Kenya and Berlin (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Enemy of an Enemy

Cardinal Richelieu was credited with basing his foreign policy on the maxim “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The capitalist groups in the modern world work on the same slogan. In present world conditions Russian capitalism and its allies in the Soviet bloc, is in conflict with the capitalists of the Western world. The latter in their turn are engaged in struggles against the working class in each of the Western countries. Therefore the working class of the Western countries are the potential allies of the Russian rulers. This is the reason why the Russian rulers hold themselves out as the friend of “the toilers of Britain and America" and try to enlist the sympathy of the latter by means of the Communist Parties in those countries. The assiduity with which the Communist Party of Great Britain has built up the legend of “The Jolly George"—in which incident the workers of Britain are supposed to have prevented the British ruling class pursuing the war against the Bolsheviks in the early days of the Russian Revolution—shows, in spite of the fact that the story as related by them is not true, the direction in which their thoughts are moving, For the Russian rulers realise that, however powerful the Anglo-American ruling class might be, it could not, without the active support of the British and American workers, embark successfully on any war against the Soviet Union.

Vast Subversive Network

On the same principle, the ruling class of Britain and America show great sympathy for the oppressed workers in the countries under Soviet regimes, and try to stir up discontent and organise opposition. In the conditions obtaining in the Stalinist countries, this work has to be done underground, in exactly the same way as the Communist Parties have to work secretly in many western countries, among them Spain and Portugal, some of the South American republics, and (to an increasing degree) the United States itself. Thus an article in the “Readers' Digest” of October, 1952, says "West Berlin, an enclave deep in the Soviet Zone, continues to be headquarters for a vast subversive network radiating throughout Red Germany, warning police officials of the punishment in store for them, smuggling refugees to the West, ceaselessly distributing propaganda.”

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

But, one need scarcely add, the sympathy felt by the ruling class of Russia, and of Britain and America, for the struggle of the workers against their masters, stops at their own boundaries. The workers of an enemy country are fit subjects for sympathy; but never the workers of your own. Chapter and verse for these statements can be found in the recent events in Kenya and East Berlin. When in East Berlin and other German cities, on June 16th and 17th, the workers turned on their masters and protested by mass demonstrations against their wages and working conditions, the German Stalinist police, supported by Russian tanks and machine-guns, suppressed the demonstrations by force, killing a number of demonstrators. This was the signal for a barrage of sympathy from the rulers of the Western world. Dr. Adenauer said, “betraying deep emotion,” that “even in a cynical age there were still men prepared to die in the streets for an idea. They did not fear Russian tanks and machine-guns; they had shown to the world that they would not be slaves, and that the age of tyranny was over.” (The Times, 24-6-53; subsequent references are also to The Times, unless otherwise stated.) In Parliament Mr. Maclean, a Conservative, called the Russian action a “barbarous massacre” (25-6-53); and a group of Labour members tabled a motion reading: “That this House notes with intense interest and deep sympathy the struggle of the German workers against the Russian military dictatorship in Eastern Germany and deplores the execution without trial of the leaders thrown up by the workers in the struggle for bread and liberty” (24-6-53). Mr. Dulles, the American Secretary of State, found that the episode "demonstrates that the people do retain their love of God and love of country and their sense of personal dignity. They want to run their own affairs and not be run from Moscow. The unquenchable spirit of the people was dramatised in East Berlin, where unarmed youths tore up paving stones from the streets to hurl in defiance at tanks . . . The people want to be governed by those whom they select as responsive to their needs and desires, rather than to be ruled by those who take their orders from aliens and who give their orders with a view to achieving their own ambitions without regard to the welfare of the people concerned ” (1-7-53).

Kenya

If this is the attitude taken by the Western rulers to the events in East Berlin; why do not they deliver the same kind of stirring speeches about the disturbances in Kenya? Mr. Dulles thinks the East Germans want to run their own affairs; but the East Germans are at least allowed the semblance of free elections (skilfully manipulated though they may be by Herr Ulbricht and his friends) whereas in Kenya the Kikuyu and other Africans are openly barred from the franchise. A defender of the attitude of the Anglo-American ruling class might say that the two cases were different; the Kikuyu, in rebelling, did not stop short at peaceful demonstrations, but actually killed those whom they thought were oppressing them. The answer to this is— so did the East Germans: a number of police and state-officials were reported shot or beaten to death during the riots of June 16th and 17th (1-7-53). And this should cause no surprise; when workers are driven to desperation point, be their skins black or white, they often try to seek escape by using violence against individual members of the oppressing class or their hirelings.

Savagery

But again it might be alleged (by a supporter of the British ruling class) that the behaviour of Mau Mau adherents in Kenya has shown them to be savages at heart, and to be therefore beyond the sympathy of “civilised” men. But this is the last argument .which could be used by members of the British ruling class. If individual acts of barbarity are to blacken for ever the character of the nations to which their perpetrators belong, and place those nations for ever beyond the pale of civilisation and civilised rights, then why this sympathy and support for the Germans? These Germans are exactly the same as those against whom our rulers were lashing us into furious enmity only eight years ago, on the grounds of the savagery, the barbarity, the bestiality they had shown in the treatment of minorities inside Germany and of the populations of the occupied countries. Our rulers cannot now ignore the six years of unending propaganda with which they overwhelmed us in the second world war. The truth is that neither the East Germans nor the Kikuyu are any more brutal by nature than other human beings, though some of them have been driven by oppression and bad conditions into brutality (as were the East Germans on June 16th and 17th, and as the Kikuyu have been from time to time since a year ago).

“Fatherland of the Proletariat”

Just as East Berlin has shown up the hypocrisy of the rulers of the Western world, so it has shown up the hypocrisy of the Stalinist leaders. The Communist Parties of the world claim to be parties of the workers, organised in the interest of the workers; the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and the other Soviet countries are always to the fore with denunciations of “capitalist oppression” whenever the workers of the Western world are suppressed by force. In East Berlin the German and Russian Bolsheviks had the opportunity to show how they themselves deal with similar situations; and the outcome was as one would expect, for no capitalist system, whether its superstructure is of the Stalinist or the Western kind, can tolerate insubordination among its workers. By using the rifle, the machine-gun, and the tank against striking and rioting workers, the Stalinists have once more demonstrated the division between the master class and the working class in the countries under their control. 

Worse Than Useless

The Socialist attitude to these events can be explained in a few words. While we have sympathy with workers who are driven to break out in open violence, whether against Stalinist or a western ruling class, the killing of individual members of a ruling class does nothing at all to alter the economic basis of society; so long as that basis is unchanged, so long will there be a master class and a working class. Acts of violence on the part of the workers merely provoke the ruling class and its armed forces, and give it the excuse for bloody reprisals. In Eastern Germany, scores of workers are reported to have been killed; in Kenya, the “security forces" boasted that in three days last month they had killed a hundred “terrorists,” which is far more than the total number of whites killed by the Mau Mau since the beginning of the troubles (27-6-53). When workers become Socialists, they use their resentment at their conditions to spur them on towards ending the society that causes them, not in sporadic and pointless acts of violence. The Western leaders claim to be opposed to violence and murder as political weapons; but they reveal themselves as double-dealers when they incite the workers in Stalinist countries to use these weapons, although they know that the result can only be a slaughter among those who try to fight their political battles in the streets.

Alwyn Edgar

Dear Old Pals. The Anglo-German line up (1954)

From the December 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Well! Well! So the Germans are Britain’s Allies now! Dr. Adenauer himself has said “it is astonishing.”

“Britain and Germany have signed a treaty to defend one another instead of attacking each other "—(Sunday Express, 24/10/54.)

It must be a great comfort to the people. After two most frightful wars to smash Germany down, the capitalists of Britain and America are now intent on building Western Germany up.

Those past the half-century mark, with a moment to spare for introspection, may well recall the scenes of days gone by. “Pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag!” “It’s a long way to Tipperary.” “Keep the Home Fires Burning.” The Recruiting Office in Whitehall packed with jostling crowds fighting to get into the army first. The Derby Scheme with its armlet, German bakers' shops looted. “ Society ladies chasing about with white feathers. The Great Shell Shortages! Lloyd-George! Minister of Munitions.

The 1915 disasters, Lloyd-George, Prime Minister 

The same Sunday newspaper which reported the news of the Anglo-German Alliance is serialising a new biography of David Lloyd-George.

“To-day’s episode tells of a military disaster which caused grief and misery in nearly four hundred thousand British homes.”

It is the story of Passchendaele, the most stupid and disastrous blunder of the 1918 war.

Four hundred thousand men floundered through mud knee-deep to their doom, trying to capture a piece of land the size of Green Park, Piccadilly.

This was the area at which Haig’s Chief of Staff, Kiggel, visiting the scene after the battle, broke down and wept, sobbing “Good God! did we really send men to fight in that”

That same Passchendaele of which Siegfried Sassoon wrote:

“If I were bald, and fat, and short of breath 

I’d live with scarlet majors at the base 

And speed glum heroes up the line to death 

You’d see me with my puffy petulant face 

Gulping and guzzling in the best hotel 

Poor young chap. I’d say, I knew his father well.

Yes! we lost heavily in that last scrap 

And when war was o’er and youth stone-dead 

I’d toddle safely home and die—in bed ”

Months afterwards, years afterwards, Lloyd-George was asked, if he knew how idiotic Haig and Robertson really were, why he did not sack them out of hand. In his Memoirs he said he dared not take the risk, when the Press were supporting the High Command, which might have required a General Election.

This explanation may satisfy Mr. Owen and some of his readers. It will not do for Socialists. The Socialist Party has a very vivid recollection of those war years.

It was during 1915 and '16 when Haig was “speeding glum heroes up the line to death" that our public meetings were smashed up by hysterically-patriotic members of the British working class.

The self-same violently nationalistic propaganda-drunk workers who cheered Haig’s ludicrous military blunders—booed the Socialist Party speakers who stood up to say that the war was for profits, and would bring workers nothing but disaster.

While nearly a million British soldiers staggered through a sea of mud in Belgium a tiny handful tried to fight through the sea of lies at home—the odds proved too great—the Socialist Party did the only thing possible, stood down until a few more workers came to their senses.

This is the real explanation of those harrowing events. Even two years afterwards, Lloyd-George could still win an election on “Homes for Heroes,” “Make Germany Pay,” and “ Hang the Kaiser,” though the victory was short lived. The political ignorance of the working-class was the ground upon which Haig could hound them to death.

It was this ignorance which blinded workers to their own interests. Understanding nothing of class society, the majority of workers thought they had something to gain from the defeat of Germany. They thought it their interest to prevent German capitalists acquiring British trade. Most of them thought their employers their benefactors—not their exploiters. In brief, knowing nothing of Socialism they supported Capitalism—and inevitably its wars.

Lloyd-George’s election stunts became notorious. The mere mention of “‘Homes for Heroes” got laughs for years, but, after many twists and turns, Baldwin, Ramsay Mac, Chamberlain and Co., the same old routine started all over again.

The same blunders were repeated in 1939/45 by military commanders who must not be mentioned because they have not yet “died in bed.” 1939, a change of labels—but basically the same—and a working class which still did not know that society is divided into two classes, with opposing interests, marched, or now, was rushed, to the shambles in fast trucks.

By now, science had “improved” war. No need to rush to the front, the aeroplane dropped it on you. Still, the workers support their masters, although 60,000 registered objection to the war.

And now, after two doses, Britain and Germany are Allies, “pledged to defend each other against a common aggressor.” What again? Yes! All over again.

And will all those who marched to smash Germany and “make her pay” rise up as one man in burning indignation at the futile squandering of life and wealth in two past wars, and cry aloud—"We will not fight for Germany, and mock our fallen comrades?”

They will not.

Until such time as a sizeable number of workers are Socialists, the people remain hydrogen-bomb dust for the modern Douglas Haigs.

Horatio.

The Truth About Bogey Men (1953)

From the December 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

German Capitalism Revives

“If you don't go to bed like a good boy” said the nurse, “Boney will come and get you.” The threat was enough and the little boy went dutifully to his slumbers. “Boney”—the contemptuous English abbreviation of the name of Napoleon Bonaparte—was, in the opinion of the nurse, the embodiment of all the world’s evil. But, as she could prove, he had his uses, particularly at bedtime.

A hundred years later the little boy’s great grandson was being persuaded into his bath and his bed by the threatened prospect of a visit from the Kaiser, and 25 years after that his offspring obeyed the orders of parent and nurse backed by the lurking spectre of Adolf Hitler.

And so through the years the shadow of “evil men” has hung over the world, and our troubles and tribulations have during their lifetime been laid at their doors. The honest nurse was a reflection of the attitude of her age, and the palpitations of the little boy in his bed were the tremblings of a generation in turmoil. For people have ever held that the existence of war, with all the attendant unhappiness and bestiality, is the responsibility of—at the most—a few men of base intent who are intractable in their design to conquer and suppress. This is a convenient conception of the world’s affairs which requires a minimum of thought and application and lends itself readily to exploitation by subtle pens and swift tongues. A Lloyd George will thunder his purity against the vice of a Kaiser and his cry will be echoed in a million other throats. Newspapers will devote much space to the iniquities of a Hitler, and songsters will wax fat upon the profits of derisory ditties like “When That Man is Dead and Gone.” The impression to be given is that to remove the man is to remove the problem—to depose or to kill a Hitler is to depose the possibility of war and to secure peace for the world. Thus arises an edifice of propaganda—but it is an edifice built upon falsity; and there is no better example of this than that to be drawn from recent events in Germany.

The Rise of Hitler

In the late nineteen-thirties German Capitalism was labouring under an intense expansionist pressure. Its industry, ever virile, had largely recovered from the reverses of the 1914-18 war, and was casting about itself for colonial sources of raw materials, and markets upon which it could sell the products pouring from the factories. The eyes of the German capitalists were upon the industrial strength of the Saar, upon the oil of the Balkans and the Middle East, and upon the African Colonies of which they had been deprived in 1919. At every turn Germany stood thwarted by Great Britain, France and Russia. And all the time the pressure from the great industries, gathering their strength day by day. The situation was explosive and it threw up an explosive character. Adolf Hitler, with his brainstorms, his Gestapo and his concentration camps, was a peculiarly approximate expression of German capitalism and so was supremely suited to play the role of the Bad Man of Europe: the pens of Fleet Street ran warm in the depicting of this newest bedtime threat. But Hitler was only the expression of the desperate ambitions of the German capitalists; and Chamberlain and Daladier—his opposite numbers in Great Britain and France—were representative of the fears and determinations of the ruling classes in their countries. The 1939 war arose from Germany’s struggle for a place in the European economic sun, opposed by the need of her opponents to keep her in the shade.

It is worthwhile noting the appeal which Hitler made to the German working class in order to arouse them to the acceptance of an inevitable war. He spoke of oppressed minorities of German nationals in the Sudetenland. He demanded the return of Germany’s lost territories in Eastern Europe. He sketched the plight of the inhabitants of East Prussia, cut off by the Polish Corridor from overland communication with the rest of Germany. The phrase “the right of self- determination’’ flew thick in the air. It was effective matter and the German workers accepted it. They went willingly to a war in which Hitler himself lost his life. But did the ambitions which Hitler voiced die with him? We shall see.

The Same Again

Western Germany today is in a position remarkably similar to that which Germany as a whole held between the wars. Once again she is recovering (greatly assisted by her erstwhile conquerors) from the effects of a staggering defeat, and her industry is getting under way for the seas of expansion and enterprise. The Manchester Guardian tells us (22/6/53) that “An economic institute in Munich has recently reported that the industrial structure of the Federal Republic (of Germany) was now similar to that of the whole Reich in 1939.’’ The same view was expressed last month in the report of the Federation of German Industry. The Guardian's correspondent in Bonn reported (20/5/53) that “German officials in the Federal Ministry of Economics declare that. . . the Federal Republic intends to recapture its former fruitful trade with Eastern Europe.’’ British industry is now finding that “Western Germany is Britain’s chief competitor in Europe” (Observer 3/5/53) and that “capital goods will meet with growing competition . . . from Germany” (Manchester Guardian 7/9/53). In fact, Europe is approaching a situation similar to that of 1939, with its battle of economic pressure and counter-pressure. German industry is gathering as a potential boil on the neck of French and British interests.

And this condition has thrown up another man. Not a rug-chewing maniac with a bodyguard of stormtroopers. Not an architect of a system of concentration camps. A quiet, scholarly man. A shrewd man. But personifying the interests and the mood of German capitalism as surely as, in his day, did Adolf Hitler The recent electoral victory of the German Christian Democratic Union and the installation of its leader— Dr. Konrad Adenauer—firmly into the position of Chancellor of the Federal Republic marks a significant phase in post-war European history. For German capitalism is resurgent and is re-asserting itself in the affairs of Europe. The election of a strong government —the most stable on that part of the Continent of Europe controlled by the Western Powers—is symptomatic of this re-awakening confidence. Says The Economist of 12/9/53 “Dr. Adenauer is established as the most powerful statesman on the Continent . . . All the portents suggest that for some time to come Western Europe will be led by the German nation.”

The Pace Quickens

Revived German capitalism is staring with covetous eyes upon the possessions and markets of its European neighbours .and as of old, its. aspirations are turned towards the lands in Eastern Europe, which it formerly held, and toward the richness of the Saar . . . “German experts have worked out draft proposals for replacing the Saar's one-sided economic union with France by a more balanced relationship with the French and German economy . . . ” (Observer 13/9/53). The current topic of German politicians is no longer the rights of self-determination. They now speak of “German reunification.” From Bonn again comes the news (Manchester Guardian 14/9/53) that “German pressure on the Western Powers to reunify the whole of Germany may be expected to grow in the immediate future.” And had not the Federal Government Minister for All-German Affairs (Herr Jakob Kaiser) already declared that “The reunification of Germany means not only the return of the Soviet zone but also of the former German territories in the East now under Czech and Polish administration.” (Manchester Guardian 7/5/53). All this has a familiar ring. It transports one’s imagination back to the dusty summer of 1939, with the newspapers and the radio reporting the speeches from the beer-cellars.

It has been said that the future of Germany decides the future of Europe. An expanding Germany in 1953 would prove as much of a nuisance to the British and French capitalist class as in 1939. We may well have not yet seen the end of Germany as the Bad Boy of Europe.

The lesson to be drawn from all this is that wars are not the work of wicked, aggressive men. In 1939 Europe went to war because of the pressure of German economic expansion—Europe could well go to war again for the same reason, with roughly the same line-up as before—although Hitler the evil is dead, and Adenauer the mild and ruminative is in his place.

One day the people of the world must grasp this fact—that wars flow from the competitive nature of capitalist society—that they are but one of a number of unpleasant by-products of the system of the manufacture of wealth for sale. When that fact has been assimilated and the conflicts of the world are no more ascribed to the malefactions of a handful of rulers, then there will be no more bedtime threats of bogey men for our little boys. Such stratagems will be pointless. The little boys of the world will have grown up.

Ivan