A New World Order (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J.T.

World Government is not Socialism (1954)

From the October 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Lately we have been hearing rather more often than usual that the way to solve the world’s problems—and particularly that of war—is to have World Government. Probably this is largely due to reaction to the news of the latest atomic weapons, and discussion of their earth-shattering potentialities. The proposal that one World Government should replace the many existing national sovereignties is, of course, by no means a recent one. At first sight it may seem to bear a certain similarity to the proposal to establish Socialism. The movement for World Government is concerned with achieving both universality and peace. So is the Socialist movement. But there the similarity just about ends, as an enquiry into the nature of the various ideas and policies that are advocated in the name of World Government will show.

History of World Government Movements

When and where the ideas of World Government first arose is largely a matter for speculation. Despite the comprehensive power achieved centuries ago by empires such as the Roman and Mongolian, and notwithstanding the work of nineteenth-century “peace societies,” organised efforts directed towards World Government are largely a product of the last two decades. Today there are dozens of organisations here and abroad championing federalism as a basis for world order, and disagreeing among themselves over details and methods. Among the pioneers was Federal Union Ltd., founded in London in 1937, and followed a year later by Federal Union, Inc. in Chicago. Both are concerned with the establishment of a “nuclear union” or federation of democracies which, they claim, must lead towards a world federal government.

In 1938 a World Citizenship Movement was launched in Britain and later in America, its supporters seeking to transcend national sovereignties by proclaiming themselves “world citizens.” One of the best-known personalities in this essentially individual movement was Garry Davis, who six years ago in France renounced his American citizenship in favour of “world citizenship.” In 1949 he launched his “World Citizens’ Pact,” which obtained almost half a million signatures. He returned to America a year later and applied for restoration of his American citizenship.

Meanwhile, other organisations had been springing up like mushrooms. In 1947 a number of American ones coalesced into United World Federalists, which included many secessionists from Federal Union. UWF reached a peak of 50,000 members in 1949. It advocates the transformation of the United Nations into a global federal government with powers to “keep the peace” In the event of Russian refusal to participate, it is prepared to support partial federation.

Finally in this brief survey we must mention the World Movement for World Federal Government, which is described as “the body co-ordinating the efforts of federalist and World Citizen organisations in many lands ”UWF and Federal Union are member organisations of WMWFG, as also is the Crusade for World Government (formed in 1947 under the leadership of a number of British M.P.'s). The fourth World Parliamentary Conference on World Government took place in London in September, and enabled delegates from different nations to reaffirm that all the nations should work together.

The list of names or organisations could be extended considerably. Frederick L. Schuman, in The Commonwealth of Man, goes into considerable detail about them, but claims to present no more than “a few leitmotifs in the symphony or cacophony of movements striving for world federation." From this symphony or cacophony we must try to distinguish the main theme of World Government. 

Their Policies

The WMWFG champions a federal world constitution, with a bill of rights, providing for a global legislature, executive and judiciary, and world law enforceable on individuals. To achieve this end it favours regional federations, United Nations reform, and national political action. Assuming that these measures could be achieved, they would do nothing to alter the property basis of present society. In the absence of majority agreement for revolutionary change, the world constitution, bill of rights, etc., would be modelled upon existing constitutions or upon a combination of them. The continuation of enforceable law, necessitating machinery of coercion, could only be justified on the grounds of the continuation of conflicting interests in a World State.

Recognition that the conflicting interests within property society are not all national ones shows that the advocates of World Government have a fundamentally wrong conception of the nature of the State. The capitalist State exists to prevent the class division in society from disrupting the social organisation, and to protect the interests of capitalist groups from actions instituted by rival capitalist groups abroad. The function of the State is to govern the institutions of property, to defend privileges against outer and inner threats, and to expand the areas within which capitalist exploitation may be profitably carried on.

The advocates of World Government, however, do not accept this, and work on the “social contract" theory of government They believe that men create government to serve the general welfare, and that it stands impartially above the conflict of class interests The actual conduct of governments belies this theory, and reinforces the Socialist contention that the capitalist system cannot be transformed by an expansion of the scope or functions of the State. The problems of mankind are not to be solved by the extension of government.

The Crusade for World Govemment

Some of the propaganda for World Government is not easily recognisable as reformism, and bears a superficial resemblance to Socialist propaganda. Consider the following passage from the Policy and Programme Statement of the Crusade for World Government 1953-4:

“A new order in world affairs is overdue. That new order must be a World Government obtaining its authority from the peoples of the world, representing all peoples, and having power to act in their common interests; a World Government which takes over and disbands national armed forces; which establishes and enforces the rule of world law, and which ensures social and economic justice for all peoples. World Government must come by the demand of the citizens of the world . . . "

The language is deceptively revolutionary. For “a World Government" one could read “Socialism" and, if not too critical, one could imagine that the two movements shared the same object. It is worthwhile, therefore, to examine the passage quoted very carefully.

A World Government representing all peoples, and having power to act in their common interests gives the impression that each man, woman and child, would be so represented on a basis of social equality. If the “common interests" are also those of each and every person then the form of society cannot continue to be a property one with antagonistic classes—it must be Socialism. It will be noted that the Policy Statement does not list the abolition of property relationships among its aims, and this omission makes an important difference to the significance of the other proposals. These proposals—the world government, rule of world law, etc.—in effect boil down to the ideal of federating the separate nations into one super-nation, without changing the class nature of society.

It is not surprising that the Crusade for World Government should advocate no revolutionary change. In its own words, it “is not influenced or controlled by any political party or group but is supported by people in all walks of life, of different national origins, creeds and opinions." It is possible that there are some members of CWG or other World Government organisations who claim that Socialism is their ultimate object, but that World Government is the immediate necessity. To these we would say: the quest for peace is admirable, and a world community of interests eminently desirable. But the movement for World Government like all other reformist movements, is trying to alter the results of the present system instead of working to abolish the system itself.

Seekers after peace and an equalitarian society are faced with the existence of property (private or state), the division of mankind into those with property rights and those without them, and all the ideas that enable this social system to continue. All these are inseparable aspects of capitalist society, and if any one is to be changed then all must be changed. A movement that does not require its members to be united in opposition to Capitalism is not capable of advancing Socialism. Those who desire a peaceful world run in the interests of all mankind will not achieve what they desire by supporting the policies of world government organisations. The comment of Gerard J. Mangone adds a final word of caution to any who doubt this: “World Government is but a technique of doing something on a large scale, not a guarantee of a better life for all."

Stan Parker

Capitalist Federation or International Socialism? (1940)

From the May 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nothing for the Workers !

In our previous articles, published in the March and April issues of the Socialist Standard, we have shown that a Federal Union could not bring permanent peace or improve the lot of the working class.

The claims of Federalists are extravagant and Utopian, because they are based upon misunderstandings of the capitalist system. Like all other reformists who have preceded them, the Federalists are attempting to achieve the impossible : they want to retain capitalism, but wish to eliminate the evils it engenders. Reformists of one school or another have, for generations, been trying to realise that happy state of affairs. With what result? The development of capitalism proceeds unhindered and defeats their efforts every time: wars, degrading poverty, malnutrition, overwork, unemployment and countless other evils inseparable from capitalism are still with us.

In discussing Federal Union, we have been compelled to arrive at this conclusion: there is not the slightest reason to believe that Federalists would succeed where other reformists have failed. Capitalism cannot be adapted and made to function for the benefit of the mass of the population.

As a matter of fact, some advocates of Federal Union are aware that their scheme can do little for the workers as a whole. Perhaps this accounts for their attempts to win the approval of the tax-paying capitalist and the better-paid sections of the working class. Perhaps this accounts for the promises of easier travel, or reduced taxation and even the promise of new careers for the educated sons of the well-to-do, who are now finding a difficulty in obtaining “suitable” places in capitalist society.

We read in “Federation and World Order,” by Duncan and Elizabeth Wilson, that “the institution of a Federal government would open a wide choice of new careers in the new civil service that would have to be formed” (p. 178).

Whilst the “brains” would have new careers within the Union, the two writers just quoted have to admit that, for the ordinary person, life would proceed much as it does at present. Here is what they say : —

“First it must be emphasized that in many ways of ordinary life the average man would notice little change ” (p. 177).

Presumably the everyday sufferings peculiar to the working class would remain: the worry of making ends meet, the anxiety about employment, etc.

In fairness to the Wilsons we must add that they promise the average person “the absence of a sense of insecurity which has of late become part of his consciousness.” But we have already shown that Federal Union cannot give anybody “security” from war nor from the threats of war, because it does not touch the economic rivalries which are inherent in capitalism.

When the worker is asked to support Federal Union, he ought, thereore, to remember that even according to some of its supporters “the average man would notice little change.” That is our contention, too; Federal Union can do. nothing for the working class.

Federal Union—A Bulwark of Capitalism

Federal Union stands for the retention of capitalism. Let there be no mistake on that point. It has been openly admitted by several of its advocates.

Mr. Streit, one of the principal supporters of Federal Union, states clearly and definitely in his proposed constitution that Federal Union would safeguard private property. According to him, Federal Union must give “Freedom . . . from having property taken for public use without just compensation.”

Of course, were Streit allowed to have his own way, were his idea to be rigidly adhered to, there could never be a Socialist society. Compensation for property socialised means that previous owners would have a right to claim some of the products of industry. In other words, he wishes to ensure that present property owners will continue to live without working, that they will continue to claim, as their own, wealth produced by our class.

Socialists are opposed to the capitalist class living, like parasites, on the backs of the workers.

Mr. Curry goes further. He wishes to see the ownership of property as widely diffused as possible. It is thus that we shall obtain, he thinks, a population that is “independent,” that “cannot be easily bribed, coerced, or bullied ” (“The Case for Federal Union,” p. 101).

It is a pity that the Federalists do not get down to facts instead of dreaming and indulging in wishful thinking !

Federalists defend capitalism, so they must be prepared to put up with its inconveniences. The fact is that it is inconceivable to have capitalism and an independent population, to have capitalism and a population of property-holders. As Marx observed in “The Communist Manifesto,” nearly a century ago, the development of capitalism destroyed private property for the majority of people. The small peasant was either robbed of his land or else driven out of existence by the competition of large-scale capitalist farmers. The petty artisan, with his small tools, likewise could not compete against the giant machinery possessed by the wealthy capitalist. In both cases, the result was the same. The small peasant and the petty artisan lost possession of their means of production (land, tools, etc.) and became DEPENDENT on the capitalist class for their livelihood.

Nor has this process ceased. As time goes on, capitalism concentrates the means of production into fewer hands, the small capitalist being precipitated into the ranks of the property-less.

Does Mr. Curry think he can fight against this tendency of capitalist society ? Does he think he can turn back the wheel of history ? This is the dream of a Utopian.

What blindness when Mr. Curry says: “Middle-class independence depends upon economic security.” Which economic security?

Capitalism offers no economic security to the “middle class.” Doesn’t Mr. Curry remember the last economic crisis and the thousands of small capitalists it ruined ? Has he forgotten the streets of towns with their shop windows bearing the “To let” posters?

In case he has, these quotations from the Sunday Express (March 2nd, 1930) will serve to refresh his memory and show how little security small tradespeople have : —

1) “Ten thousand shopkeepers, mainly trading in villages and small towns of Britain, have gone bankrupt during the past year.”

2) “Bankruptcies among small shopkeepers have increased 50 per cent, since the (1914-18) war.”

The independence of the small capitalist is a myth. The general trend of capitalism is to replace him by, or make him dependent on, the big combine.

The position of the “middle-class” managers of big firms is little more secure than that of the small tradesman. Technicians and administrators are now trained in such numbers that, if capitalist firms so choose, they can replace them without much inconvenience. This being so, the independence of the salaried worker is also a myth.

To sum up, this is our point. When the masses are divorced from the means of production they cannot be other than dependent upon the capitalist class. When the majority depend on the few for the necessities of life “bribery,” “coercion” and “bullying” are natural normal features of life. Not Federal Union, but Socialism can alone put an end to that dependence.

A Vital Factor

The Federalists reject Socialism on the grounds that some remedy must be found quickly to put the world in order. “Time,” says Mr. Curry, “is an absolutely vital factor.”

This argument has repeatedly been used to dissuade the workers from studying the real cause of their plight, capitalism, and to dissuade them from studying Socialism, the one solution of the world’s ills.

In rejecting Federal Union as being worthless from the point of view of the workers, we take this opportunity of urging them once more to study Socialism.

Earlier in these articles we have shown that capitalism is responsible for the many sufferings inflicted upon the workers. These sufferings will continue as long as capitalism lasts, until the workers take matters into their own hands. Mr. Curry is again wrong when he says: “Mankind is not faced with the immediate alternative, Socialism or disaster.” We say that until Socialism is established working-class history will be one long-series of disasters. These disasters will show themselves in the form of wholesale massacres, prolonged periods of unemployment, struggles to maintain their standard of living, strikes and lockouts. These disasters will confront the working class, Federal Union or no Federal Union. Time, then, is a vital factor. Socialism must be established as quickly as possible.

It is Up to You

The workers can put an end to capitalism as soon as they have the knowledge and the will to act.

The means of production have now reached a stage of development when they could be used to produce enough to satisfy the wants of all. Frequently new processes of industry are not utilised because the markets of the world cannot absorb all rhe good things that are produced. Frequently, too, things are burned or destroyed so as to keep up prices and profits. Obviously production for profit is becoming a more serious fetter as time goes on. Even cabinet ministers and economists have occasionally been obliged to admit that we are living in an age of plenty, that because wealth is being produced in such abundance unemployment and poverty are forced upon the working class.

The Socialist solution for the world’s ills is a simple one, but it needs the co-operation of the majority.

In Socialist society all will co-operate to produce and distribute the things man needs. In return, every member will have free access to the means of life.

Poverty will not exist, because we shall have production for use only, and modern technique assures us of a gigantic output of goods.

Unemployment will not exist, because all those who are physically and mentally able will assist in production.

Wars will cease, because there will be no rivalries for markets. Goods will be made solely for use, not for profit. National boundaries will become meaningless, since the workers of all lands will be co-operating to satisfy each other’s needs. Their interests will be identical. The effort that is now put into the manufacture of armaments will, under Socialism, be directed to the providing of the things all can enjoy.

The armed forces, being unnecessary in Socialist society, its members will give their energies to production.

Obviously, the standard of living of the workers would be greatly increased by the introduction of Socialism, and would go on increasing with each new invention and improved process of production.

It is up to you, then, fellow worker. Are you going to support Federal Union, which, as some of its advocates rightly say, will leave you in your present position, or are you going to organise for Socialism, and win the world?

Clifford Allen

Fallacies of Federal Union. (continued) (1940)

From the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

Federal Union and War

In our last issue we examined the claim that a Federal Union would put an end to wars.

Briefly stated, these are the conclusions we reached : —

The supporters of Federal Union ignore or pay too little attention to the profit-making nature of capitalism. Under capitalism it is for profit that goods are produced, and it is so that profits may be realised by the sale of goods in the world market that rivalries and armed conflicts arise between states.

The struggle for markets makes impossible a Federal Union of world-wide scope, though this same struggle, growing more and more keen, may lead certain states to join forces, even form a Federal Union, so as to compete more successfully against others. Such a Federal Union, however, could not end war; it would cause rival states to co-operate more closely. Wars would not be at an end, but would become more widespread and more highly organised.

For this reason, therefore, the workers ought not to support Federal Union. On the contrary, their duty is to go to the root of the trouble and abolish, as quickly as possible, capitalism, with its private ownership and production for profit, for it is this which gives rise to the struggle for world trade, conflicts and wars. The workers’ duty is to establish Socialism—a system of society wherein goods will be produced, not for sale, not for profit, but solely for use.

Propaganda for Federal Union contains many other fallacies, some of which we will now discuss.

Prosperity—But for Whom ?

Raymond O’Malley, in his “Peace and Prosperity” writes: “The Union would offer the best conditions for trade and prosperity the world has ever known” (p. 6).

This prosperity would be brought about largely by the establishment of Free Trade and a single monetary unit within the Union. Says Clarence K. Streit: “It is self-evident that you and I would live an easier and a richer life if through half the world we could do business with one money and postage, if through half the world we were free to buy in the cheapest market what we need to buy and free to sell in the dearest market what we have to sell” (“Federal Union,” p. 32).

The S.P.G.B. estimates the value of any proposition from the working-class point of view, AND WE SAY OUTRIGHT THAT FREE TRADE AND THE DEMAND FOR A SINGLE MONETARY UNIT ARE OF NO CONCERN TO THE WORKING CLASS.

Mr. Streit should remember that the worker has only ONE commodity to sell, and that is his power to work. This he sells (if he can obtain employment) to a capitalist. Usually he is in no position to pick and choose his market or his capitalist. Owning no property and no means of life, threatened by starvation, he has to accept any employment he can get. The capitalist buys the worker’s one commodity, labour-power, just as he buys any other. On the average the cost of production of the labour-power determines the price (wages) the capitalist pays for it. Hence, broadly speaking, wages are just sufficient to keep the worker fit for work and to enable him to produce future wage-workers. THIS IS A LAW OF CAPITALISM, and its truth is demonstrated by hard facts the world over. It is true in small capitalist states and in big capitalist states. It was true in England in the days of free trade, and it is true in these days of tariff barriers. Furthermore, IT WOULD BE TRUE IF WE HAD A FEDERAL UNION, since the size of the economic unit could not alter the exploitation of its wage slaves by capitalism. Although the United States of America is a Federal Union (the model of the federalists), and although there is free trade within that Union, the American worker is in the same position as his fellow in Britain and elsewhere. In return for his labour-power, he is given wages adequate only to exist and reproduce his kind. This is not the fault of the federal system of the U.S.A., nor of free trade, but of capitalism.

The adoption of a single monetary unit by the whole world would, like the introduction of free trade, and for the same reason, leave the position of the worker untouched.

The worker’s prosperity will come only when he abolishes the wages system.

Less Taxation—What Then ?

Since, under capitalism, the wages of a worker are on the average just sufficient to enable him to carry on his work more or less efficiently, it follows that taxes are not his concern. Whether taxes are high or low, he will still be faced with all the evils that accompany poverty, e.g., unemployment, malnutrition, disease and slum-dwellings.

We are, therefore, not filled with enthusiasm when the advocates of Federal Union promise us reduced taxation (see Mr. Chaning-Pearce’s “Federation of the Free,” p. 5). Nor can we do other than smile at Mr. Curry’s childlike innocence when he writes: “Think of the inroads on poverty, ignorance and disease that could be made with those thousands of millions we are spending on armaments” (“The Case for Federal Union,” p. 78).

“WE,” Mr. Cuny, receive wages which just enable us to eke out an existence. It is the capitalist class, fat with superfluous wealth, that is spending the millions on armaments.

It would be very interesting to know upon what grounds Mr. Curry bases his belief that if the capitalists paid less in taxation and for armaments they would spend the money thus saved in improving our standard of life.

Bad conditions among the workers do not exist because the capitalist class is impoverished either by heavy taxation or otherwise. As a matter of fact, in spite of taxation, the capitalist class is getting wealthier and wealthier. This is because the means of production which the capitalists own turn out wealth in ever-growing abundance. Even when the capitalist class has so much wealth piled up in the form of goods that no market for them can be found, the goods are burnt or thrown to rats rather than freely distributed among the starving workers. (This happens even in that federal union, the U.S.A. !) And why is this seemingly idiotic policy pursued ? Because capitalism is not a charity institution, but a system of society which is run so that profits may accrue to the few.

Again, not long ago the British capitalist class was forcing down wages on the grounds that, unless reductions were made, it could not afford to carry on. Yet, soon afterwards, when its privileged position is threatened by a rival section of the same class, it can pour out money like water on preparing the war machine and putting it into motion.

In the face of these facts, it is evident that the reduction in taxation promised by Federal Union would benefit the capitalist class but would not bring any change to the poverty-stricken workers.

Freedom of Movement

Federal Union, we are told, would enable us to travel freely within the Union, without passports and the frequent opening of bags at frontiers.

“We should wander as freely over the whole world as now Americans wander over America” (W. B. Curry’s “Case for Federal Union,” p. 80)

It would be interesting to know if the American workers appreciate this boon that the Federal Union of the U.S.A. bestows on them.

Actually the American worker is very much like his fellow in other lands. He cannot afford to trave to any extent.

Passports and frontier inconveniences are of little concern to the working class.

Who is Free?

We have already shown how little the supporters of Federal Union understand the position and needs of our class. It is due to their ignorance of the working of the capitalist system that so man of their promises are extravagant. This ignorance, however, when it hides or tends to hide bitter fact is dangerous to working-class interests.

Mr. Chaning-Pearce writes: “To the tyranny of totalitarianism the only adequate reply is the federation of the free.”

The impression that Mr. Chaning-Pearce wish to give, namely, that in democratic states all are free, is false.

In any capitalist state, totalitarian or otherwis the bulk of the population occupies a slave position. The working class, the majority in any capitalist state, is dependent on the capitalist class for the means of life. The worker is free in one sense FREE FROM PROPERTY, but this kind of freedom forces him to work for the owning class, forces him to keep the capitalist class in idleness and luxury, whilst he himself, who toils with brawn and brain, must live in poverty.

So long as this compulsion lasts, the worker is not free, he is a wage-slave, and that, irrespective of the form of government prevailing in the state wherein he lives his drab life.

Not till the world belongs to the workers will our class be free.

Mr. Chaning-Pearce should ponder over this speech, made by a representative of American capital, at the time when the federal form of government was being worked out. John Adams said : “It is of no consequence by what name you call your people, whether by that of freeman or of slave. In some countries the labouring poor are CALLED freemen, in others they are called slaves, but the difference is imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord employing ten labourers on his farm gives them annually as much as will buy the necessities of life or gives them those necessities at short hand?” (Quoted by Simons in his “Class Struggles in America.”)

Warnings

Before concluding our article, we warn the workers that any time spent by them in advocating Federal Union would be, from their point of view, time wasted. Working-class salvation is bound up with Socialism, which the workers will have to establish sooner or later. When they establish Socialism they will abolish all those evils which their masters and reformers are always going to end, but never do : war, unemployment and poverty.

To chase after Federal Union, WHICH after all (if realised) WILL LEAVE THE WORKERS IN PRECISELY THE SAME SLAVE POSITION AS THEY OCCUPY TO-DAY, is to delay the day of emancipation.

We do not doubt lhat many supporters of Federal Union are sincere in believing they have found the key to happiness. A few words of warning to them, therefore.

It may happen that if the idea of Federal Union becomes widely accepted the capitalist class will use it to further their own material interests.

Beware, federalists! Perhaps at some future date the British Government would be willing to support (even if only temporarily) a Federal Union of the European states against America, or perhaps a Federal Union of, say, England, France, Germany (without Hitler and Co.) and the Scandinavian countries against Russia.

It must not be forgotten that in 1930 the representatives of many governments opposed the French Memorandum on a European Federal Union on the grounds that such a Union would tend to accentuate inter-continental rivalries. Behind the idea of a United States of Europe there existed a strong opposition to America. (See Sir Arthur Salter’s “The United States of Europe.”)

It remains for us to discuss another fallacy of the advocates of Federal Union; their misunderstanding of Socialism. This will be done in our next article.

Clifford Allen

Fallacies of Federal Union. (1940)

From the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Warning to the Workers

After the war (1914—18), many members of the working class wasted much of their time and energy in supporting the League of Nations. They thought that, at last, a way to end war had been devised. The socialist warning went unheeded. We pointed out that the League of Nations was bound to fail, since it did not put an end to the real causes of war: —the intense struggle for world trade which capitalism forces upon rival sections of the capitalist class. We urged then, as we do now, that the only way to peace is to get rid of these rivalries which are inherent in capitalism, by abolishing capitalism itself, and by establishing a new social order—socialism.

Again we issue a warning to our fellow workers, for again there is a possibility of their being led up a blind alley in another futile quest for permanent peace. This time the blind alley is FEDERAL UNION. Like the League of Nations, it will, if supported, bring to the workers bitter disillusionment and will direct them away from the path they must finally tread—the path of uncompromising opposition to capitalism.

Federal Union—A Dangerous Utopia

According to the advocates of Federal Union, “the essential root of our trouble is nationalism in the hearts of ordinary men reduced to a political system which constantly inflames that nationalism.” (Mr. Lionel Curtis in an address given at Oxford, September 23rd, 1939.) This “excessive nationalism,” Federalists say, must be curbed by a federation of states. They urge that at first the democratic states ought to federate. Such a federation, they claim, would bring peace, since any attack against it would from the outset be sure of failure. (Clarence K. Streit’s “Federal Union,” p. 25.) Later, it is thought, other states would join, until finally the federation would be world-wide.

The whole idea is Utopian, and, from the working class point of view, dangerous.

It is Utopian because in capitalist society a world federation of states has not the slightest chance of ever being made to function harmoniously.

It is dangerous for the working class because it will not only waste their time but may even lead to greater and greater wars.

Why Federal Union Will Not Work

In his book, “The Case for Federal Union,” W. B. Curry writes: — “The World is not politically or psychologically a society, but economically and technically it is already one community ” (p. 23). This is typical of the way the supporters of Federal Union refuse to get to the bottom of things. Moreover, this is one of the false premises upon which their plan is based : they argue that since the world is economically one unit, logically we ought to have one political unit.

Unfortunately for the federalists, THE WORLD IS NOT ECONOMICALLY ONE COMMUNITY.

It is true that to an ever-increasing extent the different parts of the world are becoming more and more dependent on each other for vital necessities of life. It is true that capitalism, as it spreads to every corner of the globe, breaks down national barriers and creates, or tends to create, similar conditions the world over. Still, capitalism itself, though in some respects a uniting force, prevents the world from being or becoming “economically one community.” It prevents this in the following ways:—

First, in capitalist society, there are TWO CLASSES, and between these two classes a persistent struggle and clash of interests. The capitalist class owns the means of production and distribution and employs the working class which, being propertyless, must work for the advantage of the owners, i.e., to produce profits for them. Over the questions of wages and working conditions, the capitalists and workers are in constant conflict. This class struggle, evident within every capitalist state, is ignored or dismissed as unimportant by the federalists. However, so long as it continues to exist the world cannot possibly become one community.

Furthermore, in capitalist society owing to the existence of private property and the consequent production of goods SOLELY for profit, the world is one big jumble of conflicting capitalist interests. 

Wars are the result of these conflicting interests.

Capitalism is by nature competitive and monopolistic. Different sections of the capitalist class—which to prosper must make profits—compete with each other to obtain monopolies of markets, monopolies of raw materials and monopolies of fields for investments. It is partly for the purpose of protecting or furthering these capitalist interests that the gigantic armed forces of the states exist; and the great powers annex territories, not so that the vanquished natives may benefit, but so that the interests of their capitalists can be developed without interference.

If, as often happens, the flow of profits going to capitalists is interfered with by competing sections of the capitalist class, quarrels break out, and, when other means fail, it is by force that differences are settled.

Developing capitalism has led to the growth of international trusts and rings, but this has not diminished the rivalries between groups of capitalists. On the contrary, it has led to an intensification of those rivalries, for now capitalists of different nationalities work together in exploiting spheres of influence in order that a firmer monopoly may be obtained to the disadvantage of rival groups.

Advocates of Federal Union would do well to remember also that, as time goes on, the competition for markets becomes keener and keener. In recent years, countries which were formerly markets for certain goods are now themselves producing the same goods in such abundance that they too are exporting them, trying to find markets. In recent decades, we have seen the growth of capitalism in Japan, Turkey, and a score of smaller states.

Therefore, this is the position. Though more and more goods are produced for sale, the markets for some of them grow less and less. The result is obvious : a greater struggle between rival sections of the capitalist class for markets where profits can be realised.

It is this commercial rivalry which causes states to set up tariff barriers, which inspires the “We must export or die” pleas of the German and British ministers.

In short, markets are necessary for the well-being and prosperity of any section of the capitalist class. This being so, it is evident that the federalists will have an enormous task to persuade the “have” powers to place non-self-governing dependencies under the control of an international commission of ALL states. (See “The Case for Federal Union,” p. 191.)

The capitalist class and their representatives realise how dependent they are on markets. Marshal Foch, during the Great War, admitted that the struggle for markets was an important cause of war. He said : —

“What do we all seek ? New outlets for an ever-increasing- commerce and for industries which, producing far more than they can consume or sell, are constantly hampered by an increasing competition. And then ? Why ! New areas for trade are cleared by cannon shot.”— (United Service Magazine, December, 1918.)

The late Lord Brentford, too, who was the Conservative Home Secretary, 1924-28, once stated in very definite terms that for markets capitalist states are prepared to go to war. During a speech, he said :—

“We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. I know it is said at missionary meetings that we conquered India to raise the level of the Indians. That is cant. We conquered India as the outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we shall hold it.”

Mr. Curry, in his “Case for Federal Union,” mentions the rivalry between states caused by conflicting capitalist interests. We suggest to him that he give more attention to this; he will then talk less glibly about the world being “economically one community” and about “substituting international government for international anarchy.”

The Blind Alley

When production is carried on for the SOLE PURPOSE OF PROFITS as it is to-day, powers which hold colonies or have spheres of influence where raw materials are available or where there are valuable markets for products, will be very loath to give up their monopolies over them. After all, to do so would perhaps mean a serious reduction in the profits going to the sections of the capitalist class they represent and the enrichment of rival groups.

Capitalism FORCES this “cut-throat competition,” this struggle for spheres of influence upon the different sections of the capitalist class.

It is, therefore, capitalism which gives rise to wars, not that abstraction Mr. Curtis spoke of: — “nationalism in the hearts of ordinary men.”

Federal Union does not attempt to get rid of the deep-rooted clashes of interests, inherent in capitalism. It does not aim at ending private property and production for profit. Struggles for markets, for raw materials, would still persist, therefore, even if a Federal Union were to be formed, and even if federalists would wish it to be otherwise.

What Federal Union aims to do is to try to curb these rivalries by having a larger political unit.

It may be that with the development of capitalism and the growth of international trusts, some form of very close co-operation between certain states will result. However, were this co-operation to take the form of a federation of those states which, for the moment, found their economic interests more or less in line, it would be no victory for peace.

We have shown that a world federation is out of the question. Rival capitalist interests prevent that. A Federal Union of only a number of states would lead to the formation of rival federations, or to closer co-operation on the part of other states. The struggle for world trade would necessitate that. Federal Union offers, therefore, not peace, but more intense rivalries AND GREATER WARS.

Although federalists offer their scheme as a means of ending war, they themselves are doubtful about the success it would have. And so in Streit’s proposed constitution, he suggests the machinery which would carry on war if Federal Union were established. He writes:—”The Union shall have the sole right to deal with foreign governments, provide for the Union’s defence, raise, maintain and control standing land, sea and air forces, make peace and war. …”

Furthermore, it is admitted by Mr. Curry that war might break out within the Federal Union itself. This is indeed very likely, for capitalist interests which are in line to-day may in the near future be in conflict. America’s attitude towards Japan is clear proof of how capitalist interests and sympathies change. On this point Nathaniel Peffer writes:—

“In the Russo-Japanese war, we were pro-Japanese to the point of sentimentality. Japan evicted Russia and took over its ambitions for hegemony in the Far East. Almost immediately, we began protesting against Japan’s actions in Manchuria, adumbrated schemes for neutralising or internationalising Manchurian railways, and in less than five years tensions had arisen between Japan and the United States. The tensions have never eased.” (See “Empire in the East,” edited by Joseph Barnes).

Within a Federal Union, rivalries might well lead to friction, withdrawals from the Union (just as from the League of Nations) and war. As Mr. Curry writes : —”The Federal Union may even have to face civil war, as the American Union had to face it” (p. 130).

We repeat that to end war, its cause must be abolished. Until capitalism is swept away, all the forces making for armed conflicts will be at work. Attempts to clamp down these forces by Federal Union would be doomed to failure.

We urge the working class, therefore, not to waste its time on Federal Union, which, leaving untouched the causes of war, cannot possibly put an end to it.

Only when capitalism has been overthrown and socialism established will the causes of war—production for profit, trade and commercial rivalries—be removed.

Other fallacies of Federal Union will be discussed in future articles.

Clifford Allen

Link to Part 2.

Here and There: New Words for the Old (1939)

The Here and There column from the December 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

New Words for the Old

It is a cynical world, a brutal world, particularly for idealists. A few years ago millions placed their hopes for peace in the League of Nations and all that it was supposed to stand for: the “rule of law” in disputes between the national capitalist groups and the "independence” of small nations. The great hopes which were centred in the League have foundered on the rocks of reality. The test of experience showed that the "rule of law” was applied in a quite arbitrary fashion; that it was interpreted quite differently in different cases. Abyssinian "independence” was apparently a small matter compared to the ‘‘independence” of Poland. The latter, to the British capitalists, is worth incalculable risks in money and working-class lives. The truth is, of course, that the suppression of Polish “independence” expressed a growing dominance of German capitalism and a threat to the dominance of France and Great Britain. Hence the importance of Polish “independence” to the latter powers. Circumstances alter cases. And the circumstances which influence the greater powers of the world are those which affect their own interests. The fact that Germany swallowed certain small powers which were set up by her enemies under the Versailles Treaty is in itself evidence that the independence of those small powers was part of the defence policy of the powers who imposed the Versailles Treaty. It suited the interests of Franco-British capitalism to support "independence” for these small powers. The constitution of the League of Nations gave the appearance of support for the equality and independence of all nations as a general principle. The strain which the rivalries of the various capitalist groups imposed upon the League in recent years exposed that myth. Consequently, the “idealists” who pinned their faith in the League suffered bitter disillusionment.

Some show signs of having learned from the events of the past twenty years: others are chasing new panaceas. One such is the proposal for Federal Unionism. Several prominent people are toying with it. The basic proposals are world government on a federal basis. One writer (W. B. Curry) instances the Federal Government of the U.S.A. as an example of the form the proposal might take. If the governments of the world could enter a federal union and accept the authority of the Federal Government much in the same way as the states which comprise the U.S.A. accept the authority of their Federal Government, then world peace would be secured. The limitations to the application of the idea are enormous. And to do them justice many of the authors of it are not unaware of some of them. The baffling task, for example, of persuading nations with different traditions and in varying stages of development to be. bound by Federal decisions is met with the suggestion that the Federal Union should at first include Great Britain and its self-governing dominions, France, the U.S.A., and the smaller “democracies.”

What the supporters of Federal Unionism do not realise is that the proposals contain no principle which has not already broken down very pathetically in the League of Nations. It would not be difficult for all capitalist governments to accept “the rule of the law” as a form of words. It would be in the interpretation and application out of which the conflicts would arise. There could be no guarantee that those nations which refused to accept the “Federal Government’s” decisions would not break away and form alliances opposed to it, as happened in the League of Nations.

To expect the capitalists of the world to accept the judgments of a Federal Government regarding their rivalries is romanticism. What decisions would a Federal Government make different from those the League of Nations made on the Manchuko, Abyssinian and Spanish disputes? None whatever. What law would compel a nation in the Federal Union to go to the assistance of a “victim of aggression” when that nation sympathises with the aggressor and not the victim? Advocates of Federal Unionism would argue, of course, that these difficulties would not arise. That the markets of the world and raw materials would be open and available for all capitalists, that the resources of colonies would be pooled. In short, those capitalist powers who have the dominance and the power to use it would share their advantages with the weaker powers.

We can imagine the great capitalist powers accepting a form of words which gives the appearance of that rosy picture. But giving reality to the fiction is as conceivable as Unilever sharing its advantages with a village soap-boiler.

The authors of the Federal Union proposals suggest that Great Britain should take the initiative in starting the new Federal era. Unconscious humour? Perhaps. Anyhow, Mr. W. B. Curry, in particular, might try his arts of persuasion on the gentleman who recently broadcast for the British Government and boasted that Great Britain had been at peace for only a few weeks in the past three hundred years!

An easier task for him would be to get to grips with the implications of the Socialist case: that the rivalries and wars between the various groups of capitalists in the modern world are conflicts which arise out of the competitive private property basis of capitalist society and can only finally disappear with the abolition of capitalism and the introduction of common ownership in the means and instruments of production and distribution.

Mr. Brockway Learns

 “The Labour Party are defending capitalist interests in this war, not working-class rights. They are failing completely in their duty to the nation now and to the memory of the men who, in the past, fought, were imprisoned and banished, and who died to secure us the right of democratic representation.
 “This Bill (Government Bill, suspending local elections) is thoroughly reactionary. rockwTwenty years ago I would not have believed that I would live to see a Labour Party agreeing to a measure for the defence of the ruling class in war.
  “The right of the electors is a safeguard that ought to be retained, unless the Government wants to drive the people and their discontent into channels of insurrection.”

Life must be full of painful surprises for Mr. Brockway. We should hate to add to them deliberately. But we must remind him that the Labour Party did agree to measures for the defence of the ruling class little more than twenty years ago. And little less than twenty weeks ago the I.L.P. were negotiating with the Party that does not defend “working-class rights” the conditions for the re-affiliation of the I.L.P. and Labour Party.

Nasty? Well, Mr. Brockway, it somehow does not seem to square.

The “Real” War

Mr. Alexander, City Editor of the Evening Standard, has no illusions about the cause of war: —

   How goes the war behind the war? Most of us know that real wars, with their gunfire and bombs and bloodshed, are due largely to the breakdown in our commercial arrangements to secure a proper exchange of goods and services between nations. Normal trade itself is not war.
   It is only when the failure to exchange persists for a considerable time that trade takes on the nature of war. . . .
    More than that. We must carry the trade offensive into the enemy’s former territory . . .    Where shall we strike with this weapon, deadlier than any secret one that Hitler holds? Let us go through those German trade returns! Let us find out where they sent their chemicals and their machinery, their iron and steel goods, and then go into those markets in such a way that every ship that leaves these shores will be packed with British goods—and if needs be under a merchant captain who also knows how to sell. (Italics are Mr. Alexander’s.).—Evening Standard, November 2nd, 1939.

Enthusiasts in the fight for democracy and against aggression might do worse than letting the implications of the above really sink well in.


Squaring the Circle

The following, reproduced in the New Leader (October 27th), is a copy of a memo, issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party dealing with that Party’s recent support of the war policy of the Government: —

   Actual practice proved that the “struggle on two fronts” was a contradiction in terms. The only way of carrying on the struggle on the front against Hitler was by supporting the military measures of the Chamberlain-Churchill Government. How could we support those military measures and at the same time fight Chamberlain?
  Those contradictions quickly landed us in difficulties which resulted in the weakening of the fight against Chamberlain, shown markedly in the fact that (a) the Party lagged behind in the struggle of the workers against the capitalist offensive in Britain which quickly assumed enormous proportions; (b) no fight was waged against the Imperialist aims of the Chamberlain Government and the Party propaganda even tended to support the Churchill group, the exponents of the war to the knife policy.

We like that “ . . . even tended to support the Churchill group, the exponents of the war to the knife policy.”

Very delicately put. But it was the Communist Party which, only six months ago, wanted Churchill in the proposed Popular Front Government.

Anyway, most observers would say that it was the Communist Party who set the pace, not Churchill. In Communist Party propagandist jargon it is always they who formulate the correct line; others merely follow.


Mr. John S. Clarke on Revolution

Mr. Clarke, in Forward (October 14th), brings Marx into a controversy in support of the British capitalist class. The Labour Party, he says, "has followed the dictum of Karl Marx—to fight side by side with the bourgeoisie when it acts in a revolutionary way” (Mr. Clarke’s italics).

With Marxism and Christianity to inspire them, the British ruling class certainly appear to have a wide moral support.

However, Mr. Clarke amplifies his argument: —

   When the late Herbert Spencer wrote his memorable attack upon Socialism, "The Servile State,” even he did not foresee the full horror of a Nazi regime. He did not foretell the utter malignancy of the “Socialist” bureaucrats—the padlocked tongue, the family divided against itself, the imprisoned conscience, the tortured body, the concentration camps with their electrified barbed-wire entanglements, and the hangings, shootings and beheadings for political peccadilloes.

One can understand the point of view, though it is difficult to understand Mr. Clarke sharing it.

Mr. J. S. Clarke might ponder the question: Will the sacrifice he and others call upon millions of young workers to make achieve its purpose ?

At least he ought to be sure!

Harry Waite

50 Years Ago: Federal Europe or Internationalism (1990)

The 50 Years Ago column from the August 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

One direction in which change is likely after the war is in the relationship of the small and big Powers in Europe—indeed in the whole world. While the American Federal Union propagandists are urging the immediate Union of USA and the British Empire, another group favour the idea of Anglo-French Union (already offered to France by the British Government just before the French collapse), and still a third group are attracted by the old idea of a United States of Europe. Last of all it is stated by the Manchester Guardian (July 19th) that Nazi propaganda in France is popularising the idea of a Continental Union under German domination on the plea that "Europe is too small to be divided into small nations" . . . 

The true line of development is the international one. on a Socialist basis. Then there would no longer be the choice, blandly placed before us by Mussolini's mouthpiece in a recent article, of the vanquished being "reduced to the state of Chinese coolies compelled to toil for others" (Observer, July 21st). Socialists intend to build a world in which there will be neither exploiters nor exploited. Like Signor Ansaldo, we are interested in the "resources of the whole world”, but unlike him. we want them to be used for the benefit of all mankind “without distinction of race".

[From an editorial, Socialist Standard, August 1940]

Federal Europe or Internationalism (1940)

Editorial from the August 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

One direction in which change is likely after the war is in the relationship of the small and big Powers in Europe—and indeed in the whole world. While the American Federal Union propagandists are urging the immediate Union of U.S.A. and the British Empire, another group favour the idea of Anglo-French Union (already offered to France by the British Government just before the French collapse), and still a third group are attracted by the old idea of a United States of Europe. Last of all it is stated by the Manchester Guardian (July 19th) that Nazi propaganda in France is popularising the idea of a Continental Union under German domination on the plea that “Europe is too small to be divided into small nations.”

The argument behind such a plea is a specious one, for the problem is not fundamentally one of size. Size counts if we are contemplating a world in which four or five big Powers stand armed and powerful, waging economic war in peace time, and ready for war of armaments at any moment; but in a world of a different kind size is not the issue. Indeed it is possible to say that even "from the point of view of peacetime trading relationships in a capitalist world the arguments about the alleged necessity for bigger aggregations of territory have been carried to false extremes. On the one hand it is not necessary, for example, that Europe should be under one central domination in order to organise industry and transport as well as they can be organised on a capitalist basis—Czechoslovakia was at least as practicable a unit as some of its larger neighbours—and on the other hand modern routes of trade are increasingly international. Even if industry inside Europe were to be integrated on some plan or other the forces of international trade and competition would be at work with ever increasing force, and would show such integration to be no more stable and self-contained than the Europe of the post-war days. Consequently all such solutions would be only partial and temporary, and would be subject to just the same international disturbing influences as in the past.

The true line of development is the international one, on a Socialist basis. Then there would no longer be the choice, blandly placed before us by Mussolini’s mouthpiece in a recent article, of the vanquished being “reduced to the state of Chinese coolies compelled to toil for others ” (Observer, July 21st). Socialists intend to build a world in which there will be neither exploiters nor exploited. Like Signor Ansaldo, we are interested in the “resources of the whole world,” but unlike him, we want them to be used for the benefit of all mankind “without distinction of race.”