The Jamaica Plan for World Peace (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

These attempts failed to stop the second world war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alwyn Edgar

America versus the World (2002)

From the March 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

George Bush’s State of the Union address at the end of January was a rhetorical declaration of war on the world; an assertion that US interests are now paramount and woe betide anyone foolish enough to think otherwise.

Bush boldly announced that the “war on terror” was “only beginning” and announced an enormous hike in military spending. This year’s military budget is up $36 bn to $379 bn and next year the US war machine will receive an extra $48 bn, with a further $120 bn promised over the next five years, bringing the total spent on the military by 2007 to $ 2 trillion. To get some estimate of this level of spending it is worth noting that this year’s increase alone is higher than the joint military spending of Europe, and larger than China’s existing military budget. Though just how such an awe-inspiring arsenal of state of the arts weaponry is to stop 11 September type attacks on the USA is yet to be explained.

America has at last declared that the “war on terror” has replaced the threat of the “international communist conspiracy” and found in this the pretext to set the agenda for the coming century. The Bush administration has embedded its flag in what it believes is the moral high ground. From now on it is a war of good against evil – evil being anyone standing directly in the way of the US and its aspirations of global domination, with the “war on terrorism” allowing it to intervene anywhere and whenever and to deem who it likes a terrorist. Clearly this new “war” will involve countless military interventions with no regard whatsoever for international sensibilities.

There are now bogeymen under every rock and the world needs protecting from them. Bush identified an “axis of evil” in his State of the Union Address, pointing to the threat the world faced from North Korea, Iraq and Iran. Vice-President Dick Cheney would later remark that the US is considering military action against 50 countries and that this ongoing conflict could last 50 years, without seeming to question whether this would be sustainable.

Bush’s adviser Richard Perle commented: 

“This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there . . . if we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”

All of this has naturally left political analysts wondering just who will be next. Somalia (on a key oil export route and with untapped oil deposits off its coast and with whom the US has a score to settle following the botched “Restore Hope” operation of a decade ago, which left thousands of innocents dead), or Yemen, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria or Libya? All harbour bogeymen whose existence sullies the notion of American hegemony. Any could be the next target for a war machine drunk with its recent victory in Afghanistan. And what a victory! – Osama bin Laden still not caught (the entire campaign was about catching him), 5 thousand civilians dead and 7 million facing starvation in refugee camps.

A key element in the US game plan for global hegemony is clearly control of the Caspian’s rich oil reserves – estimated to be able to produce 3.3 million gallons of crude oil per day and 4850 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year. Hence US military manoeuvring in the states surrounding Afghanistan and thus the attaching of the “bogeyman” label to any state perceived as standing in the way of these profits.

Already Kyrgistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are under US military domination and there are US military tent cities in 13 states surrounding Afghanistan, with the map of US bases mirroring the route of a possible oil pipeline which would take oil through Iran to the Indian ocean.

The pretext for the US invasion of Iraq would be Iraq’s refusal to agree to terms laid down by a US-led weapons inspectorate into the country, hence Bush’s assertion in his State of the Union Address that Iraq “continues to flaunt its hostility towards the US” and that “this is a regime that has something to hide from the civilised world.”

The above may sound like so much scare-mongering, but when it is considered the US now accounts for 40 percent of global military spending, that it spends more on its war machine than the next 19 states, that in the past year it has discarded numerous international treaties, including those pertaining to weapons control, that the space taken up by its military hardware covers an area the size of Sweden, that it has served notice on all countries opposing the notion of US hegemony that their days are numbered, we can’t but conclude that warfare will be as much a part of life in this century as the one we have just emerged from.

We have every reason to be fearful for the future of humanity. War is competition for profits (either via trade routes, mineral wealth, resources or areas of influence) writ large, and to safeguard its future profits, its control of world resources the world’s greatest and largest military power is accumulating an unimaginable array of weaponry, rolling up its sleeves and marching forward to stamp underfoot all it perceives as being a threat to its interests.

John Bissett

The reason why . . . (1991)

From the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The reason why we will shortly have to go to war with Iraq is not to free Kuwait, though that is to be desired, or to defend Saudi Arabia, though that is important It is because President Saddam is a menace to vital Western interests in the Gulf, above all the free flow of oil at market prices, which is essential to the West's prosperity".

— Sunday Times, 12 August 1990.

Venezuela: what has really happened and what may lie ahead (2026)

From the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Venezuela has once again been making headlines around the world. Explosions, military movements, international pressure, mutual accusations and a great deal of confusion. To understand what has happened so far, it is necessary to look beyond the propaganda, both from the Venezuelan government and the US, and from those who defend one gang or the other.

It’s nothing to do with democracy or freedom

The first thing that needs to be made clear is this: the US is not acting out of a desire to defend the Venezuelan people, nor out of love for democracy or human rights. We have seen this many times before in other countries. When a major power intervenes, directly or indirectly, it does so to defend its own economic and strategic interests.

Talk of fighting drug trafficking or restoring democracy serves to justify actions that, at heart, are about political control, natural resources and regional power.

Nor is it about defending ‘sovereignty’

On the other hand, the Venezuelan government and its allies present what has happened as an imperialist attack on national sovereignty. But here is another uncomfortable truth: the Venezuelan state does not represent the interests of the majority of the working class.

For years, millions of people have suffered from inflation, low wages, forced emigration, deteriorating services and repression. All this happened without direct foreign intervention, under a government that claimed to rule on behalf of the people.

Will there be any real change?

There is much talk of ‘regime change’, but in reality what is happening is, at most, a change of administrators within the same system.

As long as there is:

• wage labour,
• production for the market,
• social inequality,
• a state that protects the property and power of a minority,

the lives of the majority will not fundamentally change. Changing a president or a ruling group does not change the system that produces poverty and insecurity.

Will there be more attacks or more pressure?

No one can predict exactly what will happen, but there is a clear logic: as long as Venezuela remains a strategic country because of its oil and geographical position, the pressure will continue, whether military, economic or diplomatic.

This does not depend on whether a government is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but on how states function in a capitalist world in constant competition.

The role of China and other powers

Some believe that China or Russia are a fairer alternative to the United States. But these powers do not act out of solidarity, but out of their own interests. China invests, lends money and negotiates to secure access to resources, economic benefits and international influence.

It is not a struggle between good and evil, but a dispute between great powers, where the workers get caught in the middle.

Internal betrayal?

There is much talk of betrayal, but such language tends to confuse more than it clarifies.

High-ranking officials, the generals and politicians do not betray the people, because they have never governed on their behalf, but rather in accordance with their own interests and privileges. When they switch sides or negotiate, they do so to protect their position, not to improve the lives of the majority.

Who loses out in all this?

The answer is clear: the working class in Venezuela, as well as in the United States and other countries.

Workers do not decide on wars, they do not benefit from sanctions, they do not control resources, and they always pay the price with more insecurity and less of a future.

An uncomfortable but necessary conclusion

What is happening in Venezuela will not be resolved by choosing between Maduro or the US, nor between Washington or Beijing. They all operate within the same system, a system that puts profit and power above human needs. As long as that system remains intact, crises will repeat themselves, with different names and different countries, but with the same losers.

The real solution will not come from leaders, armies or foreign powers, but from the conscious organisation of ordinary people, here and around the world, to build a society where production and wealth are at the service of all and not just a few.

SOCIALISTA MUNDIAL

(Translated from a contribution to a discussion on our Spanish-language Facebook page)

50 Years Ago: Enoch Powell & war (2026)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Enoch Powell is no friend of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. His divisive views on race are enough to make any self-respecting Socialist shudder. Yet amongst politicians he is undoubtedly one of the more coherent defenders and theorists of the present social set-up. His opposition to government spending, for example, does not extend to the police or prison services. He is in no doubt that crime is an unavoidable part of competitive society and maintains that economies in this field can only hamper the smooth running of that system. On inflation, too, he is uncompromising. He fully understands that inflation is caused by governments having an excess of paper currency printed, an explanation given (although Enoch may not realise it) by all Socialists since Marx.

In a recent edition of the BBC’S Any Questions Mr. Powell “came clean” once again, this time on the subject of war. He expressed the view that, with nations obliged to defend their interests against possible attack by outsiders, all grandiose, well-meaning schemes to disarm or to abolish war were pie-in-the-sky; the best governments could do was to stave off for as long as possible the wars that were bound to break out sooner or later. This is a bold, objective description of conditions in the world today and we must congratulate Mr. Powell for his frankness and lucidity. (…)

Enoch Powell is simply acknowledging what we have said: in a commercial, nation-divided world, war is inevitable. If the politicians are unable to avert wars, it is quite simply because they are committed to looking after a system that breeds them.

What is our alternative? We suggest a truly united, wholly democratic world with no nations, no money and with the satisfaction of human needs as its first priority. Impossible? We don’t think so. All that is in fact needed to bring it into being is peaceful political action by a convinced majority of ordinary people.

[From ' Enoch Powell & War' by HKM, Socialist Standard, January 1976.]

Against all war, economic and military (2004)

From the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists appreciate that the war over Iraq has drawn many workers into a political arena hitherto seen as boring and as impossible to influence from the outside. Workers once apolitical have been stirred into action by the lies, the tricks to curtail the democratic process, and the acts of violence, murder and destruction from their leaders.  Where before, whether at breakfast, in the workplace, in a café at lunchtime or over dinner in the pub in an evening, we discussed our work, sport, TV, pop music, sex and the weather or our personal pursuits, over and above our everyday troubles in life, lately we’ve seen the war over Iraq come to figure in these discussions.  Not satisfied with these usual outlets for our feelings, many have been attending the numerous anti-war rallies around the world and writing into newspapers, radio and television.  Socialists expressed pleasure in seeing so many of our fellow workers in anti-war mood, and in such numbers. 

   

But socialists are aware that in the workplace workers, anti-war campaigners and not, are soldiers in an economic war on behalf of the generals who own the businesses where we work.  We thought it ironic that workers should be so strongly united in an anti-war outlook on a Saturday, and then, back at work on the Monday, would go to war with each other, united only in an effort to win the battle for production, sales or work over their anti-war friends engaged in a similar process for other generals. A common lament from the weary and dismayed proletarian soldiers in the American Civil War of the 19th century was, We are all Americans! We socialists have a similar cry to workers in both the commercial and military wars of today – We are all fellow workers! If non-socialist anti-war campaigners only knew it, the wars of commerce lie at the root of all the military wars.

   

Sadly not a common view among anti-war campaigners, but all the signs of war are readily available if one cares to look and reflect on our day-to-day activity for just a moment.  Do not most of us work for a business to produce or sell products or provide some type of service in competition with those produced by our fellow workers who work in other businesses in the same field of activity? The products from one worker look almost identical to products from another, are made in similar environments by similar processes by workers who perform similar tasks in similar numbers and using similar tools. These commodities, whether we make them, sell or deliver them as a service, perform the same function, serve the same need, and sell for almost the same price. It is made clear to us, no matter where we work, in a supermarket, in a car or clothing factory, in a bank or a TV station, for example, that the company we work for, and by implication ourselves, are engaged in national (and international) rivalry with similar businesses all across the world. Every one of these businesses would if they could keep the whole market to themselves, and they struggle to get as much of it as they can in a game of competition – war by another name.  And the obvious end result is that the task is overdone and thus a glut is produced. 

   

Commercial conflicts are like military ones, with resources being trashed in a war for survival.  And the ruin of products coincides with the dissipation of the human effort employed in their production as well as the squandering of the quantity of the Earth’s natural resources as ingredients for their production. Perishable commodities which cannot be sold at their intended price are jettisoned into the bargain basement saleroom and then, if necessary, churned back into the soil even before the needy workers, who produced them, are allowed to have them free. The owners of the businesses where we work care not a jot for the workers when their particular war is over and they are no longer needed, due to sickness, injury on the job, the employment of new technologies, improved methodology or bankruptcy, which brings on our redundancy and poverty.

   

War includes struggles between classes, class wars between capitalists and workers.  In 19th-century France, a short civil conflict was fought between the bourgeois French National Assembly, and Parisian workers as republicans, known in socialist annals as the Paris Commune. In Britain, a civil war was waged between a feudal class and the rising bourgeoisie in the 17th century.  A war can also involve rival sections within a particular class who compete for power, as in America, where a civil war was fought between rival members of the American bourgeois class in the 19th century. There is another type of civil war which socialists cite, where in the arena of commerce, battles are waged between corporations, assisted by their (home-based) state authorities, first within national borders then steadily growing in stature to a transnational arena.

   

The now universal culture of ‘market ideology’ is the primary influence on the behaviour of humans everywhere.  The more power or money an individual or group can secure for themselves, the better their quality of life.  To be effective in their pursuit of power and wealth, whether solely by the means of commerce, or upgrading their war to the military stage, they must be indifferent to the needs and plight of their competitors; otherwise, their ability to wage war is diminished.

   

Whether a war in society is within a nation or between nations, the causes of these wars between the protagonists are of a similar nature. While the circumstances surrounding each war may remain peculiar to the time and place (the extent of dictatorship/democracy, class structure, mode of production, laws, parochial cultures or ideas or religions etc), the pattern seems to be repeated all over the world.  The owning class of one nation possesses something which that of another nation, or groups within a nation would like to possess.  These could be land, foreign trade deals, cheap labour, talented labour and property (as businesses or complete/established industries), home markets, and a natural resource as marketable asset – oil, gas, coal, iron ore, gold, diamonds, water, etc.  These are all requirements for success in making money, and with money comes power and influence for businesses and individuals.  As no one country has been endowed with a complete set of resources, there will often be a need to plunder.

   

Wars in human society take place between nations when the dominant men and women within them (the capitalist class) pursue wealth or the means to create wealth in society, using the power of their state and their labour (workers) as battering rams to defeat their enemies, which are themselves comprised of their opponents’ state machinery and workers. And where a conflict occurs within the territory of one nation, outside influences are often brought to bear. If resources are up for grabs, the capitalist grabbing class join the fray to see what they can win.

   

Only socialists can claim to be the true anti-war campaigners. Fellow workers around the world participate in anti-war campaigns, which call for the end of military wars, but none that we know of make that connection, as socialists do, to the wider society and particularly, to its mode of production and guiding ideology which promote competition among all sections of society. In campaigning solely for an end to military wars, which are but a bloody climax to the wider commercial war, there can be no hope of addressing the problems of human society today as a whole.

William Dunn

Worse than thought: In the article on Terror last month we quoted a figure of 35,000 for the number of civilian deaths in Iraq since the Anglo-American invasion. Since then the medical journal, The Lancet, has estimated the number as being more like 100,000.

Fascism again? (1947)

From the November 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The last War was ostensibly fought in order that the destruction of fascism might be permanently effected. Its measure of success in this direction may be judged by the recent revival of fascist activity. Under the new guise of the “British League of Ex-servicemen” a number of meetings have been held in the London area. The scenes that characterise these meetings are reminiscent of pre-war days. Rabid anti-Semitic propaganda, intense nationalism, slogan-shouting between supporters and opponents, invariably culminating in street brawls between both rival factions.

As a consequence a large measure of publicity was given by the daily Press. Among those perturbed at this state of affairs was Mr. John Platts Mills, M.P. At a meeting of the Finsbury Council he proposed a resolution “viewing with concern the recent outbreaks of anti-Semitism and increase in Fascist activity.” (Star, 26/9/47.)

He went on to say : ”I don’t think any of us would have imagined two years ago, after a war in which the whole world was embroiled in order to smash the most devilish system of government ever recorded in history, that we would now find people seeking to propagate the same system of government in our country. These people are self-declared traitors.”

Apparently Mr. Platts Mills is one of many who mistakenly assume that wars are fought over political systems and ideologies. It might interest him to know, however, that the S.P.G.B., while steadfastly proclaiming its Socialist opposition throughout the war, re-iterated the unpalatable truth, that whatever the outcome would be, the menace of fascism would not be removed. The cause of fascism must be sought in the economic structure of society prevailing in the world today. This system of Capitalism is based upon the ownership of the means of life by a comparative few, resulting in the consequent enslavement and subjection of the dispossessed majority in society, the working class.

Fascism then, arises when millions of workers, lacking a knowledge of their class position and desirous of seeking a scapegoat as the cause of their economic ills, fall an easy prey to the rhetorical arguments of the fascist demogogues.

Believing also that democracy can serve no useful purpose and therefore what is needed is a one-party government with a strong man at the helm, the workers in their political blindness hand over power to these tyrants, resulting in the inevitable abrogation of democratic institutions, with the subsequent establishment of a ruthless, repressive regime in its place. The rise of Hitlerism in Germany is a classic example of this.

The only safeguard against dictatorship is the conversion of the working class to the ideas of Socialism. When the majority are convinced of its necessity, they will wrest political control from the Capitalist class by sending their own Socialist delegates to the seat of power with a mandate to transform society from one of class ownership to one of common ownership and democratic control.

With the inauguration of a Socialist society, dictatorship, Fascist or otherwise, will be inconceivible, because the means of life will be owned and controlled by the democratic community of the world. Wealth will be produced solely to satisfy the needs of all, whereas today it is produced primarily for the profit of those who own, which results, in the starvation of millions who inhabit this globe if these profits are not forthcoming.

Socialism, then, will not only solve the major problems confronting society today but will afford the fullest possible life imaginable to all humanity. Such monstrosities as war, Fascism and economic insecurity will go and will be replaced by peace, democracy and plenty for all mankind.

J. Pizer

Abolish the cause of war (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

That “the old order changeth” is a statement that few would now contest. Not only have individual capitalist owners been replaced by huge corporations and state ownership but the face of the world has been changed within living memory. Gone is the ramshackle empire of the Russian Czar, the German empire of the Hohenzollerns, the Eastern empire of the Japanese, the self-contained policies of the Americas, and the vast colonial empire of the British. In between the two wars the Nazi and Fascist empires had a brief though hectic existence.

In spite of these tremendous and far-reaching changes one thing has not altered—the exploitation of the wealth producers. The changes have only been changes in the composition of the groups that live out of the surplus wealth wrung from the toil of the workers of the world. The workers as a class still receive in return for their labouring only sufficient to enable them to live at the level required in order to carry out the work they have to do. Even that is only true in “good” times; in “bad” times starvation or semi-starvation is frequently their lot. All the time they are harassed by insecurity, for they are never sure how long their jobs will last nor what prospects they may have of getting another one at the same standard of living or even below.

The last thirty years have brought into greater prominence another form of insecurity, the insecurity of life itself, brought, about by the expansion of wars and of the means of destruction developed by warfare which threaten the existence of both the members of the fighting forces and those behind in their homes. All the fine schemes for outlawing war, building up League of Nations and United Nations organisations, as well as limiting armaments, are rendered impotent by forces and ideals that are the necessary product of the present social organisation which drive the privileged groups into conflict over the plunder extracted from the labour of the workers. A little talk awhile there is and then—breath-taking plunges into the production of means of warfare that successively increase the weight of the staggering burden of armaments. In 1914, and again in 1939, we were assured that the war, in which millions lost their lives and millions more suffered injury, hardship and misery, was a war that would end all wars. Now we are threatened with another war which promises to reduce to insignificance the terrible results of all previous wars.

All the boasted intellectual eminence at the disposal of governments is incapable of solving the problem of war and this impotence is made plain by the disagreements between the “experts” and their attempts to blame “the other fellow.” In this also there has been no change ; the general propaganda justifying going to war uses arguments that are as old as war itself. And yet the real solution to the problem of war is a simple one, but one that only the workers can apply. The solution is simply to abolish the cause of war

What is the cause of war? We have said wars are struggles between privileged groups over the plunder extracted from the workers’ labour. What is this plunder and how is it extracted?

The workers in the extractive, productive and transport industries produce the wealth of the world. The worker works for a period and receives in return for his labours a wage or salary. The total output of the workers is sold for a price that is greater than the price the workers receive (expressed in wages or salaries). This surplus, which costs the privileged class nothing, is taken by them and it is out of it that they live, some in stupendous luxury. Broadly speaking the more that is sold of what the worker produces the greater is the surplus to be divided among the members of the privileged class. Consequently this class (or rather those who act on its behalf) is constantly engaged in increasing the amount of capital invested in industry, finding more prolific sources of raw material and expanding the market for the goods produced by the workers.

Although members of the privileged class, the capitalists, have a united interest, the interest of plunderers, as opposed to the interests of the working class, they come into conflict with each other over the division of the plunder. Hence sections of the privileged class fight each other over spheres for the investment of capital, over sources of raw material, over markets for the sale of commodities and over trade routes to markets and to sources of raw material. It is these conflicts that at times flare up into wars, and, as we have shown, they have their fundamental source in plunder wrung from the workers. Therefore the only way to abolish war is to abolish its source—plunder. And that is where the workers come in, because it is they alone who can accomplish this job.

Is it necessary to urge that the workers have a vital interest in abolishing war? Hardly—the devastation of the last war and the promise of the next should be sufficient to compel them, even if they only want to live, to spend a little time and mental energy pondering over the problem. Here is a simple solution which must be obvious to any worker who will clear the capitalist cobwebs out of his brain for a few minutes.

The wealth that is produced is the result of the application of human energy to the material provided by nature. The people who apply this human energy are members of the working class employed as labourers, mechanics, managers, foremen and so on—people who have to sell their energies to a privileged class for wages or salaries. The capitalist as such is not engaged in industry; he may be touring the world, feasting or hunting or dying, but wealth production goes on just the same—he is simply a parasite upon industry; his disappearance would therefore have no direful consequences to industry. As the workers run industry today for the benefit of a parasitic class they could just as easily run it to-morrow for the equal benefit of the whole human race. This would involve the common ownership of the means of production and the abolition of all forms of privilege that arise from private property ownership. This is the only solution to the problem of war and to all the other evil consequences of Capitalism from which humanity is suffering.

Gilmac.

Afghanistan and the new Silk Road (2001)

From the November 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following testimony by an oil and gas corporation executive (of Union Oil of California) to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the US House of Representatives’ Committee on International Relations on 12 February 1998 throws much light on the strategic importance of Afghanistan to the Western capitalist powers and goes a long way to explain why they have gone to war there.

Mr. Chairman, I am John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations, of Unocal Corporation. Unocal is one of the world’s leading energy resource and project development companies. Our activities are focused on three major regions – Asia, Latin America and the US Gulf of Mexico. In Asia and the US Gulf of Mexico, we are a major oil and gas producer. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely, and I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping US policy.

Today we would like to focus on three issues concerning this region, its resources and US policy:

• The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas.
• The need for US support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia, other newly independent states and in Afghanistan.
• The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

For more than 2,000 years, Central Asia has been a meeting ground between Europe and Asia, the site of ancient east-west trade routes collectively called the Silk Road and, at various points in history, a cradle of scholarship, culture and power. It is also a region of truly enormous natural resources, which are revitalizing cross-border trade, creating positive political interaction and stimulating regional cooperation. These resources have the potential to recharge the economies of neighboring countries and put entire regions on the road to prosperity.

About 100 years ago, the international oil industry was born in the Caspian/Central Asian region with the discovery of oil. In the intervening years, under Soviet rule, the existence of the region’s oil and gas resources was generally known, but only partially or poorly developed.

As we near the end of the 20th century, history brings us full circle. With political barriers falling, Central Asia and the Caspian are once again attracting people from around the globe who are seeking ways to develop and deliver its bountiful energy resources to the markets of the world.

The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves, much of them located in the Caspian Sea basin itself. Proven natural gas reserves within Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region’s total oil reserves may reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil – enough to service Europe’s oil needs for 11 years. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day (44 million tons per year [Mt/y]).

By 2010, Western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day (Mb/d) – an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about five percent of the world’s total oil production, and almost 20 percent of oil produced among non-OPEC countries.

One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region’s vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. There are few, if any, other areas of the world where there can be such a dramatic increase in the supply of oil and gas to the world market. The solution seems simple: build a “new” Silk Road. Implementing this solution, however, is far from simple. The risks are high, but so are the rewards.

Finding and Building Routes to World Markets

One of the main problems is that Central Asia is isolated. The region is bounded on the north by the Arctic Circle, on the east and west by vast land distances, and on the south by a series of natural obstacles – mountains and seas – as well as political obstacles, such as conflict zones or sanctioned countries.

This means that the area’s natural resources are landlocked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws – and even the courts – are dynamic and changing. Business commitments can be rescinded without warning, or they can be displaced by new geopolitical realities.

In addition, a chief technical obstacle we face in transporting oil is the region’s existing pipeline infrastructure. Because the region’s pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east.

Depending wholly on this infrastructure to export Central Asia oil is not practical. Russia currently is unlikely to absorb large new quantities of “foreign” oil, is unlikely to be a significant market for energy in the next decade, and lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.

Certainly there is no easy way out of Central Asia. If there are to be other routes, in other directions, they must be built.

Two major energy infrastructure projects are seeking to meet this challenge. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, or CPC, plans to build a pipeline west from the Northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossisk. From Novorossisk, oil from this line would be transported by tanker through the Bosphorus to the Mediterranean and world markets.

The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies including four American companies – Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. It will follow one or both of two routes west from Baku. One line will angle north and cross the North Caucasus to Novorossisk. The other route would cross Georgia and extend to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea port of Supsa. This second route may be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future; nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

Unocal believes that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Just as Central Asia was the meeting ground between Europe and Asia in centuries past, it is again in a unique position to potentially service markets in both of these regions – if export routes to these markets can be built. Let’s take a look at some of the potential markets.

Western Europe

Western Europe is a tough market. It is characterized by high prices for oil products, an aging population, and increasing competition from natural gas. Between 1995 and 2010, we estimate that demand for oil will increase from 14.1 Mb/d (705 Mt/y) to 15.0 Mb/d (750 Mt/y), an average growth rate of only 0.5 percent annually. Furthermore, the region is already amply supplied from fields in the Middle East, North Sea, Scandinavia and Russia. Although there is perhaps room for some of Central Asia’s oil, the Western European market is unlikely to be able to absorb all of the production from the Caspian region.

Central and Eastern Europe

Central and Eastern Europe markets do not look any better. Although there is increased demand for oil in the region’s transport sector, natural gas is gaining strength as a competitor. Between 1995 and 2010, demand for oil is expected to increase by only half a million barrels per day, from 1.3 Mb/d (67 Mt/y) to 1.8 Mb/d (91.5 Mt/y). Like Western Europe, this market is also very competitive. In addition to supplies of oil from the North Sea, Africa and the Middle East, Russia supplies the majority of the oil to this region.

The Domestic NIS Market

The growth in demand for oil also will be weak in the Newly Independent States (NIS). We expect Russian and other NIS markets to increase demand by only 1.2 percent annually between 1997 and 2010.

Asia/Pacific

In stark contrast to the other three markets, the Asia/Pacific region has a rapidly increasing demand for oil and an expected significant increase in population. Prior to the recent turbulence in the various Asian/Pacific economies, we anticipated that this region’s demand for oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not meet these expectations, Unocal stands behind its long-term estimates.

Energy demand growth will remain strong for one key reason: the region’s population is expected to grow by 700 million people by 2010.

It is in everyone’s interests that there be adequate supplies for Asia’s increasing energy requirements. If Asia’s energy needs are not satisfied, they will simply put pressure on all world markets, driving prices upwards everywhere.

The key question is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to satisfy the energy needs of nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions – with several variations.

Export Routes

East to China: Prohibitively Long?

One option is to go east across China. But this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers to central China – as well as a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. Even with these formidable challenges, China National Petroleum Corporation is considering building a pipeline east from Kazakhstan to Chinese markets.

Unocal had a team in Beijing just last week for consultations with the Chinese. Given China’s long-range outlook and its ability to concentrate resources to meet its own needs, China is almost certain to build such a line. The question is what will the costs of transporting oil through this pipeline be and what netback will the producers receive.

South to the Indian Ocean: A Shorter Distance to Growing Markets

A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.

One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of US sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.

In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.

Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.

The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan.

This 42-inch-diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. Estimated cost of the project – which is similar in scope to the Trans Alaska Pipeline – is about US$2.5 billion.

There is considerable international and regional political interest in this pipeline. Asian crude oil importers, particularly from Japan, are looking to Central Asia and the Caspian as a new strategic source of supply to satisfy their desire for resource diversity. The pipeline benefits Central Asian countries because it would allow them to sell their oil in expanding and highly prospective hard currency markets. The pipeline would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage trade and economic development. Although Unocal has not negotiated with any one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contacts with and briefings for all of them. We know that the different factions in Afghanistan understand the importance of the pipeline project for their country, and have expressed their support of it.

A recent study for the World Bank states that the proposed pipeline from Central Asia across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea would provide more favorable netbacks to oil producers through access to higher value markets than those currently being accessed through the traditional Baltic and Black Sea export routes.

This is evidenced by the netback values producers will receive as determined by the World Bank study. For West Siberian crude, the netback value will increase by nearly $2.00 per barrel by going south to Asia. For a producer in western Kazakhstan, the netback value will increase by more than $1 per barrel by going south to Asia as compared to west to the Mediterranean via the Black Sea.

Natural Gas Export

Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link a specific natural resource with the nearest viable market. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. As with all projects being considered in this region, the following projects face geo-political challenges, as well as market issues.

Unocal and the Turkish company, Koc Holding A.S., are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to the Turkey market. The proposed Eurasia Natural Gas Pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Sixty percent of this proposed gas pipeline would follow the same route as the oil pipeline proposed to run from Baku to Ceyhan. Of course, the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

Last October, the Central Asia Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline that will link Turkmenistan’s vast natural gas reserves in the Dauletabad Field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. An independent evaluation shows that the field’s resources are adequate for the project’s needs, assuming production rates rising over time to 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day for 30 years or more.

In production since 1983, the Dauletabad Field’s natural gas has been delivered north via Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia to markets in the Caspian and Black Sea areas. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, travelling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan. A proposed extension would link with the existing Sui pipeline system, moving gas to near New Delhi, where it would connect with the existing HBJ pipeline. By serving these additional volumes, the extension would enhance the economics of the project, leading to overall reductions in delivered natural gas costs for all users and better margins. As currently planned, the CentGas pipeline would cost approximately $2 billion. A 400-mile extension into India could add $600 million to the overall project cost.

As with the proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline, CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place. For the project to advance, it must have international financing, government-to-government agreements and government-to-consortium agreements.

Conclusion

The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region’s residents and provide energy for growth for Europe and Asia.

The impact of these resources on US commercial interests and US foreign policy is also significant and intertwined. Without peaceful settlement of conflicts within the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan.

US assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business’ success. We encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. We also urge repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts US government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits US influence in the region.

Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a “new” Silk Road, can link the Central Asia supply with the demand – once again making Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia.

Thank you.

(Was to be found at: http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm. Now not operational)

Interventions: Leaflets (2001)

Party News from the November 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist Party members have been present at ant-war demonstrations. Here are two examples of the leaflets we handed out there

Against war—against capitalism

It was good to hear of the anti-war demonstrations that took place recently in cities around the world, including Washington. It is heartening that many workers are refusing to accept this latest march towards bloodshed, despite the war propaganda blitzkrieg we have been subjected to.

However, we would say that slogans like “no more killing, no more war, no more violence any more” (though wholly admirable) do not go to the root of why war is such an ever-present feature of life. War does not occur because of “world leaders” being misguided or evil (though they may be these things), but because of the ruthless competition inherent to capitalism.

War is “business by other means” as they say. This war (whatever form it takes) will have its roots in the ongoing scramble for Middle East oil.

War is the inevitable result of world capitalism and the conflict between competing powers over markets, raw materials, trade routes and strategic territory – quite simply, war will not be banished from our lives until we have banished capitalism from our lives.

The companion parties of the World Socialist Movement have opposed every single war. We call on our fellow workers to reject and oppose all capitalist violence and bigotry, as we do. But it is also essential that our class understand the cause of war – the outdated capitalist system – and organise to abolish it.

www.worldsocialism.org

 

Another War – Another Tragedy For Humanity

The bombing of Afghanistan has begun. The alleged “war on terrorism” against America’s former islamic fundamentalist allies in Afghanistan is under way.

It will really be aimed at installing another regime more favourable to US and other “great powers” interests in a region strategically important with regards to oil (the reason for the previous financial and military support for the fundamentalists).

The cause of this war, like all others, is the profit system and its inherent vicious competition, which constantly finds expression in war and destruction. And like all wars, this war has nothing to do with the interests of the global working class.

The interests at stake are the interests of the competing national sections of the capitalist class and hence at odds with the real interests of us, the workers of the world, whose exploitation is the source of capitalist power and profit. The killing of our fellow human beings runs counter to the interests of humanity, full stop.

As ever, the companion parties of the World Socialist Movement call on our fellow workers to stand with us in opposing both this war, and the anti-human capitalist system which has spawned it. We must reject all attempts to divide the working class into national camps, whether our class enemies use the ideologies of “democracy” or of “islam”.

We simply cannot afford to repeat the carnage of the Twentieth Century in the Twenty First. The potential for a united world society based on the common ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole human community has existed for some time now. It is vital for the future of humanity that the useless, war-prone capitalist system is abolished.

How much more blood can we allow to be shed?

Notes by the Way: What Wars are really About. (1938)

The Notes by the Way Column from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

What Wars are really About.

Germany and Britain were supposed to have gone to war in 1914 about the violation of Belgian neutrality and about the respective merits of democracy and Prussian militarism. Now they are supposed to be quarrelling about Fascism and democracy and the merits of the Czechoslovak dispute. In 1914 the Japs sided with “democracy” against “Prussianism” (and, incidentally, strengthened their position in China), but this time they are backing Germany in order, so they say, “to stem the tide of Bolshevism.”

The real reason now, as then, for these international conflicts is capitalist commercial rivalry. The German economic periodical, Wirtschaftsring, according to the Daily Telegraph (September 13th, 1938), “accuses Britain of attempting to throttle Germany’s trade with Eastern Europe and of encircling her in economic fields.”

Britain’s purchases of Rumanian corn, remarks the Journal sarcastically, were made for two reasons. First, she wished to cut Germany off from the Balkans, and secondly, to reduce the amount of corn available in Central Europe in the event of war.

Not content with ruling a quarter of the globe . . . Britain wants to acquire the trade of other countries. The economic strangulation of Germany has been attempted through the Scandinavian countries, it is alleged, and is now to be pursued through Finland and South-East Europe.

Then The Times (August 27th, 1938) publishes an article by its Tokyo correspondent on the reasons for Japanese hostility to Britain. Here is his conclusion: —

Anti-British elements are to be found not only in the Army and Navy but in every branch of the Civil Service and in business. Statistical appraisal of the strength of these elements is impossible, but the general statement may be hazarded that most people under, say, 46 years of age in these various departments of national life who are politically conscious, and even many who are not, are anti-British. These people are anti-British because of commercial rivalry in world markets and political rivalry in the Far East. But they are also anti-British on internal, political, and personal grounds.

The Times' editorial adds:—

Commercially all over the world, and politically in the Far East. Great Britain figures as Japan’s chief rival. That is now the Japanese see it.

The remedy is to get rid of capitalism.

#    #    #    #

Our Leaders (from their bomb-proof hide-outs) will ask us to stand firm.

The Daily Express (September 15th, 1938) | publishes a description of Hitler’s modest little bungalow at Berchtesgaden.

It began as “just a simple mountain chalet” ; but is now “ as sumptuously equipped as a luxury | hotel.”

In the event of a war it will be an ideal place from which this heroic leader of German cannon-fodder will be able to urge them to be brave and stand firm. In the woods around it “so many anti-aircraft guns are mounted . . . that no single aircraft could survive their fire,” and ”deep down beneath the woods are gas-proof, bomb-proof shelters.”

#    #    #    #

Pity the Poor Indian Capitalist.

It was to be expected (and was doubtless foreseen by the British ruling class) that when Indian Nationalist governments came to power in several Indian states the Congress Party would .begin to show signs of internal strain. It was one thing for Indian workers and peasants, landlords and capitalists, to unite in denouncing British rule, but quite another thing for a Congress Party government to please all of these diverse elements. Gandhi, who has never disguised his hostility towards Socialism and his belief in capitalism, is now sharply criticising working-class elements in the Congress Party. Although in the old days he himself advocated the occupation of salt works as part of the campaign against the Indian Government, he is horrified at the idea of Indian workers using similar tactics against Indian employers. In his journal, Harijan, of August 13th, 1938 (quoted in the Indian Labour Journal, August 21st), he writes as follows: —

One complaint is that, in the name of peaceful picketing, picketers are resorting to methods bordering on violence, such as making a living wall beyond which no one can pass without being hurt or hurting those who make the wall. As the author of peaceful picketing, I cannot recall a single instance in which I had encouraged such picketing.

A friend has quoted Dharsana against me. I had suggested the occupation of salt works. But that is wholly inapplicable to the case under consideration. In Dharsana the objective was the salt works of which possession had to be taken and maintained as against the Government. The action could hardly be called picketing, but, to prevent workers from going to their work by standing in front of them is pure violence and must be given up.

Blind worshippers of Gandhi will say that the above remarks are consistent with his advocacy of passive resistance as a means of dealing with all situations. But the next passage in his article shows how circumstances alter cases. He is telling his readers what the factory owners should do if threatened with mass picketing. Should they pray ? —or try persuasion and passive resistance? Not at all, they should call in the police!

The owners of mills or other factories would be fully justified in invoking the assistance of the police.

Another illuminating remark from Gandhi is this:—

I have before me a letter which bitterly complains that, whereas capitalists used to get justice during the old régime, now, under the Congress régime, they not only get no justice, but are even insulted and humiliated.

This is too bad. As any poor Indian millionaire, rich by the sweating of Indian textile operatives or iron and steel workers, might complain: ‘‘What is the use of getting rid of British rule unless India remains safe for exploitation?”

The attitude of Gandhi and his paymasters is easily understood, but what are we to think of the so-called "Socialists" in India, who continue to delude the Indian workers with the argument that Nationalism and independence will rid India of poverty ?

#    #    #    #

Bandits or Patriots?

Patriotism has been described as “the last refuge of a scoundrel’’; but everybody does not take that view. Some of those who do not are the London newspapers, also the Liberal, Labour and Conservative parties. They all say that patriotism is a very fine and noble thing, and that we should honour the courage and devotion of the patriot who fights to defend the land he was born in against foreign invaders. There is Abyssinia, for example. The Manchester Guardian reports that widespread guerrilla warfare is still bring waged against the Italians, and the writer in the Guardian (September 8th, 1938) goes to some trouble to explain that the Abyssinian patriots are not just “bandits." But if we turn from Abyssinia to Palestine, where the Arabs are trying by force of arms to overthrow the detested British rule and oust the Jewish settlers, we find a remarkable difference. All the London daily papers, with hardly an exception, habitually report the efforts of the Arabs as the activities of “bandits." Actually the Arab fighters talk the same kind of language as all the other patriots. Here is a sample:—

Were it not for the justice of our cause, the holiness of our demands and the victory promised to us by God, the enemy would have succeeded in its intentions. —(Daily Telegraph, September 8th, 1938.)

Not that we wish to idealise the Arabs, but it would be more fitting if the gangs of patriots in all countries recognised that they are all worshipping the same barbarous ideals in the same bloodthirsty way.

#    #    #    #

That's a Commissar—that was!

The Russian dictatorship goes on its way not a bit changed by the introduction of its “democratic” constitution. The Supreme Soviet, which the Russian Press claims to be the "world’s newest and most democratic Parliament," met for the first time in January. It held its second session at the end of August. The Moscow correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (September 16th, 1938) says that: "What could not escape observant eyes when the two Houses met for the first time since January was the absence of a number of faces which had been prominent during the historical first session"—they had been quietly "liquidated" in the meantime. Some leading figures thus removed from the scene had only been appointed in January. One of them, Chubar, had actually been employed then on denouncing "wreckers" to the Members of Parliament.

The Moscow correspondent expresses the opinion that the Government now has difficulty in finding/reliable and experienced men to fill the more prominent positions, but there is no dearth of urgent problems waiting to be dealt with. He only repeats what is widely known when he says, for instance, the Russian railway system is in a "chronically chaotic’’ condition. What then had Russia’s mock Parliament to say about the counties troubles and the way to remove them ? They met almost daily for a period of twelve days and this is what they did :—

The time was devoted almost entirely to hearing reports from Government officials and to discussions of them, which amounted to amplifications of the reports. The discussions never could have been said to have developed into debate, and there was no record of a negative vote having been cast throughout the proceedings.

Yet our Communists, who praise the Soviet Constitution, profess to have a new-found enthusiasm for Parliamentary government. Even Mussolini’s Yes-men dare to open their mouths occasionally in the Italian Parliament, as recently when there was some serious discussion of the Government’s financial policy.

                                                                  #    #    #    #

How Bolshevism discourages foreign working-class movements.

The Communists always talk in terms of Russia helping the working class in other countries, ignoring completely the widespread discouragement that events in Russia have caused. A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian in Poland (Manchester Guardian, August 22nd, 1938) describes how the Polish Communist movement has been undermined through Russian events.

Meanwhile Poles—or rather the Polish governing class—feel a certain relief because Stalin has destroyed the Polish Communist movement. The Polish Communists were an élite  in so far as their older leaders played a big part in the Russian Revolution. The immense poverty of the Polish peasant masses is favourable to Communism, which has been kept down by a ruthless terror. But so many Polish Communists have been shot or imprisoned in Russia during the last few years that the Polish Communist movement has been almost completely destroyed from within, so to speak, and a terrible disarray has spread amongst its remaining members.

#    #    #    #

An Economist Exposes Capitalism.

Sir William Beveridge may be described as one of the best-informed and least shoddy of the economists who stand for capitalism. He has a respect for facts and for scientific method rather unusual among modern economists; and has on occasion remained firm in his views when the tide of ignorant but influential prejudice was running strongly against him. His study of capitalist industrial crises has now led him to an interesting admission. The following report of his speech is taken from the Manchester Guardian (August 23rd, 1938): —

Besides satisfying himself completely that the trade cycle is a real phenomenon, he finds that there is singular faithfulness in the maintenance on each occasion of the order in which individual industries decline and the degrees of intensity with which the depression affects each of them.

He is sure that the basic causes lie in human institutions.

During the last ten years, the trade cycle had shown a striking disregard for the actions and attitudes of Governments. In 1931 land 1932 Great Britain, U.S.A. and Sweden were alike in depression. All three had changes of Government. The directions of change differed widely, yet all three recovered and prospered for several years and now, with its type of Government unchanged, was entering a new depression. It would be hardly possible to find a stronger illustration of the apparent impotence of Governments in face of the trade cycle as long as they did not abolish the economic system, altogether.

In spite of this admission that crises do not take any notice of the kind of government that is trying to administer capitalism, Beveridge is, as he always was, a Liberal who holds that we must not “abolish the (capitalist) economic system altogether.”

He is quite right in stressing the impotence of governments in the matter of ridding capitalism of crises, but he has surely had enough experience of politics to know that even if governments can't do anything they have to pretend they can. Ex-President Hoover, of the U.S.A., was apparently one of those who believed that the best thing for the capitalists to do about a crisis is to do nothing, just let it take its course. But it lost him all chance of re-election, and his place was taken by Roosevelt, the persuasive, opportunist, glib-tongued wholesale manufacturer of promises. He affected the crisis no more than Hoover, but he made a show of dynamic activity, and that is what the trustful electorate likes.

#    #    #    #

Good Sense from Geneva.

Small organisations from Britain, France, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Sweden, Holland, Spain, Greece and Palestine recently held a conference at Geneva, presided over by Mr. Fenner Brockway, of the I.L.P., at which it was decided to establish an international organisation for the purpose of preventing the threatening war. A manifesto was issued, declaring that—

the coming war will be neither a war for the liberation of an oppressed people nor a war for the defence of u democracy ” against Fascism. It will be a war in which two groups of brigands will come to grips for a new partition of the earth. The conflict between the Sudeten Germans and the Czecho-Slovakian Government is only the pretext for a settlement of accounts between German Imperialism on the one hand and British and French Imperialism on the other. Our class interests are neither the one side nor the other. Workers of all countries, all races, and all colours, this war will not be our war. Let us unite to bar its way while there is still time. Only our class action can drive it back.—(Manchester Guardian, September 15th. 1938.)

Whatever illusions these organisations, one of which is the I.L.P., may hold about other matters, they have certainly seen through the appeal of the war-makers. They take it for granted, however, that Britain intends to be involved in war with Germany over the Czech question, and this seems to be improbable, to say the least of it. Chamberlain seems to have other ideas as to the best way of protecting British capitalist interests.

#    #    #    #

Peace and War at the Marble Arch Front.

The crowds which throng the public meeting place at the Marble Arch end of Hyde Park are becoming more and more familiar with the S.P.G.B. and its message, and they use their opportunity of stating their own case against the S.P.G.B.’s. At one meeting, recently, two incidents occurred which cast a vivid light on the futility of Labourism. The first was an interruption by two German girls: They were enthusiastic Nazis and heil-Hitlered as they left the meeting. But before they went they explained why they are Nazis. It is all because of the glorious things they believe Hitler has done, and will do, for the German workers, which they contrasted with the sorry failure of Labourism, i.e., the activities since 1918 of the German and Austrian Social Democratic Parties. But the tragedy is that these two Nazi girls believed that the plight of the German workers up to 1933 was due to Socialism! They shouted to our speaker: “Look what Socialism did for us!” Of course they are quite wrong, but who taught them that Socialism means the administration of capitalism by a Labour Government ? Nobody but the German and Austrian Labourites.

The second incident was a question thoughtfully put by a member of the audience, who was plainly not a member of any party but was looking round to see what he could best do to prevent war. This was his question:—

In view of the fact that the Left Wing parties are at the present time more war-minded than the National Government parties, would you. advise the workers to vote for the Chamberlain candidate in the next General Election in constituencies where there is not a Socialist candidate, and thus help to prevent war?

All members of the S.P.G.B. will recognise that the question is an old friend, hurled at Party speakers for years, and yet it appears in a strangely inverted form. Always before it was in the form: “Ought not. the workers to vote for the Labour Party candidate in constituencies where there is no S.P.G.B. candidate, because the Labour Party, while not a Socialist Party, is the next best thing?”

So capitalist politics have their revenge on the reformist parties (including the Communists). They all played at the game of capitalist politics, trying to outsmart the Tories, only to find that Chamberlain has manoeuvred them into such a position that great masses of the electorate feel that the only way to avoid war is to vote against the Labour Party and other “Left Wing” groups. What a confirmation of the S.P.G.B.’s insistence on a straight Socialist policy all the time!

It need hardly be added that voting for Chamberlain to keep out of war is about as safe as voting for Hitler to keep out of war, in spite of the fact that at present British capitalism will do much to avoid war.

#    #    #    #

The German Tactic in Czechoslovakia is not new.

People who wax very indignant about the German tactic of provoking disturbances in Czechoslovakia, as a prelude to intervention and conquest, should spread their indignation a little. It is the time-honoured tactic of British Imperialism in its dealings with native races. It was used with splendid success against the Boer republics forty years ago. It was used by Italy in Abyssinia, by many governments in Africa and China, and it closely resembles a move made by France only fifteen years ago in the Rhine provinces of Germany. When France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr in 1923 one of their activities was to finance a movement for separating Germany’s Rhine provinces and forming them into an u "independent" State, under French protection. Along with some Rhinelanders who really thought the idea was a good one, were others who were paid hirelings of French capitalism.

The Ruhr occupation is worth remembering for the parallel it provides with the Czechoslovak problem. Then the Labour Party and the Communists were all on the side of Germany, and France was the u "mad dog of Europe" against whom they threatened war. The Labour Party and T.U.C. issued a manifesto on January. 15th, 1923, describing the action of the French and Belgian Governments as an act of war and "an attack on the self-determination of the German people." They demanded that the British Government take  "all possible steps to secure the withdrawal of the Armies of Occupation."

The demands of the Communist Party, in a manifesto issued by them, included “an immediate conference of Labour organisations of the world to put an end to the Imperialist aggression" and “immediate scrapping of the Versailles Treaty." Now that Hitler is duly scrapping the Versailles Treaty the Communists have changed their position and are not so keen.

Edgar Hardcastle

Disarmament and the Working Class (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Of the numerous problems which owe their existence to the normal development of Capitalism, that of Disarmament seems to have outstripped all others in the degree of popularity. For many years organisations from the League of Nations Union down to the Labour Party and Christian Peace Societies have wasted their time, money, and energies in conducting Peace by Disarmament Propaganda campaigns, passing futile resolutions, futile because they lacked effective backing, even if such were practicable, and generally calling upon the Government of the day to give a lead to the remaining capitalist world in the attainment of disarmament.

The Government, however, ignoring the pleas of the ardent pacifists, is busily engaged in making its contribution to world peace by preparing the armed forces for war.

This policy, together with the identical one now being pursued by the rest of capitalist States, has been instrumental in changing pacifist optimism into unprecedented pessimism.

Their failure to appreciate the function of Government and armed forces is the main cause of their defeat.

Whilst not agreeing with Bukharin in other matters, we can certainly endorse the following: —

It ought to be obvious from the foregoing considerations that armaments are an indispensable attribute of State power, an attribute that has a very definite function in the struggle among State capitalist trusts. Capitalist society is unthinkable without wars —the inevitableness of economic conflicts conditions the existence of arms.

This is why in our times, when economic conflicts have reached an unusual degree of intensity, we are witnessing a mad orgy of armaments. (“Imperialism and World Economy.” L. Bukharin. Martin Lawrence edition. P. 127.)

These economic conflicts are, in their turn, conditioned by the endeavour of the master classes to gain economic advantage in controlling or annexing commodity markets, trade routes, sources of raw material, and areas of investment.

To expect Disarmament to be accomplished whilst retaining capitalist private property relationships is Utopian in the extreme; the pacifists, however, have no notion of the fact that the above stated capitalist rivalry, and their armed forces are determined by these relations.

How, then, is Disarmament to be achieved ? In answering this question we shall begin by pointing out that such an objective is inseparably linked up with Socialism, and both of these tasks can only be accomplished by the working class.

The first step in this direction is by far the most important and difficult, namely, the converting of working-class opinion to Socialist knowledge.

The result of the spread of Socialist thought is organisation in the Socialist Party. Then, in the manner laid down in our principles, the working class conquers political power. In doing this they disarm the master class of their control of the armed forces.

With the necessary conversion of the machinery of Government, including these forces, into a suitable lever with which to achieve emancipation, the task of ushering in the new social system begins.

As the resistance of the ex-capitalists to the new order becomes weaker so the need to maintain the weapons with which to stamp out this resistance becomes ever more unnecessary.

The coercive forces gradually die out until Disarmament in its entirety is an accomplished fact.

Southey.