put up with capitalism, and all that capitalism means, a change of rule is a minor question. Certainly not worth a war which would put back the movement for Socialism amongst both victors and vanquished. The present position of Germany, Austria and Italy is a striking illustration of this fact.

In conclusion, we must stress the fact that the only attitude for the workers to adopt, if they would free themselves from the horrors of both war and peace, is to organise together for the purpose of establishing a system of society in which the wealth of the world will be commonly owned by all the people of the world.

Capitalist Unity and Socialist Solidarity. (1908)

From the August 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the present time, when various capitalist Governments vie with each other in promoting “International Peace” and “Ententes Cordials”, a pronouncement on Internationalism from the Socialist seems to be necessary, more so because the organisations and organs in this country professing to be Socialist, join with the bourgeois parties and Press to extoll the virtues of King Edward the Seventh and his endeavour to promote the peace of the civilised world. It has been frequently pointed out in the Socialist Standard that the leaders of the S.D.P. and I.L.P., whether of middle-class or working-class origin, are steeped to their eye-brows in bourgeois ideas and conceptions by reason of their reform attitude with regard to the solution of the social problem. In addition to the sickening propaganda of “bourgeois peace” in Justice, The Labour Leader, and The Clarion, and from the platforms of the S.D.P., I.L.P., and Clarion Fellowship, we are from time to time treated to nauseous professions of “loyalty to the Crown” by some make-believe Socialists in Parliament, professions which go to show how far the mass of the workers in this country are still from the realisation of their class position in society. During the recent Parliamentary debate on the King’s visit to the Tzar, Mr. O’Grady lauded the English monarch to the skies, and Mr. Keir Hardie stated that one of the reasons why he did not wish King Edward to meet the Tzar officially was his (Keir Hardie’s) concern for the reputation of the ruler of England.

The fact cannot be sufficiently emphasised that as Socialists, and necessarily revolutionists, we have formed a conception and take up an attitude with regard to international relations that stand in contrast as clearly and definitely to the position of all other political parties, whether avowed capitalist or alleged labour, as our Declaration of Principles and political action stand to their palliative programmes and reform politics. While, therefore, the reform organisations put their faith in the capitalist endeavours of “promoting peace and good-will among the nations,” we, ever true to the principles of the class struggle, consider it our duty to point out to the workers that the reason for a desire for political departure from nationalism on the part of the capitalist class can only be sought in economic necessity. There can be little doubt that the tremendous inroad made by the countries of the world on the markets of the old world, together with the need for more united repression of the workers, are making the closer unity of the capitalist Governments increasingly necessary, if not inevitable. The capitalist unity evidently becomes a more pressing necessity to the extent that the growth of class-consciousness among the proletariat of the world is accelerated by the increasing economic encroachment upon their pitiable existence.

What was the reason for the nationalism of the capitalist class in the past ? Between the nationally organised bourgeois communities of the various countries there exists an antagonism of interests, which often gives rise to armed conflicts. The nation is the tie embracing the common interest of the possessing class. Hence the native country is the only part of the globe for which the bourgeoisie cherishes any devotion. But the proletariat of all countries have identical interests. In every country they have only one enemy, viz., the bourgeoisie. The Socialist Commonwealth for which the proletariat strive will recognise geographical differentiation, but not national antagonism; the Socialist system of society will establish economic and social peace and fraternity among the peoples of the world. It must be clear that the antagonism between the national sentiment of the capitalist class and the international principles of the proletariat are based upon the economic conditions, the material interests, of the two classes.

But the economic development in all capitalist countries has made mighty strides. The evolution of capitalism in our time has deprived its hitherto cherished forms of their usefulness. The new economic conditions are gradually outstripping the political power of the isolated States of the old world, and the bourgeois interests are rapidly outgrowing their national limitations, and completely uprooting orthodox ideas and notions. In the Western hemisphere a gigantic capitalist State has sprung into existence, which has the advantage of being a whole continent, forming a colossal economic unit, while the Eastern hemisphere is split up into a number of smaller countries. The superior economic development of America, with its immense natural resources and productive powers, is becoming ever more menacing to the interests of the industrial and commercial capitalists of the European continent. And in Asia vast empires are rapidly developing into full-blown civilisation. Japan has already reached an economic and political development approaching in many respects that of European countries. As a competitor in the world’s markets Japan is quickly becoming one of the most formidable pitted against the interests of European capitalists. And China, with a population almost as large as that of the whole of Europe, also shows signs of a far-reaching capitalist development. So tremendous, in fact, are the immediate prospects for the enterprising capitalists of all nations in China, that the very moment capitalist industry and commerce on a large scale becomes possible, bloodshed on land and sea between the great powers of the world will be almost inevitable, because the nations that conquer with the sword will also reap the advantage of participating in the first fruits of China’s full-blown capitalism.. Compared with these stupendous interests the quarrels of the European countries, which had their origin at a time when Western Europe was practically the whole economic and political world, vanish into air. The expansion of capitalism over the entire globe necessitates a much wider unity of interests than the old nations are able to muster—it demands the unity of continents. And it is the development of these new economic conditions which prompt the far-seeing politicians, diplomatists and economists of the bourgeoisie to foster closer international relations. When faced by such significant material considerations the bourgeois patriots deplore and condemn the national prejudices, short-sightedness, and jealousy that hinder the international unity of capitalists; above all, they denounce the stupidity of tariff and of a hostile foreign policy as some of the causes which prevent the desired international understanding among capitalists. But in spite of the wider economic development the bourgeoisie clings to its nationalism with the greatest tenacity. A contemplation of the rapid strides made by America and Japan may cause the capitalists of the European continent to recognise the necessity for abandoning the old antagonism between the European nations, and of a united effort to resist the encroachments upon them by the nations of other continents ; but on the other hand, they know only too well that all the capitalist nations of the world have one common enemy, viz., the international proletariat, whose supremacy they are aware would spell the entire abolition of capitalist society. It is true that in the struggle between capital and labour capitalist mutuality plays a most important part, but in the fight against Socialism by the capitalists in each country the weapon of national patriotism remains still the most effective means of rallying the unenlightened masses to the defence of the private-property constitution. Bourgeois internationalism of a permanent character, though it even may promise the furtherance of the economic interests of nations, can never be realised in face of that “hideous monster,” Socialism, which threatens to swallow the bourgeois States irrespective of their size or vitality.

The whole question for the capitalist class resolves itself, therefore, into the plain issue, either to fight out between themselves the struggle for the larger portions of surplus-value and to neglect in the heat of that combat the repression of the working class, or to let the tussel in their own camp be a minor consideration and to concentrate all their efforts upon the relentless warfare against the proletariat, whose increasing sufferings, caused by the ever-growing power of capital, are forcing upon them the class-consciousness needed to realise their emancipation from wage-slavery.

And do we not daily observe how all sections of the capitalist class in this country, as in every other, sink their petty differences when it means to keep down the workers and to prevent them uniting on a revolutionary basis ? The capitalists of each country would like to be internationalists, but that would mean the complete destruction of their nationalism, which, as already pointed out, is at present their safeguard against Socialism. The fact is that the bourgeoisie can only be international when the economic human relations make such a condition possible. Only when the international proletariat will seize political power and will abolish class antagonisms and exploitation will a sound and lasting internationalism become an accomplished fact.

H. J. Neumann

Churchill's damp squib (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May the 11th Sir Winston Churchill made his speech proposing that the leading Western Powers should have informal private meetings “at the highest level” with Russian representatives in order to explore the possibility of relaxing the international tension. He was not very confident that worthwhile results would be obtained but argued that the signs of change in Russia since Stalin’s death made it desirable to try.

“It might well be that no hard-and-fast agreements would be reached, but there might be a general feeling among those gathered together that they might do something better than tear the human race, including themselves, into bits.”

“I only say this might happen. 1 do not see why anyone should be frightened of having a try at it.

“At the worst, participation in the meeting would establish more intimate contacts. At the best we might have a generation of peace”

(Daily Herald, 12/5/53.) 

It was received with rapturous approval in the daily Press and among the Labour Party Opposition in the House of Commons. The Daily Herald, reporting its reception in the Commons wrote that "the Prime Minister was several times more loudly applauded by the Labour Party than by the Tories.” And on the following day Mr. Attlee, in his reply, stated that Churchill’s “general tone and approach” had been warmly welcomed on the Labour side. (Daily Herald 13/5/53.)

“His survey of world affairs, like Sir Winston Churchill's the day before, was constantly cheered by both sides."

Beyond the modest expectation that something might come from these personal contacts among the topline politicians there was very little in any of the speeches. But the world situation has become so acute and is generally viewed with so much despair that even a small grain of hope sufficed to rouse enthusiasm among the millions of potential cannon-fodder of the next world war.

How small the grounds for optimism was admitted or implied in the speeches themselves for it has all been tried already and in vain. Churchill recalled that, in addition to the personal contacts with Stalin that preceded the cold war, he had in 1945 sent a “peace appeal” telegram to Stalin urging the avoidance of abuse and counter abuse. He also now tentatively proposed a new treaty to guarantee Germany against attack by Russia and Russia against attack by Germany —a new “Locarno” treaty. But the Locarno Treaty of 1925, which guaranteed France and Germany in that way, was a dead letter. As the Daily Herald pointed out,

“When Hitler violated it by re-occupying and fortifying the Rhineland, no action was taken." (Daily Herald, 12/5/53.)

The keynote of the Churchill speech was the need for “realism”; gone are the high hopes of universal peace through United Nations, now, in effect, we should get back to the old diplomacy of trying to do a deal piecemeal on each issue as it arises. Or as Mr. Attlee put it:—

“ The Prime Minister, I think, made a very realistic speech and it is necessary to be realistic in foreign affairs. So many critics do not realise that all international relations are a subject for everyone and you cannot do just what you want to do."

But the significance of this confession of lack of faith was not explicitly put by Mr. Attlee though it was implied when he stated in the same speech:—

“It is desirable wherever possible, and in foreign affairs particularly, that government policy should have the support of all."

It is an admission by Mr. Attlee that the Labour Party accepts the view that there should be a “British” foreign policy confronting the National policies of all the other Powers. And as we live in a world of capitalist national groups all alike engaged in the cutthroat struggle for survival and expansion, this means acceptance of all the trade rivalries, contests for markets and colonies, the armaments and armed bases and the wars big and little that ensue as the contestants manoeuvre for advantage. Against this background all the aggressions of all the capitalist national groups are equally “realistic”; they only cease to be so when, through insufficient military force to sustain the aggression, they come to failure.

This “realism” is for the working class not a doctrine of hope or even of making the best of things but a policy of being passively submerged in the drift to war.

illusion of the Labour Party as of the Tories and Communists is to suppose that there are ways of running capitalism which will avoid war altogether or at least will confine the wars to some other parts of the world, leaving Britain immune. There is no such policy. If by realistic is meant recognition of the facts of the situation and avoidance of self-deception the only policy for the working class of all countries is to get rid of capitalism. While capitalism continues, in Britain, America, Russia and all the other countries great and small, it will continue to be true as Mr. Attlee said, that in foreign relations he cannot do just what he wants to do. Only Socialists want in foreign affairs the Socialist human relationships that they want at homeland only as the workers of all countries become Socialists will they have identical aims which will obviate all international conflict.

Edgar Hardcastle

Illusion (1939)

Book Review from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The immediate object of “The Great Illusion—Now,” by Sir Norman Angell (a Penguin Special, 6d.), is stated thus: “To question the all but universally accepted axiom that a nation’s military power can be used to promote its economic welfare;” the general aim of the book is in the cause of Perpetual Peace. Any aspiration towards the final extinction of the unspeakable bestiality which attaches to war must command respect. The S.P.G.B. warmly sympathises with the humane outlook and implied determination to make personal sacrifice, if necessary, of members of such bodies as the Peace Pledge Union; at the same time it deeply regrets that talent, sincerity, and enthusiasm should be practically wasted because the factors which make for war are not fully grasped.

“It can be shown quite indubitably,” says Angell, “that capitalism is not the cause of war.” Nowhere does he give an alternative comprehensive source, other than an echo of Bertrand Russell’s feeble bleat about “competition for preponderance of power” (p. 65); it is only too apparent that the individual egomaniac seeks “power” as more or less an end in itself, a fact interesting to the alienist, but political power is obviously directed to a specific end; Angell himself stumbles upon one such end: “In our industrial economy, markets are the main problem” (p. 154). But on p. 166, the astounding assertion is made that “political and military power can in reality do nothing for trade”; “in reality” the Fathers of the American Revolution in 1776 obtained very distinct advantages in trade through the exercise of political and military power; the respectable smugglers of New England, the slave owners of Virginia, through many bloody campaigns, demonstrated to an unkind Motherland that rum and slaves were no longer to be exploited mainly in her interest; “in reality,” yea, verily, Cromwell taught the Dutch, through the cutting edge of Navigation Laws, implemented by a powerful navy, that military power, which had axed a Sacred Majesty, would not brook serious competition for trade on the high seas; “in reality,” modern historical research has revealed, behind the legend of the siege of Troy, not a “fair face which launched a thousand ships against the topmost towers of Ilium,” but a pretty grim struggle for a trade route—this when Capitalism was but a vague stirring in the womb of Time.

On p. 136 we read, “The assumption that military force, if great enough, can be used to transfer wealth, trade, property from the vanquished to the victor, and that the latent power to do so explains the need of each to arm,” is a Great Illusion.

Note carefully “victor” and “vanquished.” Misled by Labour leaders whooping the worker on to war in 1914, few of the working class were under the illusion that any transfer of wealth would meet them in the process of transference, not even to the pitiable extent which rewarded the bluff tar in the good old days of Prize Money. One of Angell’s “Great Illusions,” implicit throughout his book, is based upon the fusion of the two classes with opposite interests in one blessed Union, confounding, like the naughty Arians of old, two distinct persons and “vainly imagining” the substance (swag) can be equitably divided.

The instrument proposed to establish peace has an ancient and fish-like smell—a Federation of Nations. Kant, in a famous brochure in the eighteenth century, set out proposals based upon the idea; curiously enough, he foreshadowed Wilson’s “open covenants openly arrived at,” too. The mediaeval Catholic Church actually accomplished some mitigation with its “Truce of God ” and looked for peace in the direction of a League of Catholic Nations.

Somewhat irrelevantly, Angell quotes the U.S.A. as an example of peace attained by union; here history lands him a neat uppercut; the union of the thirteen states in 1776 already contained the germs of the clash of rival interests, which bore fruit in the awful struggle between the commercial North and agricultural South; here again, Angell can be quoted against himself; most significantly he writes (p. 185): “The British worker, as distinct from the possessor of capital, is more subject to restriction in entrance to Australia than he is in entrance to Argentina or Mexico.” Again (p. 190): “A year or so since, there was in London a deputation from the British Indians in the Transvaal pointing out that the regulations there deprive them of the ordinary rights of British citizens.” What hope for a “Federation” of united effort by capitalist groups hopelessly remote by tradition, by culture, by language even, and hopelessly divided by COMMERCIAL INTERESTS, when, in the British Empire, Rhodes was prepared in the interests of the British Africander, to “cut the painter,” and a Celtic fringe is prepared even now to drive the hardest of bargains with the harassed Sassenach.

Our author himself senses a Big Snag, which may be summarised in the Latin tag: “Who will arrest the drunken bobby?” In a wonderful League of “Peace-loving” nations, what shall be done about the truculent member of the gang, who, nourishing a convincing type of gun, slithers out of the Hall! of Peace with unpeaceful intent elsewhere?

The “International Police Force,” on a small scale, has proved a broken reed in China; Henry of Navarre, in the sixteenth century, played with the idea; that gay dog found that capitalism, now a lusty infant, kicked over the traces of his dream chariot, leaving him free to chase more congenial, if less worthy, objects.

In the enchanted island of Shakespeare’s imagination, Gonzalo discoursed eloquently of a serenely beautiful Utopia; the coarse bounder Antonio discovered at the tail-end only “whores and knaves. . . . The latter end of his Commonwealth forgets the beginning”; Angell sets out to the tune of Perpetual Peace, alack! Under capitalism the finale is inevitably a hideous jazz of bombs and poison gas. Note well, “We must be as ready to FIGHT for code or rule of the road as hitherto we have been willing to fight for OUR territory”—needless to say, “OUR” not emphasised by the author.

Easily procured, it is plainly the duty of Socialists to make themselves acquainted with the kind of stuff which can be translated, into twenty different languages … to the bemuddlement and bemusing of the working class over a huge range. Verb. sap.

Augustus Snellgrove

Material World: The End Of National Sovereignty? (2008)

The Material World Column from the October 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Globalization versus National Capitalism

In 1648 the first modern diplomatic congress established a new political order in Europe, based for the first time on the principle of “national sovereignty.” This principle drew a sharp dividing line between foreign and domestic affairs. Each “national sovereign” was given free rein within the internationally recognized borders of his state. No outsider had any right to interfere. Recognized borders were inviolable. The “sovereign” was originally simply a prince; later the term was applied to any effective government.

National sovereignty facilitated the undisturbed development of separate national capitalisms – British, French, German, American, and so on. Interstate boundaries were stabilized. Governments were able to take protectionist measures to defend home manufacturers against foreign competition.

Even today the principle of national sovereignty is far from dead. It is enshrined in the United Nations Charter: Chapter VII authorizes the Security Council to impose sanctions or use armed force only in the event of a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.”

National sovereignty undermined

But in practice national sovereignty has been deeply undermined – first of all, by the emergence of a global economy dominated by huge transnational corporations. International financial institutions such as the World Trade Organization and IMF have largely taken over economic policy making. Indebtedness leaves many states with merely the formal husk of independence.

Some groups of states have “pooled” part of their sovereignty in supranational regional institutions. The prime example is the European Union.

The old interstate system has also been destabilised by the breakup of Yugoslavia and the USSR into 26 new states, four of which lack international recognition. The decision of the West to recognize the independence of Kosovo from Serbia has set a precedent that makes it easier to carve up other states. Of course, the “independence” of Kosovo – occupied by NATO forces, governed by officials from the European Union, its constitution drafted at the US State Department – is purely notional. Russia has now retaliated by recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Although this will encourage secessionist movements inside Russia, blocking Georgia’s accession to NATO is evidently a higher priority (see September’s Material World).

Legitimising aggression

National sovereignty is not only undermined in practice, but also contested in theory.

Thus, in recent years the United States and its closest allies have sought to legitimise their military attacks on other states. True, such attacks are nothing new. What is new is open advocacy of the principle of aggression. The main rationales used are the prevention of nuclear proliferation, counter-terrorism and humanitarian intervention (see August’s Material World).

It is instructive to compare the Gulf War of 1991 with the current war against Iraq. The Gulf War, at least ostensibly, was launched in defence of the principle of national sovereignty, violated by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The elder Bush resisted pressure to “finish the job” – occupy Iraq and throw out the Ba’athist regime – out of concern that it would lead to the breakup of Iraq and, in particular, a new Kurdish state that would destabilise the whole region. Such considerations have not deterred his son.

Globalisation of capital, fragmentation of states

Paradoxically, the fragmentation of states is a natural corollary of the globalisation of capital. From the point of view of the transnational corporations, states no longer have important policy-making functions. It is enough if they enforce property rights and maintain basic infrastructure in areas important for business. Small states can do these jobs as well as large ones. In fact, they have definite advantages. They are more easily controlled, less likely to develop the will or capacity to challenge the prerogatives of global capital.

Global versus national capitalism

All the same, there is nothing inevitable about globalisation. It has lost impetus recently, and may even have passed its zenith. One sign is the disarray within the WTO. Another is Russia’s change of direction: in contrast to the Yeltsin administration, which was politically submissive and kept the country wide open to global capital, the Putin regime reasserted national sovereignty, expelled foreign firms from strategic sectors of the economy, and ensured the dominant position of national (state and private) capital.

Global versus national capitalism has emerged as an important divide in world politics. This divide exists, first of all, within the capitalist class of individual countries. Thus, even in the US, the citadel of globalisation, some capitalists – currently excluded from power – are oriented toward the home market and favour national capitalism. And even in Russia some capitalists support globalisation.

Nevertheless, the pattern of political forces differs from country to country, and as a result the global/national divide is reflected in international relations. Here the “globalisers,” led by the US, confront in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Russia, China and the Central Asian states) an embryonic alliance of national capitals bent on restoring the principle of national sovereignty to its former place in the interstate system.

A different perspective

This context clarifies the difference between our perspective as socialists and the attitude of anti-globalisation activists. Being against capitalist globalisation is not the same as being against capitalism in general. We have ample past experience of a world of competing national capitalisms – quite enough to demonstrate that there is no good reason for preferring such a world to a world under the sway of global capital. The main problem with the movement against globalisation is that it can be mobilized so easily in the interests of national capital, whatever the intentions of its supporters.

To be fair, some anti-globalisation activists are aware of this danger. Acknowledging that humanity faces urgent problems that can only be tackled effectively at the global level, they emphasize that they are not against globalisation as such: they are only against the sort of globalisation that serves the interests of the transnational corporations. This then leads them to explore ideas of globalisation of an “alternative” kind. These ideas at least point in the right direction. Socialism is also an alternative form of globalisation – a globalisation of human community that abolishes capital.

Stefan

Sting in the Tail: Capitalism obscene? Never? (1995)

The Sting in the Tail column from the October 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism obscene? Never?

Although the European Union still has its butter, beef and grain mountains, it destroyed nearly 3 millions tons of perishable food in 1993.

According to the Daily Mail (7 August), this consisted of apples, peaches, oranges, cauliflower, tomatoes and many other fruits and vegetables which were pulped as part of the EU’s policy of supporting farm prices.

Labour MP for Wallsend Stephen Byers declared “this is obscene”, a sentiment echoed by the Mail's editorial. But what both found “obscene” was the cost of this policy to “the British taxpayer”, which is only their way of describing British capitalism, and never, never the social system in which such insanity is rooted.

Pragmatism down under

The fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War Two was called VJ Day in Britain and America but not in all of Japan's wartime enemies:

“In many countries ‘Victory-Japan or VJ Day, has been quietly transformed into ‘Victory-Pacific’, or VP Day. In New Zealand and Australia the celebrations will be muted by the realisation that Japan is now the major trading partner and must not be offended. Elsewhere in the Pacific there is a reluctance even to acknowledge the victory " (Guardian, 7 August).

Australia changed the name because it “did not want to ruffle feathers with their greatest export market” while New Zealand was “concerned that the huge numbers of Japanese tourists who flock to its golf courses might take offence and disappear”.

In future, when Binyon's familiar "Lines" are spoken at remembrance services Down Under they should be changed to:

"They shall not grow old as we 

who are left grow old, nor the

 years condemn

   But at the going down of the

profits from exports and tourism

We shall remember on which side 

our bread is buttered."

They won't go away

During the Thatcherite 80’s we were assured that large chunks of the working class were being absorbed into an ever-expanding middle class which could look forward to a secure and prosperous future, and that the old conflict between capital and labour was dead.

Now, Larry Elliott has debunked this theory in the Guardian (21 August):

“Certainly popular capitalism seems to have lost its lustre. The middle classes, who believed their loyalty to the corporation meant a job for life, are living in fear of the sack. The skilled working classes have seen their homes repossessed. ”

He also notes that:

“There is no sense that management and workforce are on the same side, and why should there be, given the disparities of income and the knowledge that the redundancy notices will be handed out at the first sign of trouble. ”

Elliott concludes that all this, plus a growing awareness that most workers are “just one pay packet away” from penury, is fostering the belief that “we’re all working class now”. To paraphrase Mark Twain; reports of the death of the working class and the class struggle are greatly exaggerated.

Breathless business

If you ever wondered why it is that in a society capable of great scientific innovations and medical advances, some disorders never seem to be cured and, in the ease of asthma, become more widespread, then ponder the priorities capitalism puts on medical research. Rhone-Poulene-Rorer, a French/American enterprise that markets steroids, a second-line attack against asthma, plans to spend £1.7 billion, not in research to combat asthma but to buy out Fisons, a firm that produces a first-line attack, namely inhalers. Why this mammoth expenditure?

“Asthma is big business—a £6 billion world-wide market. It is growing rapidly, faster than the industry as a whole. And there is no cure. Just treatments’’ (Observer Business, 27 August).

So while asthma kills one Briton every five hours and more than 9 million suffer from it, including 2 million children, the big players are much more anxious to get a bigger slice of the “big business” than research means of beating the disorder.

Football and capitalism

The origins of football are obscure. Some claim that it was played in the Americas by the Plains Indians before the European invasion; others that it originated in Britain in the 14th century. But, whatever its origin, it is generally agreed that it was a healthy, enjoyable social activity. It was fun.

However, inside capitalism, a good example of what it has become is provided by Barry Hearn, the millionaire snooker and boxing promoter, who recently bought the football club Leyton Orient.

“I'm coming in with a great deal of experience in how to exploit sport, commercially and through the media. And I find this very motivating. Thats why I am in it: for me. You see I am not a football fan. I don't think I can sit through 90 minutes. It’s the business that's the buzz ’’ (Independent Magazine, 19 August).

The Mandarin (1974)

From the October 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The papers have had rather a lot to tell us about the wonderful welcome given by Maoist China to that well-known communist and faithful servant of the workers of the world, Comrade Ted Heath. One wonders what on earth the many thousands of workers who call themselves Marxists and Maoists can really think of the antics of the Chinese red-fascists who go out of their way to fête such an obvious and clumsy anti-worker as Heath. The same people who shouted “Heath Out” and “Long live Chairman Mao” can somehow bring themselves to swallow the spectacle of tens of thousands of workers being dragooned into turning out to stand by the wayside to cheer and march and dance in order to impress this capitalist buffoon.

What would the same people say if the workers here were called out to march like cheering automata to celebrate the arrival of “Former Prime Minister Heath”? It was hilarious, as well as tragic, that this was the only title they could greet him with because his present rôle, as distinct from his former one, is of course Leader of the Opposition. Somehow, it was regarded as unsuitable to use such a title in Maoist China. The workers may not have quite understood what a leader of the opposition could be in a land where there is no opposition, except in the cemetery. Or maybe it was feared that they would have understood too well; so even Heath’s title has to be twisted.

Of course, Heath was immensely bucked by this splendid reception which made him feel so much more important than he would be in England where he would be more likely to be greeted with a chorus of raspberries if he were to flaunt himself before the proletariat. And it goes without saying that when he returned he was full of praise for the rulers of China whose system he is supposed to hate. And did he say how abhorrent it was for workers to be drilled into clapping and waving flags and the rest of the disgusting charade? You must be joking. He enjoyed every minute of it. He and Mao are brothers under their skins. Like a couple of Orwell’s pigs.

L. E. Weidberg

The Secret of No Wages. (1928)

From the October 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

In Business Organisation (August) a writer comments on the American instalment system, and offers what he appears to think is expert advice. He says :

“It is time that the whole British business world should get to grips with the subject in order to set a similar ball of prosperity rolling in our own land. . . . The theory is : If the people buy the goods, workers will be wanted to make them, and presently shirt-sleeved employers will be rushing into the street shouting, ‘We want workers, we must have workers.’ ”

Note the IF. If they cannot buy the goods—what then ? For years we have shown that American industry must travel the way of all capitalist industry. That way is by “boom” and “slump,” with ever-shortening periods between them until, with regulated and curtailed production, comes continued depression, as in this country to-day. The greater the competition for markets the greater the problem of over-production or restricting production. The value represented by wages never allows the workers to purchase all the enormous wealth they produce. The instalment trading system could not save America from the effects of Capitalism any more than it has done here. Such methods show that numbers of workers can no longer purchase for cash, and in America it might defer the crisis, but it would only aggravate it when it came. According to to the Daily Telegraph (3/4/28), the crisis in due course arrived. The “shout for workers” will evidently now become one for markets and buyers :—

“Labour agencies report that unemployment throughout the country has increased from four million to almost six million. . . . The American Federation of Labour finds that 18 per cent. of union members are unemployed, at any rate, it is represented that the total unemployed based upon 40,000,000 workers would be 7,200,000.”

No wonder we have not heard so much lately of American prosperity, and what a warning to those workers whose hope for the future lies in the day when they might again have “more work.”

* * *

To Be Or Not To Be.

“It is no longer possible to pretend that the existing depression is a transient phenomenon. Clearly its causes are deep-rooted, and it has come to stay unless resolute measures are taken to abate or remove the causes” (“Morning Post,” 11/8/28).

What an admission from these staunch defenders of Capitalism, and how significant, though not in the Socialist sense, is their “unless.” Obviously the remedy is not in capitalist hands, or they would not confess to utter failure and inability to remove evils that must more and more compel the workers to ask the eternal Why? Why depressing conditions for themselves, while they produce for others who take no part in such production a once unthought-of degree of wealth and luxury? There is only one answer, and one that only the Socialist dare give—wealth belongs to those who own the means of producing it. No amount of reform or adjustment within the present system can alter that fundamental fact. While the wealth produced increases by leaps and bounds, our masters are at their wits’ end to sell, waste or spend it. The producers, separated from their means of life, cannot command more than that which only secures on the average an existence. To our masters that arrangement is the best and only possible one, hence the wish is father to the thought : “It has come to stay.” Out of the mountain of depression comes forth the mouse; for we are told :—

“It is incontestable that we are living beyond our means. . . . What can we afford?” (Ibid).

We ! Wage workers ! Surely a joke. Relative poverty and pauperism grow apace. In Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927 there were 562 millionaires —and over (Daily Express (18/2/28). The estates of the ten millionaires who died in 1927 paid nearly ten million in death duties alone (17th Report, Inland Revenue Commissioners).

“There were more millions lost and won this year at Deauville than ever before in its history. It is estimated that 40 million changed hands. . . One noted motor car manufacturer lost about £8,000 in ten essays one night “(“Daily Herald,” 7/9/28).

True, the cause of these contrasts is deep-rooted, nor are your depressing conditions merely transitionary. But whether they have “come to stay” depends on whether you intend to continue allowing an idle few to enjoy the results of your efforts. Capitalism cannot work out to your benefit. The capitalists do not need Socialism, nor will they desire it because your suffering becomes more acute. Socialism goes to the root cause of working-class poverty. It lies in Capitalism or the private ownership of the means of wealth production. By the substitution of common ownership you will ensure the leisurely enjoyment of the plenitude you now provide for others.

* * *

The Peace Pact Farce.

Peace, perfect peace, until the next war ! Some tell us we are cynical, distrustful, and do not want peace. We do—but can Capitalism ever give it ? We remember the peace tale in the days of yore. Did not Lloyd George tell us that he “saw distinct signs of peace” almost on the eve of the “war to end war”? Did not the Labourites demonstrate in favour of peace; and who could out-jingo them when war came? Does not the pacifist I.L.P. stand for reduction of armaments when out of office and vote for cruisers when in office? The signing of the Kellogg Peace Pact is yet another piece of hypocrisy on a par with the League of Nations. It is merely to allay suspicion while our masters prepare. In referring to the Pact, Sir Wm. Joynson-Hicks said :—

“I would warn you not to expect too much of this pact. . . . The whole of the nations of the world are still aimed to the teeth, and this new pact is but one more expression of the opinion that war is wrong, hateful and undesirable” (“Times,” 10/9/28).

One more pious expression, with the world still armed to the teeth ! Will that prevent war? We do not single out a special hatred for capitalist war any more than we do for its other abominations— unemployment, poverty and needless overwork. We stand as Socialists for the ending of Capitalism and with it the noxious maladies it begets. Those who support Capitalism through political ignorance are ever likely to be led into both voting and fighting for it while they remain in that mental state. Capitalism requires armed force, apart from military war. It is the final word in their political control over the working class. The further need for armed force as a means to defend and extend trade facilities is stated in terms of brutal frankness in the same speech :

“. . . There is one fundamental question we have to consider more than any other. That is the safety of Nation, Empire, and our trade routes.”

We, the workers, are not the “Nation,” we are the slave class within the nation. The “Empire” and the trade routes are the private property of our masters; they form channels through which they dispose of the wealth of which you have been robbed and over which wars are fought and working-class lives sacrificed.

W. E. MacHaffie

At Home and Abroad . . . (1971)

The Home and Abroad Column from the August 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Home

The latest, and most famous, example of a politician’s vote catching phrase rebounding back onto him is Edward Heath’s “at a stroke’’ promise to deal with rising prices at the last election. Of course nobody in their right mind took this seriously and the record on prices since the Tories took over proves the point. The Tories made a lot of noise about the promised effects of a reduction in SET and those who are mistakenly under the impression that such things determine prices may have believed it. Perhaps they have learnt better, now that SET has been cut in half and prices continue to climb. The Labour Party, as if they had never broken an election pledge in their life, overflow with false rage about Heath’s promise. Perhaps this rage acts as a sort of tranquiliser, stopping them from looking back at the record of their own government on prices. And finally the Tories, playing the honourable game of politics, keep passing the buck back; for example the confessed economic ignoramus Douglas-Home blaming the Wilson government for setting a “time bomb” of price rises which is now exploding under Heath’s men. This is all very well for the exponents of meaningless political shadow boxing but the working class, who send these people to Westminster, should realise how empty it all is. And if they don’t realise, a look at the shop price tickets should remind them.

One person who can be excused this exercise is Prince Edward, the queen’s youngest child. All workers who may have been worried about what would happen to the prince’s education when his private tutor left him to get married had their minds set at rest by the announcement that he would be going to Gibb’s preparatory school in Kensington where they charge £100 a term to teach the kids, among other things, “respect for property.” This may in fact be something of a waste of time; since these kids come from the class who own all the property, do they need to be taught to respect it? Wouldn’t that be more in line for working class kids who don’t have any property? Coincident with the prince being booked for Gibb’s school the memoirs of Lord Butler were published. He, we may remember, is the man who managed the Education Act of 1944 through Parliament. That was said to be a very daring Act, because it gave everyone equal rights to the best education.

Abroad

President Nixon said that his journey to China had been fixed because of his desire for peace, now and for generations to come. In view of this uncontrollable desire for peace, one wonders why the delay—and when did it come to Nixon, that he might get peace in talking with the Chinese government rather than in rattling nuclear weapons at them? At all events the visit will have the effect of upstaging the “peace” movement in America and it seems the Democrats will have to make some hard running now to have a chance against Nixon next year. It would be fascinating to sit in on the discussions between Nixon and the Chinese: one established, powerful capitalist state at last bargaining with another, new and rising and threatening. What betrayals, what carve-ups, what sharing of the spoils there will be! When the truth about it is known it may well turn out to have been one of the dirtiest episodes in the history of capitalist diplomacy.

One immediate effect of Nixon’s visit may be to end the present struggle in Vietnam, which otherwise threatens to go on for ever. A similar situation may be developing in Northern Ireland, where killings have now become almost accepted as the normal routine. How long ago was it, that the “progressives” in this country were demanding that the British government send in the troops so that the troubles could be ended with typical British fair play? In the event, as was clear all along, the troops have simply become the target of the opposing factions. We might hope that the “progressives” would recognise the struggle has roots deeper than they ever dreamed of, did we not know that fundamental thinking is foreign to their minds.

Politics

Has Wilson at last come down off the fence over the Common Market? In truth, he has never actually been on the fence, since even a master trickster like Wilson cannot entirely erase the fact that his government themselves tried to join the Six. What Wilson has done is to recognise the electoral possibilities of the Common Market issue and, like any good politician, to exploit them. The most popular pictures of the Common Market at present consists of rapidly rising prices in essential foodstuffs while hordes of foreign workers come freshly into England. Anyone with any experience of working class attitudes knows that that is not a vote-winning concept; the government will have to do some intensive propaganda if they are to convince the voters otherwise. Meanwhile, Wilson craftily has the best of both worlds. He still hangs on to his party’s policy of going into Europe but charges the Tories with accepting humiliating terms which would damage working class conditions and worsen international relations with the Eastern bloc. All of this, thrown in with some typical Wilson stuff about the Tories’ cynicism and privilege, may turn out to be a winning formula. If it is, we can depend on it that the doubting and opposing voices in the Labour ranks will be stilled, for they—just like the cynical Tories—will forgive a leader anything provided he brings home the electoral bacon. The fact is that there is nothing to choose between Labour and Tory on the Common Market, or on cynicism.

News in Review: Japan, tough competitor (1965)

The News in Review column from the July 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

You'll note that part of the third paragraph under 'Japan, tough competitor' is garbled. Obviously part of that paragraph is missing and, unfortunately, there was no correction in subsequent issues of the Standard. You'll just have to suffer  . . . just like I did.

P.S.

If you click on this link under the 'For Queen and country' column, you'll see footage of a young Tariq Ali.

Japan, tough competitor

The products of Japanese industry have always been strong competitors in the markets of the world.

In many cases, they have beaten British goods by sheer superiority in delivery, price and quality. Because many British workers regard the Japanese as inferior people, their economic victories have always been difficult to explain away. The solution to this was to popularise three stories, all of them designed to illustrate that the Japanese were treacherous little Oriental monkeys. This impression stirred up a lot of feelings which were successfully exploited after Pearl Harbour.

Briefly, the stories were: That all Japanese worker also gets a lot of what a time when British miners were continuously fighting against enforced cuts in their pay); That the Japanese were incapable of giving birth to an original idea and made up for this by simply pirating the designs of other countries (as if this was confined to the industries of only one country—international patents actions are going on all the time); That Japan was a country where only light industry could flourish—the heavier stuff had to be left to the sturdy Europeans (unemployed shipyard and steel mill workers could be excused for not appreciating the force of this point).

If there was ever any truth in these stories, there is very little in them today. Wages in Japan now compare with those in most other industrial countries; the Japanese worker also gets a lot of what are called fringe benefits—cheap housing, holidays, food and so on.

Japanese products are now becoming known for the originality of their design. They pioneered the mass production of the portable transistor radio (blast them). The Honda motor cycle now commands sixty per cent of the United States market. They have recently introduced a new car—the Daihatsu Compagno Berlina—to the British market which is notable for the number of “extras” (fog lamps, stainless steel bumpers, etc.) it has, all included in the near competitive price.

Other countries, in fact, are now stealing Japanese ideas. The plague of transistor radios is now being fed by British products. A Dutch shipbuilding firm has defied the patent on a Japanese-designed liner bow and American and West German firms have recently bought a new steel-making process from Japan.

Finally, Japanese heavy industry is booming ahead. This year, the steel industry there expects to produce thirty-nine million tons of crude steel (in 1949 production was nil—the British industry’s capacity of crude steel for 1965 was estimated in the recent White Paper at about thirty million tons.) Japanese shipyards expect to lay down the keels of two and a half million tons of shipping in 1965.

All of this means that, even after the pre-war methods have been discarded, Japan remains a strong rival in the world of capitalism. Indeed, under a powerful central control from the government, she is probably now a tougher proposition than ever.

In this process, several favourite myths have been laid low. This is not to say that, if at some time in the future Japan once more becomes involved in an international dispute, other myths, equally false, will not be concocted to explain away the immovable fact that the nations of capitalism are perpetually in dispute over the division of the spoils of exploitation.

For Queen and country

It would be better for everyone, including the young people themselves, if the antics of university students were not taken so seriously.

Universities are often among the most active units of what Peter Simple calls the Protest Industry. But when the undergraduates leave their youth behind them they usually forget the restless days of protest and fall into line with capitalism’s requirements of docility.

This is the background to the recent Queen and Country debate at the Oxford Union, which aroused such a lot of criticism, most of it based on the incorrect assumption that the motion was going to be carried.

It would be interesting to know what all those indignant letter-writers think about the Oxford students, now that they have signified that they will fight for Queen and Country.

In any case, the indignation was always misplaced. It is not uncommon for university unions to debate—and sometimes to pass—motions which sound very daring. In 1914, the Oxford Union voted against Britain being a member of the Triple Entente; in 1927 the Cambridge Union was in favour of pacifism; a few years later Oxford said that they preferred the Red Flag to the Union Jack.

And, of course, in 1933 Oxford decided that in no circumstances would they fight for King and Country.

Well, what happened? Among the supporters of that famous decision were at least two members of the present government whose present policy, as we all know, is to persuade other people to fight for Queen and Country in Malaysia, Arabia and other points East of Suez. These two are Anthony Greenwood and Michael Stewart.

It is difficult to trace what happened to most of the other 275 young people who voted for the motion. According to the proposer of this year’s motion, in 1939 they were “first in the fight against fascism.”

In other words, they did fight for King and Country after all, although perhaps under the deception that it was for some other, more worthy, motive. Apparently, they did not expect the British ruling class to try to mislead anyone about the causes of the Second World War.

In the event, the rebellious students of 1933 were as easy to deceive as any mental clodhopper who had never got within sight of the dreaming spires.

It is said that many statesmen—Hitler, Joseph Kennedy—accepted the 1933 motion as proof that the British working class would not fight in another war. If this is true, it only goes to show how badly capitalist politicians can misjudge a situation.

The 1965 debate, then, should not be given undue significance. Perhaps it was a publicity stunt, aimed at needling exactly the sort of people whose hostility was provoked. There is no reason to suppose that, if a war came, the rebellious students will not once again consign their university days to an embarrassed memory, and go dutifully out to fight for the interests of British capitalism. (Perhaps it will be in alliance with Nasser and Nkrumah, as Sir Richard Acland, who supported the motion, would like.)

Whatever the Queen and Country debate may suggest, of one thing it is innocent. It had no hint of enlightenment about the cause of capitalism’s wars, nor of determination to oppose them.

For university students and for the rest of the working class, that enlightenment is in the future.

China in Africa

An unexpected result of nuclear weapons in the hands of great powers, and the precarious Balance of Terror that has resulted, has been to increase rather than decrease the bargaining power of small nations.

Contrary to what might have been expected a decade or so ago, we have witnessed many cheeky acts of defiance by small and industrially backward nations towards great powers, which could probably overrun them in half a day without even using their nuclear weapons.

Attacking embassies and burning flags on the one hand, and nationalising the assets of some vast combine on the other, have become quite common place.

The smaller powers bank on the presumption that any move against them by one block, will bring the others hot foot to their rescue. Not, needless to say, because of any love towards the nation in question, but because they fear that an advantage may be gained by their opponents. While the giants manoeuvre for position, the little fellows nip about between their feet.

This is risky, as there is always a danger of getting trodden on. If the issue is really big enough the great powers will go ahead, and the small country is liable to become a graveyard. But in this jungle of Capitalism all methods must be used to forward the interest of the ruling class. One of the most successful ways of doing this is for a small power to try to milk a large power, or several if possible, for economic aid while committing themselves to as little as possible.

This position has been spotlighted again by the visit of the Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-lai to Africa, and his concentration on small and weak Tanzania. After all China is one of the world’s great powers and Chou En-lai is one of their top politicians. Palmerston or Bismark did not trail around, personally, to out of the way places, but times have changed and the struggle has become much more acute. No advantage, however small, can be passed over and so the visits of Heads of States, all over the place, goes on.

Chou En-lai appears to have had a rather mixed reception, as illustrated by President Kenyatta’s attack. Chou En-lai’s statement, on his last visit that “revolutionary prospects in Africa are excellent," did not go down very well with the new African leaders.

After all having just pulled off one upheaval, which has put them in the saddle, they are not likely to welcome another, which would probably put them out of it.

German visit

If it is true that history repeats itself, this is only another way of saying that capitalism’s problems are as persistent and repetitive as the ruling classes’ methods of dealing with them.

In 1904 Edward VII paid his famous visit to France, which sealed the alliance known as the Entente Cordiale, bringing to a close a century of enmity between Britain and France.

The visit was hailed as a great step towards peace—some especially wretched commentators actually went so far as to call the lewd and gluttonous King Edward the Peacemaker.

They probably were aware that the Franco-British alliance was made not in the cause of peace but as a shield against a greater and more immediate threat than the two countries offered to each other.

In 1904 the expansive menace of Germany was taking definite shape and the future was unmistakeable to the diplomats and the politicians. So the Entente was sealed, and the King packed off to France to give public, if vulgar, evidence of it.

Since then, there has been fifty years of persistent enmity between the British and German ruling classes. This situation had to end sometime, as the power line-up changed, as new markets were developed, as new weapons came on to the scene, as new threats emerged.

Both Britain and Germany are now united against the threat of Soviet Russia; both countries want to see Russian imperialism in Europe contained.

At the same time, both countries are now at odds with French ambitions, personified so aptly in the massive figure of de Gaulle, to see Europe united against both Russian and American encroachments—but under French domination.

The British ruling class are still wooing the Common Market; Germany is by no means hostile to these advances but once again the obstruction comes from Paris. (Britain is currently investigating the back alleys into Europe; witness Wilson’s recent visit to Vienna, where he pleaded for closer relations between E.E.C. and E.F.T.A.)

Thus the interests of the German and British ruling classes coincide at several important points. In addition, Germany has shown over the past twenty years that the expansionist ambitions of the first half of this century are laid to rest.

However powerful a competitor Germany may be, there is no sign of a resurgence of the explosive nationalism of 1914 and 1939. The time is ripe for another Entente Cordiale to be sealed— this time between Germany and Britain, directed partly against France. Thus history repeats itself, although the principal actors have changed their places.

This was the symbolism of last May’s visit by the Queen to Germany. She was doing there the same sordid job as her great-grandfather did in France in 1904.

Some German newspapers complained that the Queen did not smile enough at the welcoming crowds. Perhaps she was tired, or bored, or fed up with her well-paid job as the figurehead of British capitalism. But any politician could have told her (and for all we know one or two have) that she was making a serious mistake.

Capitalism's diplomacy demands that no matter how devious the bargaining, how ruthless the treachery, the leading public actors do not give way to any human feelings, but all the time smile, darn you, smile.