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

Blogger's Note:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

What part has Chamberlain really played in this dangerous business?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(. . .)

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

(. . .)

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

(. . .)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Czechoslovakia: The Choice Before Us (1938)

From the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Though the Daily Herald paused in its campaign on behalf of Czechoslovakia to speed Mr Neville Chamberlain on his way to Hitler with a “Good luck, Chamberlain!” and congratulated him on taking a course “which will receive general support” (Daily Herald, September 15th), it was as plain as a pikestaff that Chamberlain was quite prepared to abandon the Czechs if he thought that by so doing he could safeguard the interests of British capitalism. Now the Herald says this is a very dishonourable action, but when did any ruling class ever trouble about such trifles? The German ruling class in 1914 never hesitated a moment about violating their guarantee of Belgian neutrality. Nor did the British hesitate to make pledges to the Arabs which they never intended to keep. Then they double-crossed Italy, first bribing the latter to desert its own ally, Germany, and afterwards letting Italy whistle for payment when the time came to divide the loot at Versailles. And when has any capitalist politician ever kept faith with the working class?

Yet the Herald could not think of anything better to say to the workers than tell them, in effect, to trust Chamberlain!

Britain Not Ready for War.

Chamberlain was not thinking about the problems of the Czech ruling class–except, perhaps, that he was wondering exactly how they could be induced to lie down quietly while the sell-out took place. (It is really very wicked for victims to be armed and able to put up a fight; they should be defenceless, like the Abyssinians.) What, no doubt, weighed heavily on Chamberlain’s mind is that Great Britain’s re-armament is a long way from being finished and it would be very awkward indeed if Britain were to be forced into war at such a time as this. Among other things, Chamberlain’s own reputation as a politician would suffer a fatal blow, for he could hardly hope to persuade his masters or the electorate that his Government has efficiently handled the re-armament programme in the two years since he became Prime Minister. The guiding line of British foreign policy in recent years has been to prevent, if possible, any widespread conflict which would be certain to endanger the power and possessions of British capitalism and which would offer little prospect of gain in the event of victory – itself a very uncertain factor. Later on Chamberlain will feel readier to take a strong line, or, of course, events might force Britain into war against Germany in spite of Britain’s efforts to avoid, postpone or localise hostilities.

The Tragedy of the Present Position.

The real tragedy of the present position of the workers here and abroad is that they are hopelessly confused and divided, most of them even unaware that there is a Socialist attitude to war. In Great Britain most of the argument only centres about the two traditional views of ruling-class foreign policy. On the one side is the isolationist view: “let the Empire line up with USA and keep out of European wars”. It is marred for the capitalists by the awkward fact that Empire trade routes are very much bound up with the Mediterranean, and no method has been discovered of taking the Mediterranean out of Europe’s way and turning it into a British lake. The other view is the old Balance of Power doctrine: “keep the Continent divided into two more or less equally strong groups, and help the weaker side in case of need”. Although names have changed, and there are various positions intermediate between these two, not only Britain’s capitalists, but also most of Britain’s workers cannot see any alternative policy; except the Communists, who simply echo whatever from time to time accords with the interests of Russia’s rulers.

Save Democracy by War.

The Labour Party’s view is that the workers should in the last resort be prepared to go to war to save Czechoslovakian territory and independence. It has a strong emotional appeal. It is natural for generous-minded people who do not think clearly to be indignant at what looks to them like the aggression of a big Power against a small one, especially when the existence of democratic institutions and trade unionism are involved. It is the same appeal as was made in 1914 for “Poor little Belgium”, but though the British ruling class were and are very vitally concerned with the independence of Belgium they are not so much concerned about Czechoslovakia, so this time the Government and the Labour Party are at the moment on opposite sides. Socialists say that the workers should not be on either of these sides, but should be thinking about a line of their own.

The first step towards clear thinking is to recognise that a majority of the Germans in Czechoslovakia favour the idea of being inside Germany. They have lived under Czechoslovakian democracy, suffered prolonged misery from industrial depression and unemployment, had to put up with some not very serious disabilities imposed on them by the Czechs, and have finally been swept off their feet by Hitler’s promises and his appeal to their nationalism. Foolishly but fanatically they believe that Paradise awaits them on the other side of the frontier. As a matter of cold fact, Hitler would probably be able to alleviate their economic distress and unemployment a little, at least, for a time, just as he did for the workers in what was Austria. Socialists would tell them that they ought not to take short-sighted views and sell themselves to the capitalist Nazi movement for the sake of some small immediate advantage. But the Labourites, including the Czech Social-Democrats, cannot convincingly tell them that, for is it not the essence of Labourite philosophy that workers should concentrate always on the immediate advantage and the petty concession and look with favour on nationalism?

Capitalist democracy and reformism are not enough. The workers in most lands have tried them and are not satisfied. Along comes some glib talker about the efficiency of dictatorship or some patriotic fanatic who can stir their emotions with talk of racial superiority, and they desert their old democratic allegiance. Now it should be clear why Socialists say that war to save democracy is a snare and a delusion. By huge sacrifice of life, and assuming that Germany lost the war, it might be possible to force the Sudeten Germans to remain in Czechoslovakia. It might be possible to drive out some of the existing dictatorships (but not all of them, because some at least of the countries arrayed against Germany would themselves be dictatorships – for instance, England and France would possibly be able once more to buy the Italian Government). Would that bring Socialism nearer? Would it even “make the world safe for democracy” (remember the old 1914 catch-word?)? No, the workers everywhere would still be poverty-stricken and insecure, still political cannon-fodder for the first Fascist mob-orator who came along promising to rescue some new national minority from alien tyranny and save them from the horrors of capitalist democracy. Whichever side wins, war leaves the real problem unsolved and, indeed, by creating still more national hatred, it makes its solution more difficult than ever. The real problem is that of rallying the workers to something which will hold their allegiance against all spurious appeals and hold it for all time. Only Socialism can do that. Only Socialism is worth struggling for.

Socialism at any other time, but not now.

One final word. The Labour Party and the Communist Party are again preaching the doctrine that everything else must give place to the problems of Fascism and Czechoslovakia. Forgotten are all the other “urgent immediate demands” which filled their programmes in past years. Socialists are not impressed. For one thing, in the eyes of the Labour and Communist Parties, there never was a moment when Socialist propaganda was timely. During war they will want all energies turned to killing “the enemy”. During peace they always want to concentrate on disarmament, the “means test”, old-age pensions, or the “vital” question of pushing out one Government administering capitalism in order to put in another, differing chiefly in name.

The job of Socialists at all times, is to propagate Socialism and organise for the conquest of political power in the country in which they happen to live, in unceasing opposition to capitalism and all its agents and parties. We do not wish good luck to Mr Neville Chamberlain, nor do we seek war to save Czech capitalism or British or any other capitalism. We say, hasten the day when the British workers, along with the workers of all countries, can drive from power Chamberlain and his foreign capitalist friends and enemies, both democratic and Fascist, and establish Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Here and There: More About A.R.P. (1938)

The Here and There column from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

More About A.R.P.

Through a sympathetic correspondent, our statement on A.R.P. found its way into a Leeds newspaper and received a reply from an A.R.P. official, who, referring to the correspondent in question, says:—

He is fortunate in living in a country where, despite the many faults, he doubtless finds in it, he can still express his personal opinions as freely and forcibly as he wishes, so long as he respects the bounds of order and good conduct.

I am not concerned with his political creed, but I would point out that in the logical sequence of things he should be prepared, in the event of an Air Raid, not to accept the services of those Volunteers who to-day are giving up time and energy to fitting themselves to be of service to their fellows should the need ever arise.

Our A.R.P. officer thinks that a Socialist logically should not accept the services that A.R.P. offers. Very well. But what about the other side of the argument put forward by our A.R.P. officer, viz., that war preparations and A.R.P. are “a safeguard of peace” ? If preparations for “safeguarding peace” fail and war results then surely the correspondent referred to, who is in favour of peace and opposed to war, could reasonably expect to be safeguarded!

However, the A.R.P. officer dodged the main contention of our article. That is, briefly, that preparations for war, including A.R.P., require a war-willing working class for their success. Without which war would be impossible. As a writer in Controversy (September, 1938), who might also have read the article, says:—

. . . British Capitalism must be reasonably certain of one thing—national unity. It dare not go to war if it is conscious that it may be stabbed in the back by a disloyal working-class.

Our article also pointed out that A.R.P. provides capitalist governments with the opportunity of canalising anti-war sentiments into support for A.R.P. with plausible humanitarian arguments. 

The Controversy article touches this point:—

A.R.P. has two functions, both psychological. First, if support can be obtained for the limited measures for civilian “protection" embodied in the scheme—or for any official measures for protection whatsoever—then the Government can logically point out that there is no reason for withholding support from the re-armament programme as a whole.

There is no logical) escape from this sequence. To support, however tacitly, A.R.P., is in effect to support British Capitalism. And for a working-class party to refuse participation after the first stage is merely to evidence a theoretical confusion, which is no incentive to confidence on the part of the masses.

We are grateful that our attitude on this aspect of the war question flnds agreement outside the Socialist Party.

Fools and Democracy.

Under the heading “Democracy Must Not be Fooled Again," H. N. Brailsford, writing on the Czechoslovakian question, says:—

Twenty years ago Mr. Lloyd George and M. Clemenceau made this problem for us. They included in the Czech Republic 3,600,000 unwilling German subjects.

It was not necessary to do so. This is not a scattered minority. It lies in a compact fringe round the frontiers, and could have been detached to join its kinsmen in Germany and Austria.

For strategical reasons this obvious solution was avoided. The mountains of the Sudetenland offered an easily defensible frontier. The French General Staff and French heavy industry, largely interested in Czech armaments, meant to erect here a formidable barrier against Germany, then a disarmed and pacific republic.

To-day, with Austria within his Empire, it is Hitler rather than the French staff who poses the strategical problem.

He is bent on dismantling or neutralising this fortress that lies on the flank of any German advance eastwards. It bars the road to the oil wells of Rumania and the black earth of the Ukraine.— (Reynolds', September 10th, 1938.)

From that it might be logically assumed that Mr. Brailsford would be in opposition to war. But no; what he says is: “To oppose it may be morally impossible, but Labour, if it is wise, will keep its independence . . . critical and ready when the moment comes to serve the cause of the workers—the Germans as well as the Czechs, the Russians as well as the French."

Why is it morally impossible to oppose war? And why serve the cause of the workers “when the moment comes"—why not now?

Unfortunately, this is the sort of nonsense that is being regarded as “anti-war" and in line with the Socialist attitude.

It looks as though Mr. Brailsford is being fooled.

“Progress" of the Communist Party.

In a booklet running to over one hundred pages the Central Committee of the Communist Party reports to its 15th Party Congress. It is a remarkable document. It is remarkable for its complete omission of any ideas the Party held up to only a few years ago, and for the energy with which it now puts over capitalist ideas and propaganda with all the righteousness of the Salvationist combined with the subtlety of the Jesuits. Gone is the agitation for the violent overthrow of capitalism, the supreme contempt for the “social-Fascist” Labour Party, and opposition to the League of Nations as an agent of the capitalists. The Communist Party is now the standard-bearer for democracy, for affiliation to the Labour Party, for collective security. In respect of the last named it goes further than others and opposes “reconciliation with Fascist countries,” which “bolsters up the National Government and encourages fresh Fascist aggression.” The “Fascist countries” are Italy and Germany, and not those dictatorial capitalist States who might line up with France and Russia in a military alliance. “No reconciliation with Fascist countries" sounds plausible to working-class sentiment, but in practice means that the Communists. will support any capitalist government that will resist German and Italian ambitions. This policy is in line with the foreign policy of the Russian Government, whose interests the official Communist Party in Great Britain cannot oppose.

The writers of this report show outstanding skill in one certain direction. They manage to review working-class activity in this country and throughout the world in a way which leaves the impression that any credit for improvements in working-class conditions is due to the Communist Party, who are the people responsible for taking the initiative. Thus commenting on the fact that three million workers won holidays with pay, the report says “. . . our campaign now aims to extend this provision immediately to embrace every worker.” And even in Africa the crusaders see their influence at work:—

East and West Africa: Whilst we have only irregular contact with these colonies, the recent cocoa war in the Gold Coast and the coffee trouble in Tanganyika indicates that here also the movement is gaining strength.

It is to be hoped that the natives in East and West Africa are conscious of their debt to the Communist Party. And in this way the report almost breathlessly describes the conflicts throughout the British Empire; conflicts which, it is inferred. arise out of Communist influence and leadership.

In a section dealing with “Work Among the Middle Class and Professional Sections,” the report speaks of the need “to mobilise the middle class and professional people on the basis of their own professional interests.” The section also refers to the growth of national movements in Scotland and Wales, and says:

It has been made clear that our Party stands for a policy which preserves the best traditions of the Scottish people, and the Welsh people, resists every attempt to encroach upon their national rights, and demands the fullest opportunities for the development of self-government.

That is, of course, one way of pandering to the ignorance and prejudice of the “middle class and the professional sections,” and of getting the support of reactionaries and any but Socialists.

A “popular pamphlet” dealing with the question before the end of the year is promised. 

Dealing with the Daily Worker, “ such innovations as well-known Scottish leaders of thought I acting as contributors” are to be a feature of certain improvements. Commenting on the present contributors the report says: “John Strachey’s commentaries are still well liked.” There seems to be a touch of unconscious irony in that “still.” 

Communist Party membership is stated to have reached fifteen thousand; Daily Worker sales have on occasions exceeded one hundred thousand.

Those figures express a growth of the influence of the Communist Party and the degree to which the ideas for which its original Russian founders stood have been deserted.

There is no Communist Party in anything but name.

Communists are so misunderstood.

The writer of “ A Worker’s Notebook,” in the Daily Worker (September 16th, 1938), says that some one had rung up the paper to tell them of her experience during a demonstration in Whitehall. She had apparently asked two policemen what the demonstration was about and each had given exactly the same answer: “ It is the Communists, who are demanding war with Germany.” 

“Their unanimity,” says the Daily Worker, “made her wonder whether they were answering according to instructions.”

Touching; but surely even policemen may be forgiven for not being able to appreciate that the demands of the Communists that the British Government, with France and Russia, should go to the aid of Czechoslovakia in the event of German attack are meant to be interpreted as love overtures.

Another Lost Leader.

Commenting on the Czechoslovakian crisis the Daily Worker (September 16th, 1938) refers b pro-Nazi circles in France “ extending from ex-Premier Flandin, a special friend of Chamberlain and Hitler, to Leon Blum. . . . ”

It is only a few months since Leon Blum was head of the “Popular Front ” Government in France and the pet of the British Communist Party.

On Coat-turning.

Mr. John McGovern, M.P., of the I.L.P., has resigned from the negotiating committee appointed by the I.L.P. to discuss terms for the proposed re-affiliation with the Labour Party. In an interview with the Daily Herald (September 1st, 1938) he says:—

“ I am an unrepentant believer in unconditional re-affiliation, and the majority of my fellow members in the East End of Glasgow hold a similar opinion.

“In the present international situation the working classes cannot afford the luxury of dissension, and all who believe in peace, international security and social progress should be prepared to unite under the banner of the Labour Party."

Now, Mr. McGovern is not a newcomer to the politics of the Labour movement.- He sat in the House of Commons as a Labour M.P. during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. After some experience of that Government he saw no disadvantage for the workers in the “luxury of dissension." Writing in Forward (August 2nd, 1930) he said: —

The only time in my life that I have allied myself with the enemies of the workers has been since I came to the House of Commons, and that is by order of the Labour Government, Almost every time I go into the Division lobby I join such tried and trusted friends of t.he Labour Party as Lloyd George, his daughter, Sir Herbert Samuel, etc. They are keeping the Labour Party in office on condition that the workers and the Labour programme are deserted.

Really, Mr, McGovern, isn’t there some explaining to do? Has the Labour Party turned its coat—or Lloyd George—or only you?

Unemployment in India.

India is a country which is becoming rapidly industrialised. In the process she passes through the familiar stages of social development. Millions of workers from the land have been attracted to industrial centres, with the consequence that when the capitalists have no use for their labour they have nothing to fall back upon, and in large numbers are thrown on the streets. According to the Indian Labour Journal (August 21st, 1938), “ they pass their days in hunger, only to be relieved by epidemics and diseases that cannot be prevented by poverty."

“Relieved by" is really a nice, delicate way of saying that workers die as the result of their poverty. In what numbers they die the Journal does not say, but it does estimate the numbers of ex-land workers who are thrown on the industrial scrap-heap in the manner described above. The. number is forty millions!

Fine place the British Empire—for the capitalists!

Robbery with Impudence.

 

Whilst the British and Italians pursue their struggle over Spain, agree to “non-intervention," and assure each other of noble intentions, a report by the City Editor of the News Chronicle (August 29th, 1938), shows one of the underlying attractions in Spain:—

The full text of a triangular trade agreement between Italy, Manchukuo and Japan has just been published in Tokio, according to Reuter’s correspondent. Italy has undertaken to import as from September 1st a fixed annual quota of Japanese and Manchukuan goods. One of the main items will be, soya beans.

In return, Japan and Manchukuo have jointly undertaken to import a fixed quota of Italian goods. These are expected to consist largely of motor-cars, aluminium and mercury,

Note the “and mercury." And remember that the sources for mercury in Spain are in the territory still held by the Spanish Republican Government.

A case of selling the swag before it is stolen.

Harry Waite

Germany Stages a Come-Back (1938)

From the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The crash in Wall Street put an end to the flow of money and credits across the Atlantic. German capitalism sang “Don’t let the river run dry.” Short-term loans in Germany were now called in, and there was a rush on the banks. The number of small businesses which went under is legion, and monopoly capitalism (giant trusts) alone could survive the deluge. Unemployment and bankruptcies went up by leaps and bounds. This condition, whilst tragic, served a useful purpose. It enabled the mighty German industries (built by American money) to shake off the foreign fetters, America being in a mess. In this way the gigantic plant and production, with new rails, roads, etc., passed into “Aryan” hands.

The era of monopoly capitalism needs a corresponding moulding of the workers. It needs a human conveyor belt, a producing class as automatic as a machine. How can this be done? Two ways! Eliminate those who think otherwise (always a comparative few) and bluff the unthinking (the vast majority). In Hitler and his gangsters they saw the very instrument, so, placing their money at Hitler’s disposal, they built up their (industrial capitalist) machine. The millions of workers, not understanding Socialism, fell for demagogy of the Nazis, who cunningly used the term “National Socialist.” This cannot happen if the workers know the meaning of Socialism.

Capitalism in Germany having consolidated itself inside, now has to move outside. Fascist or Kaiser, the same problem remains, the problem which no capitalism can evade, the problem inherent in the very marrow of its bones—how to find new markets and new sources of profitable exploitation. Confronting Germany is the same circle as in 1914. French and British capitalism are holding on to their spoils.

The simple rule, the golden plan.

Let him take who may, let him keep who can. 

Playing on the chord of race, Germany spent huge sums of money in subsidising subversive movements in neighbouring territories. This, however, is a two-edged sword. It was quite an easy task to murder and pillage an unarmed, defenceless half-a-million Jews inside Germany, but outside—that is another story. Hitler expresses German capitalism aptly in “Mein Kampf" (page 699), when he says: "The inexorable enemy of the German nation is and always will be France.” French capitalism bars the way to western expansion, and that means British capitalism must stand by France. It also, of necessity, links Holland, Belgium, etc. Baldwin settled that by “our frontiers are on the Rhine.”

Barred from the west by the might of Britain and France, Germany has either to break this circumstantial unity or go east. Italy’s Near Eastern adventure in Abyssinia roused British and French capitalism; both saw an unexpected menace to their dominance in that part of the world. Their anti-Italian attitude gave Germany its chance. Up to this period Italian Fascism ('knowing the breed) did not relish a brother Fascist as a neighbour, and was looked upon as a factor against the eastward trend of Germany. The new situation, however, created a new orientation. It brought Italy and Germany together as “victims” of French-British capitalism and wound up with the Berlin-Rome axis. In this fashion was split the unity of forces against Germany westward and the move eastward facilitated.

We must again quote Hitler in his “Mein Kampf”: “ We stop the eternal march to the south and west of Europe and turn our eyes towards the land in the east.” In addition to the east being the easiest way, it was the safest way. The States en route were small and could in no sense put up much of a fight on their own, with the exception of Russia, who, from a military standpoint, would be a tough customer to tackle, but this was the route and economic necessity a remorseless master. Germany took a chance, invaded and seized Austria—it came off. The first stage had been overcome, and appetites grow by what they feed upon; Austria will do to start off with, but it is the industrial part of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire which matters, and that is now called—Czechoslovakia!

There, in twenty years, with French financial aid, has grown and developed a healthy, young and virile capitalism with a prosperous home-grown capitalist class, who mean to hang on to their right to exploit their workers. This they will do with the usual cries used by capitalism: national independence, or some such catchword. Once again German capitalism is challenging the capitalists of France and Britain. Can she do it? 

Lew.

News in Review: Wall Street slump (1962)

The News in Review column from the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wall Street slump

Wall Street got the twitch last month and so did London and the Bourses on the Continent. The newspapers rushed out pictures of the panic in 1929 and then had to set their City Editors to work to explain why 1929 cannot after all happen again.

Everybody seemed to have forgotten that just before 1929 the financial experts were assuring us that the crash which was in fact just around the corner could never happen anyway. If this does not make the experts of 1929 look very impressive in retrospect, it must also teach us that the forecasts of all capitalism's economic experts are not worth very much.

Nowadays the experts are fond of pointing out the precautions which (they are confident) would prevent a runaway boom like the one which preceded the 1929 crash and therefore (they reason) would also prevent the crash itself.

This ignores the fact that slumps are not the result of an attack of jitters on the Stock Exchange; rather is it the other way round. Nineteen-twenty-nine was one of capitalism's classic crises and no amount of stock juggling could have averted it.

Nor should we assume that hotheaded speculation is dead. The Observer correspondent in New York reported that the “intellectuals" of Wall Street thought that: “By the end of last year the market had reached heights that brokers now, without blushing, describe as insane." and quoted one New York broker:

"The way some of (the big brokers) have been pushing over-priced stocks at naive investors is nothing short of criminal."

Perhaps a repeat of 1929 is not so impossible after all. For some of the experts were mystified by Wall Street’s 1962 twitch. The Guardian said: "The continuing retreat is puzzling commentators in that there seems to be no apparent reason for it. Mr. Walter Heller, President Kennedy's economic adviser, said there were no economic grounds for the condition of the market." Does this fill us with confidence that capitalism’s economists could not be taken unawares by a repeat of 1929? It does not.

Capitalism could have something up its sleeve, just as it had thirty-three years ago, to surprise the experts and impoverish the rest of us.

Liberal Party promises

Nobody can accuse the Tories of not being worried about the Liberal revival. Faced with the fact that some of the electorate undoubtedly find the Liberal Party attractive, the Conservatives have set out to prove that the very allure of Liberal policy lies in its irresponsibility.

This is being done in the time- honoured way of accusing the Liberals of pushing vote-catching policies without also mentioning that they would increase taxes to finance them. Mr. Iain Macleod has estimated that full application of the Liberal policy would put another eleven shillings on income tax. Most workers are convinced that they are the people who pay taxes: to them, the prospect of a standard income tax rate of 18/9d. in the pound must have seemed like black nightmare.

To back up his case. Mr. Macleod had his research boys dig out some choice examples of Liberal promise-mongering. He quoted Liberal policies for spending more on roads and education, for increasing pensions, repaying post-war credits and much more besides. The Liberals claimed that Macleod‘s quotes were taken out of context.

Yet in one way Macleod had a point, even if he did not know that he was making it. All capitalist political parties have to make a lot of attractive promises and boast that they can do things which they know are beyond their abilities. The Tories, for example, said in 1951 that they would stop prices rising.

Such promises can be effective vote-catchers. The one snag is that a party which is liable to be returned to power cannot make its promises too extravagant, because that would only make their betrayal that much more obvious. On the other hand, the more remote from power a party is, the more reckless its promises can be. The Liberals have little immediate prospect of becoming the government of British capitalism.

We may be sure that if the Liberal revival really gets under way their promises will become dimmer and more sober as the votes mount up. And if they ever get into power again most of the promises will disappear. Grimond and his men would run British capitalism in roughly the same way as the parties they now decry.

End of Eichmann?

No time was wasted, after the Israeli President bad written the quotation from the Bible across the petition for reprieve, in sending Adolf Eichmann to his death and scattering his ashes into the sea.

Why was Eichmann executed? For revenge? One man cannot adequately expiate the murder of six million people; a split-second execution is hardly revenge for the years of pitiless concentration camp horrors.

P

erhaps nearer the mark were those observers who think that the whole thing—the abduction, the trial, the execution—was meant to establish Israel as a political reality among the other capitalist nations. Political acts in themselves do have significance and for Israel to put to death the man who organised the extermination of the Jews is significant indeed.

Israel has asserted her power—even if, in terms of capitalist legality, she had little right—to bring the Jews' tormentors to book.

But what else has Israel done?

Perhaps she has made a martyr of the clerk-like Eichmann. Racial theories still live in capitalism's jungle; the execution of Eichmann could be the grain of sand around which they crystallise and flourish.

There is no easy explanation of the Eichmanns of the thirties and forties; Nazi Germany will remain a horrifying enigma for a long time to come. But we can say that part, at any rate, of the reason for the electoral success of the Nazis was the crisis of German capitalism after 1918 and the despair and cynicism which this bred in the minds of the German working class. In this mood, they would have supported anyone who sounded as if he had the answer to their problems. And Hitler, with his race mania, sounded like that to them.

Capitalism is always liable to convulsion and in any case it will never stop looking for scapegoats for its own shortcomings. This means that racial hatred is still with us and that even the madness of the Nazis need not be very far away.

The world may not have seen the last of its Adolf Eichmanns.

Coal profits

The nationalised coal mines made £28.7 million operating profit last year. If the Coal Board were a normal commercial company, said chairman Lord Robens when he announced these figures, it would be paying a dividend of 2½% from its profits.

But the coal mines are not, of course, a normal concern. The N.C.B. is liable to pay out on fixed interest stock and loans, which means that its dividend payments bear no relation to its working profit.

Last year the N.C.B’s interest payments came to £42.4 million, which turned its working profit into an accounting deficit of £13.7 million.

There are three things to be said about this.

Firstly, nationalising the coal mines was obviously a good move from the point of view of those who get the £42.4 million interest from a profit of only £28.7 million; much more than they would have got from Lord Robens' two-and-a-half per cent!

Secondly, the fact that millions of pounds profit is being wrung from the coal mines is proof—if anymore were needed—that nationalisation does not alter the capitalist nature of society. For profit, in private or state industry, can only come from the exploitation of workers in the industry.

Which brings us to the third, conclusive point. Many workers in this country were misled into supporting nationalisation because they thought it had something to do with common ownership. The figures which the National Coal Board has produced, and those which the other nationalised industries turn out year by year, show up that it was nothing of the kind.

Material World: King Capital’s plunder of the Congo (2025)

The Material World column from the April 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

King Capital’s plunder of the Congo

The brutal conflict in the ‘Democratic Republic’ of Congo is not an ethnic struggle, a failure of governance, or an unfortunate accident. It is the direct consequence of capitalism’s relentless pursuit for profit. The plunder of the Congo’s vast mineral wealth is not a by-product of war, but the reason for it.

Despite being endowed with vast natural resources, the Congo remains one of the most impoverished and most exploited countries in the world. The cause of this paradox lies in the legacy of colonialism combined with modern rulers of capital and the ongoing plunder facilitated by the master class.

‘The colonised can see right away that the coloniser is a thief, a liar, a fraud, a murderer, a torturer, and a hypocrite…’ (Frantz Fanon, the well-known psychiatrist and revolutionary, on the Congo).

Towards the end of the 19th century, King Leopold II of Belgium transformed the Congo into his personal property. He subjected millions of Congolese to forced labour in the extraction of rubber and other resources. Under Leopold’s rule, appalling atrocities were committed with millions dying from violence, starvation, and disease. After international condemnation, Belgium formally took control of the Congo in 1908, continuing the exploitation of its resources while not investing in the country’s infrastructure or development.

Eventually Congo gained independence in 1960, under a rigged system that ensured foreign control over its wealth. Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected Prime Minister, sought to assert national sovereignty. For this affront to King Capital, Lumumba was overthrown and assassinated by Belgian and US interests. The installation of the dictator Mobutu ensured that the Congo’s resources would continue to be funnelled to corporations while the population withered.

Today, Congo remains trapped in a cycle of exploitation. Minerals like coltan, cobalt, and copper, essential to Tesla, iPhones and solar panels continue to benefit capital rather than the Congolese. Neighbouring Rwanda has become a key exploiter.

The European Union’s special representative for Africa’s Great Lakes region, Johan Borgstram, accused Rwanda of violating Congolese territory. Borgstram urged a political solution to the conflict in eastern Congo, noting that Rwanda’s support for the M23 (March 23) rebel group and the presence of its military on Congolese territory constituted a violation of Congolese sovereignty. The M23 movement, which has seized key territories in eastern Congo, claims to be defending the interests of Congolese Tutsis. It has committed horrendous acts including mass killings, sexual violence, and the displacement of civilians, particularly in eastern Congo.

Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame has cited security concerns, pointing to the Congolese government’s alleged lack of political will. M23’s territorial control has caused nearly 80,000 people to flee, many seeking refuge in neighbouring countries like Burundi.

This ongoing cycle of extraction and conflict is not an accident; it is the result of the global capitalist system that continues to exploit Congo’s resources for the benefit of foreign elites, whether they are in the West or in Rwanda. The wealth generated from Congo’s vast resources is largely funnelled to multinational corporations, with little benefit to the local population.

Don’t imagine this is some accidental lapse on capitalism’s part. It is exactly how capitalism functions. The Socialist Party has always argued that capitalism cannot be reformed to serve the majority. It is a system built on exploitation, where wealth is continually extracted, and power remains concentrated in the hands of few. The wars in Congo, like the wars before them, are not by accident or the result of mismanagement; they are the natural outcome of the economic system that demands the subjugation of entire nations for the benefit of King Capital.

Digital book burnings in Trump’s America

When viewing history through the lens of analysis socialists understand that attacks on marginalised groups are likely an early indication of rising authoritarianism. A century ago, the Nazi party of Germany targeted transgender people and the scientists who were pioneers of sexual research, raiding Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, one of the world’s first centres dedicated to the study and care of queer and trans people. The Nazi Party raided the clinic, terrorised the workers, and burned thousands of books, papers and research materials in a public spectacle of hate that foreshadowed the grim horrors to come. Now, today, a modern version of this erasure is also underway. This time, the flames are in the form of a trash folder, as it is a digital erasure, and this horror is unfolding in the United States under the directorship of Donald Trump.

Since his return to political power, the Marmalade Mussolini and his collaborators have systematically erased the existence of trans people from official records. Under his administration, the term ‘transgender’ is being removed from government websites, crucial health data scrubbed, and even references to historical trans activists such as Marsha P Johnson at the Stonewall National Monument eradicated.

Charities and institutions that receive federal funding are being overtly pressured to follow suit, ensuring that the trans community is transported out of public life. The speed and efficiency of this erasure would have made the Nazis envious.

These moves are not happening in isolation. They come after a build up over years of false moral panic stoked by the capitalist press, where trans people are being unjustly smeared as a threat to children, just as Hirschfeld was accused of ‘grooming’ youth in the pages of the Nazi propaganda organ Der Stürmer. The narrative is chillingly familiar: demonisation, exclusion, and then elimination.

The implications however extend beyond just trans rights. Fascist parties who seized the reins of democracy under the gaze of capital would test the boundaries by attacking the most vulnerable, seeing how much liberals of all shades would tolerate. As they succeed today in digitally erasing trans people, they will move on to the next targets. Already, Trump and his axis of tech billionaires have floated the idea of defying court rulings, openly challenging judicial authority in their efforts to strip rights from minorities. The broader working class must recognise that an attack on one group’s liberties is an attack on all.

Just as socialists oppose divisions and discriminations over race and colour, so we commit to solidarity with those workers under the LGBTQIA banner being victimised by this explicitly nasty face of capital.

Socialists are keenly aware that oppression is the tool of the master class, used to divide and distract workers while capitalists consolidate capital. The erasure of transgender people is not only a symptom of this alt-right culture war but is a warning sign of the increasingly authoritarian aspect of the capitalist political order. Socialists that seek to build a truly free, wholly democratic and equal society will not accept these digital book burnings and Trump’s wider assault on humanity. Marx teaches us to look on history scientifically to understand the present condition and in doing so what we are witnessing unfolding under raw capitalism in the US must concern us all.

A.T.

Capitalism—the real enemy: The case of Germany (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Fascism is not an alternative to the capitalist
 system, but a way of running it”

The word “fascism” is one of the most loosely used terms in the political vocabulary. To call every other opponent a fascist, as the more hysterical elements of the left often do, is to reduce a term of political description to the level of political insult. Socialists do not oppose fascist parties, like the National Front, specially because they are fascist. We oppose them for their support of capitalism.

Fascism is not an alternative to the capitalist system, but a way of running it. When it seems inexpedient for the working class to have whatever exists in freedom of speech, assembly, press, and trades unions, and if the working class can be persuaded to support a regime which withdraws these rights (which a non-Socialist working class can), then capitalism is run along fascist rather than liberal lines. The working class can only positively defend democracy by organizing for Socialism.

That fascism is a part of capitalism, governed by the profit system as much as “bourgeois democracy” is can be seen by the events which took place in Germany under the Nazis. Like most groups which see themselves as being revolutionary the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party did not stand on an original platform. Indeed, at the outset they hardly stood for any programme at all, but for the negative policy of anti-semitism and the revival of Prussian greatness.

The dissatisfaction exploited by the Nazis related to the particular post-war problems of German capitalism. It was a non-competitive, highly concentrated, high-priced industrial economy; the political influence of the rural landowners was disproportionate to their size; there had been a high birthrate before 1914 with the resulting problem of an expanding working class demanding more and more from the developing German industries; and there was a large “middle class” of small businessmen with no political expression. The crisis produced by the first World War made matters even worse. The monarchy collapsed in 1918, leaving political instability; demobilized soldiers returned from the war feeling bitter and angry; a flood of east European refugees entered the country, many of them Jews; the liquidation of war credits meant that millions who had previously seen themselves as members of the “middle class” were thrown into extreme poverty; there was the additional frustration of an imbalance between the numbers of men and women. These problems are not new to capitalism in a crisis, and crises are an integral part of the capitalist system.

The Nazis were able to direct their political propaganda towards certain sections of the working class. Small shopkeepers, for instance, were easily attracted. Between 1882 and 1907 the number of small shopkeepers grew, but after 1907 they faced fierce competition from new department stores, some of which were owned by Jewish immigrants. The Nazis, because of their anti-semitism (and, to some extent, a leftist opposition to “big business”) exploited this discontent. White-collar workers, small farmers, and students were further groups to which the Nazis had a special appeal. Then, as now, the fascists realised that they would get nowhere without the support of the working class. The Nazis won it; the modern fascists may not.

Two things must be remembered about the rise to power of the Nazis. One is that without the support of the majority of workers it could not have happened. Capitalist government, be it fascist or liberal, could not be imposed upon a working class which does not want capitalism. Had the German workers been united for Socialism, then nothing could possibly have stood in their way. The second is that the Nazis had the support of important sections of the capitalist class.

When they came to power, what was more significant than the atrocities committed by the new tyrants (which are of interest to historians who like to see the past in terms of a battle between “goodies” and “baddies”) was their inability to offer the working class anything new.

They had promised to create a strong central authority to safeguard law and order (a cry of the British Tories). The Nazis succeeded in strengthening the rule of the state by uniting the party with the government: Hitler became not only total leader of the National Socialists, but complete leader of all Germany. The Enabling Act of March 1933 made the Reichstag powerless and invested full political power in the Chancellor. Adolf Hitler. A law of July 1933 outlawed all other political parties, and a law of January 1934 enabled the Nazis to change the Weimar constitution at will. The German army was taken over by the party, which was clearly satisfactory for the military as fascism meant a growing arms budget, evident diplomatic strength, popular support for militarism, compulsory conscription and, of course, a greater political role for the military.

Economically, the Nazi policies were consistent with the needs of the strongest section of the capitalist class. This was to cause division within the party. The business interests had financed the Nazis as an alternative to the power of the unions or, worse still, Bolshevism. On the other hand, there was a powerful left wing of the National Socialist Party, led by Strasser and Muchow, which preferred to stress the “socialism” of the Nazi Party, by which they meant nationalization.

For all their talk about destroying “big business” the Nazis failed to change the face of German capitalism, even refusing to close down Jewish department stores because they needed the taxes they were receiving from them. Income distribution did not alter under the Nazis and wages fell between 1934 and 1940, while the average net income of the better-off sections who paid tax rose by 46 per cent. As usual under capitalism the rich got richer while the poor stayed poor.

Essentially, fascism created no major changes in German society except, of course, for certain minorities, such as the Jews, the Catholics, and the dissidents. But these were a minority. For the majority it was work as usual; exploitation as usual. As Schoenbaum states:

In 1939 the cities were larger, not smaller; the concentration of capital greater than before; the rural population reduced, not increased; women not at the fireside but in the office and the factory; the inequality of property and income distribution more, not less conspicuous; industry’s share of the gross national product up and agriculture down, while agricultural labour had it relatively good and small business increasingly bad.

In September 1934 at Nuremberg Hitler declared:

The revolution has achieved without exception all that was expected of it . . . in the next thousand years there will be no new revolution in Germany.

Hitler was speaking of a change in the circumstances of German capitalism, not a social revolution. The former happens all the time—leaders come and they go—but the latter means a fundamental change in social relationships. The Socialist Standard of June 1939 clearly explained the Socialist attitude to fascism and democracy:

Democracy for the working class can only be consolidated and extended to the extent that the working class adopts a socialist standpoint. To renounce Socialism so that democracy may be defended means ultimately the renunciation of both Socialism and democracy. It cannot be emphasised too much that the struggle for democracy is bound up with the struggle for Socialism and not the struggle for Socialism bound up with the struggle for democracy.

Steve Coleman

The Politicians and the crisis: Part 2 (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

These are the times when unthinking workers look for scapegoats, as they did in Germany in the latter period of the Weimar Republic. There the once proud and powerful Social Democratic Party (SPD) were in government; they unwittingly paved the way for the Nazis. Hence, the concern of the political leaders of Western Europe, North America and Japan. They reason as follows.

The slump of the early ’thirties undermined the established regimes in places like Germany and Japan and many other less powerful countries too. Imitative fascist-type parties sprang up all over Europe (some holding power), gaining support from disenchanted workers. In the case of Germany the Nazis gained power through the ballot box in 1933. In Japan the militarists managed to mobilize popular support against the existing Liberal administration because of the economic situation—unemployment and deflation—not, as now, inflation. The new regime began reflation in 1932 and before the bottom of the world slump had been reached Japanese industry began to recover being propelled along by an aggressive drive in export markets.

This was bad news for capitalist interests whose markets were being successfully penetrated by Japan, e.g. the colonial possessions of the Western industrial states were taking an increasing volume of textiles. This was one of the reasons for “protectionism” of the 1930s, which the governments now wish to avoid. This encouraged Japanese capitalism, with militarists firmly in the saddle, to possess colonies of their own. In 1937 they attacked China, having as early as 1932 driven the Chinese out of Manchuria without any formal declaration of war.

War economy

Germany from 1933 onwards pursued a twin policy of re-armament and so-called "economic self-sufficiency”. Unemployment decreased (although it was still above 1 million in 1936) and the armaments industry and its adjuncts, like the new autobahns and airfields, increased. Many workers were employed on the work connected with numerous Nazi rallies; the 1936 Nuremberg Rally alone cost £2,000,000 to stage. To limit imports, license schemes were introduced and synthetic materials developed, partly to deal with Germany’s balance of trade problem and also geared to their “war economy”.

Germany entered into trade arrangements with countries in South-East Europe and Latin America. These countries agreed to take more exports from Germany in exchange for imports from them, but their volume was only 69 per cent. above 1929; whereas Britain’s exports were then 83 per cent. above that year. Britain had achieved this advantage by bi-lateral arrangements with various countries. The Commonwealth and Empire countries increased their import preferences for each others’ goods and as mentioned above placed restrictive quotas on textiles from Japan.

In spite of all this, unemployment in Britain was still over 1.3 million in 1937. In the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard was the following:

When Hitler for the German capitalists says that Germany must expand or explode, find markets or perish, he meets his opposite in Mr. Hudson. British Secretary for Overseas Trade who said in Warsaw on March 21st [1939] that “we are not going to give up any markets to anyone . . . Great Britain is strong enough to fight for markets abroad. Britain is now definitely going to take a greater interest in Eastern Europe”. (From News Chronicle, March 22, 1939). Fighting that at present takes the form of words, trade agreements, loans, guarantees against aggression etc. may. as in 1914 turn into an armed conflict, and that armed conflict will be yet another war produced by capitalist rivalries.

This area of Eastern Europe was Germany’s existing and expanding sphere of influence, for recovering territory lost in the previous imperial conflict—the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, Danzig and the Polish Corridor, and Memeland from Lithuania. Germany also had eyes on the Rumanian oilfields (hence the British guarantee to that country in spite of the fascist regime there), and the wheat-growing areas of the Ukraine, in Russia and Poland.

These brief references are to the seeds which helped produce the second world war, and the politicians at the recent London summit conference said so quite openly. By any sense of logic working-class ears should be pricking up at these statements, questions should be asked and conclusions drawn. The Socialist Party does its best to help draw these conclusions and to develop a Socialist awareness.

It was noteworthy that Mr. Fukuda was particularly alive to the dangers of the present slump. He was a young diplomat in London in 1933 at the time of the World Economic Conference which broke up solving nothing, to be followed by “beggar thy neighbour” policies which were already under way prior to the conference. One of the major factors preventing even formal agreement was America’s refusal to stabilize the dollar; Roosevelt having taken them off the Gold Standard with a view to raising US commodity prices as an inducement for investment by the industrialists. This caused the US dollar to fluctuate wildly in the foreign exchanges. The delegates from the other countries at the conference wanted America to stabilize back on the Gold Standard: this Roosevelt refused to do, being pre-occupied with the domestic effects of the Depression.

Crisis capitalism

This was and is crisis capitalism. Predicament—the conflict between national economic interests and the stability of the international trading and monetary systems. This was recognized well enough in 1933. 

The journal The Round Table declared, some months before the Conference at the time of the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa, that "within a few months, conclusions must be reached in the financial and economic field, the effect of which will probably be decisive for or against the happiness of at least one generation of human beings all over the world.”

In September 1933, two months after the conference broke up, the same journal commented: ‘‘The great international conferences have come to little. The pulse of the Disarmament Conference is beating feebly (which began in June 1932) . . . The World Economic Conference has failed to reduce the obstructions to international trade, or even to make a tentative approach to agreement upon a solution of the world’s monetary problems”.

In the Daily Telegraph of May 9th, 1977, the day after this year’s conference, in an Economic Commentary article ‘‘Best view of the summit in few months” the author, Rodney Lord, stated: ‘‘It is idle to expect any great progress on persuading countries to regulate their economies for the general benefit of international stability. Politicians look first to the interests of the people who elected them.” The latter part of that quotation cannot go unchallenged of course—but we know what he means.

Politicians are the custodians of nation-states in a competitive world—that is, custodians for the capitalist class of their particular countries. At the same time they depend on the working class to go along with the arrangement, and have to try to placate them when it is necessary.

Conflicts of ‘national interest’

This conflict of national interest and international stability, with its inherent dangers, was demonstrated in Tokyo only four days after the end of the Economic Summit.

There were reports of a fire in an oilfield in Saudi Arabia which supplies over 30 per cent. of Japan’s crude oil imports. Prices fell on the Tokyo stock market and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry assured the Press that the fire would probably not have a serious effect on Japan’s supplies in the long run.

At the same time Mr. Fukuda, the Prime Minister, told a meeting of business leaders that the government is to press the case for Japan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. He said that at London he had the ‘‘strong impression” that it will be difficult to get America’s approval because of President Carter’s “deep-rooted opposition”. However, Mr. Fukuda assured the businessmen that he was “most determined” to negotiate the issue with the US independently of other countries. The Japanese, apparently, have been shocked by the American President’s nuclear energy policy (from a report in the Daily Telegraph, May 13th).

An indication of Japan’s problems—even though being currently the world’s most successful economy— is the news that from the end of 1971 to the end of 1976, 30,000 shipyard workers lost their jobs. It is estimated that another 25,000 will go before the end of 1978, which is nearly the total workforce in British yards. (From the AUEW journal for May 1977.)

On May 9th the Daily Telegraph reported that British TV manufacturers were protesting to the Government that Japanese TV manufacturers were “bent on destroying” the British industry. This was in response to the plans of the Hitachi Company to build a factory at Tyne and Wear.

Commercial ‘aggrandisement’

The British businessmen said that there was already over-capacity in the industry. 1,751,000 sets were made in 1976 as against 3,000,000 in 1973, and Hitachi’s arrival would increase to 400,000 the number of Japanese colour sets made in Britain. Two other Japanese companies are already established here. Many more jobs would be lost—up to 6,000—than would be created, it was claimed. Hitachi had already a 20 per cent. interest in a Finnish company which is expected to export to Britain for assembly a substantial part of 800,000 total output of colour tubes. It is part of a policy of “commercial aggrandisement” in Europe, say the British capitalists.

No wonder Mr. Fukuda and the other statesmen are worried.

Frank Simkins

To be concluded

Whither Britain? (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Before the War, the Labour movement of this and other countries had come to regard the progress of democracy as something inevitable. In spite of the lean time democracy has gone through since the suspension of hostilities, both Labour leaders and ruling-class politicians still successfully manage to create the myth that, in England, at any rate, democracy is still the order of the day. Democracy here is said to provide a striking contrast to the totalitarianism of Hitler and Mussolini; indeed, the chief task of our politicians to-day is to maintain that illusion above all others in the minds of people. But the view of the Socialist has always been that, although the growth of capitalism necessitates certain democratic features, anti-democratic elements are also bound up with its continuation. In spite of feverish appeals to defend democracy, signs are not wanting that, behind this façade, the ruling class are getting ready to march along a path similar to that of Hitler’s Germany. There is no doubt that the development of capitalism in recent years has modified much of the normal workings of the system and has thrown up, as a result, new and more complex problems to be solved. The attempts to solve these problems, as always, endanger working-class interests. It is true, of course, that the basis of capitalism is the two-class nature of society, with its contrasts of riches and poverty, and the contradictions which arise from the ownership by a small section of society of the means of wealth production. Nevertheless, the working class should become aware of these changes and what they entail in democratic England as well as Fascist Germany. It is childish to assume that what is happening in Germany is independent of the remainder of the capitalist world. The problems confronting the ruling class in Germany are in the last analysis the problems that confront the capitalist class of the rest of the world. What are these problems? They are the furtherance of the interests of the national sections of the capitalist class in order to maintain or secure what is euphemistically called “a place in the sun,” or, more brutally, to satisfy the insatiable quest for profits. The task before the German ruling class is to secure for itself a privileged position, but it can only do so at the expense of its brother, the English capitalist class.

Thus Fascism is not only bound up with world capitalism but is itself a product of it. The defeated ruling class in Germany, stripped of its former colonies, its territory in Europe annexed, and weighted down by reparations, was forced into a desperate position. The Social Democracy, along with the other political parties, though trying to rebuild German capitalism, had been unable to continue doing so, because they lost working-class support and therefore ceased to be a fitting instrument. The conditions of the working class had not improved, as the Social Democrats promised they would. The task of Fascism became then one of restoring German capitalism to its pre-war strength and at the same time gaining the confidence of large sections of the working class, peasants and middle layers of the population, by promising to free capitalism from the anomalies that ordinarily affect it. The demagogue Hitler promised to provide work for all, to establish economic and national security and to balance out the periodic fluctuations and crises associated with capitalism. Thus, the first task of Hitler on attaining political power was to provide work of some kind for the six million unemployed. It was useless to produce consumption goods depending for their sale upon an increased purchasing power of the people. What was needed was a type that would not be thrown upon an already saturated market. New roads, land improvement schemes, military equipment, such as barracks, guns and aeroplanes, can be produced independently of the income of the masses. It is even possible under those conditions to produce a growing volume of these goods while wages are being steadily reduced. A gigantic programme of rearmament allowed Hitler to revive German industry, to put Germany back on the political map, and further, to fulfil his promises to the masses, through the grim formula of “guns instead of butter.”

So, to-day it can be said that unemployment in Germany is practically non-existent, and the “work for all” slogan has been realised. For gradually the rearmament industries have expanded and unemployment has fallen; indeed, many workers from other branches of industry have had to be drafted into this field of production. To finance this huge programme, methods have been adopted which have horrified our orthodox capitalist and Labour leader alike. They view with dismay the stringent Governmental control and regulation of profits and prices, and of wage rates and supplies of labour. A picture of the state of present-day Germany, from a capitalist standpoint, can be obtained from the following quotation from Lloyds Bank Monthly Review (July and August, 1937): —

“In the National Socialist State all economic activity must serve the interests of the community. Business interests in Germany must, therefore, regard themselves as subordinate to the general policy pursued by the State. Early in 1937 the German people were told that all activities will be governed by the law that the nation does not live for the benefit of the economic system, nor the economic system exist for the benefit of capital, but capital serves the economic system and the economic system the Nation. . . . With regard to the individual, the National Socialists claim that they must put an end to class differences in order to secure national harmony. Individual and class differences are subordinate to those of the national community. Under a Government with full and supreme power of enforcing its will, even to the point of overriding established law, one of the practical results of this theory has been the suppression of strikes, lock-outs and wage disputes generally.”

Thus the Fascists have created a machine which in time may have repercussions throughout world capitalism. Already it would appear that the threat of a rearmed and highly organised German capitalism is compelling British capitalism to adopt similar drastic measures. An article in The Banker (April, 1939) raises certain issues, largely, it is true, from the point of view of the capitalist class, but issues which vitally affect the working class. The writer commences by pointing out that the Government will be a borrower in the capital market of between £350 and £400 million, and the effects of a single borrower, such as the Government, taking such a large amount from the capital market and distributing it amongst a relatively small section of industry, namely, the rearmament industry, will be grave. The demand for workers in these industries will greatly increase; in fact, the writer of the article thinks that the whole of the unemployed may be re-absorbed into industry. This may well be so, when we remember that, even at the present time, there is a shortage of this type of skilled labour, and that, in addition, an increased number of men are required in the armed forces and other defence preparations. As a result of the large sums paid out in the form of wages following on the increased employment and the substitution of full-time for short-time workers, a greatly increased demand for consumers’ goods may be expected. The Government, if it is to keep at the head of the armaments race, will be forced to increase its expenditure, the money being raised either by borrowing or by taxation. In either case, it will be forced to exert a greater control over the capital market. Manufacturers of consumers’ goods will be faced with an increased demand for their products, and at the same time a shortage of the necessary capital and labour to effectively expand production. Prices will tend to rise and the standard of living of the workers fall unless they are successful in securing higher wages, a demand which will be strenuously opposed by the manufacturers and Government alike, for higher wages mean an increased cost of rearmament. The City Editor of the Manchester Guardian says (April 6th, 1939): —

“Unless the Government then assumes the direct control of industrial production and investment the arms output will be curtailed and a general rise of prices will ensue.”

This rise in prices can be offset in three ways, all at the expense of the working class. The social services may be reduced on the plea of economy, the working day can be lengthened without raising wages, as in France, or the standard of living of the workers can be reduced by allowing prices to rise more rapidly than wages. This attack upon working-class standards has begun. The Press reports to-day the strike at an aircraft factory caused by the employment of unskilled girl labour. Workers’ memories may be short but they still remember the dilution that took place during the last War. As is commonplace nowadays, the men have gone on strike without Union recognition, thus losing strike pay, but they already have the support of the workers in another of the company’s factories, from whom they have received a big collection and a weekly levy on their wages until the dispute is over. All workers should realise that this is only a prelude to a general attack upon working-class conditions and democratic rights. There are not wanting signs that British capitalism will require the working class here to follow in the footsteps of the German working class. By specious pleas of patriotism and emphasis on the horrors of Fascism, an attempt will be made to render the trade unions innocuous and to persuade the working class to be drilled and dragooned. And, needless to say, the trade union bureaucracy and Labour leaders will perform the same service for capitalism now as in 1914—note already the discussions between trade union leaders and the Government on the steps to be taken in an emergency war situation.

Although trade union leaders are paying lip service to voluntary effort as opposed to conscription, they are prepared once again to place the movement at the disposal of the State. Mr. Bevin himself agrees that prices must be controlled and profiteering cease, thus fitting in easily with capitalism organised on a war-time basis.

Now, more than at any other time, is it necessary for the workers to think and act along the lines of their own class interests. Safeguarding working-class interests is the best and only way of safeguarding working-class existence. And the action of the working class here may yet, by its example, have a stimulating and regenerating effect upon the working class of all other countries.

Sound working-class action will still prove to be the greatest impediment to the threat of war. Without this action, we must agree with the Manchester Guardian (April 11th, 1939):—

“War apart, it would be idle to predict either the form or the degree of that Governmental control of finance, employment, prices and profits that may be found necessary as borrowing and spending are increased.”

Already three Conservative M.P.s, Mr. L. S. Amery, Sir Edward Grigg and Lord Wolmer, have placed a resolution on the order paper of the House of Commons (Manchester Guardian, April 17th, 1939): —

“That this House is in favour of the immediate acceptance of the principle of the compulsory mobilisation of the man, munition and money power of the nation.”

In a circular to M.P.s, the sponsors state: —

“We feel it opportune that as many members of the House of Commons as possible should assure them (the Government) that we are ready to proceed to all lengths in pursuance of their policy. The time for half measures is past. We believe that all the resources of the nation should be mobilised now against every eventuality. ( ! !)”

So it can be seen that the State, instead of being capitalism’s sleeping partner, is becoming, as in Germany, the active and directing agent for mobilising industry and dragooning and drilling the population along lines suitable for its purpose. In addition, we have our defence dictators, and A.R.P. closely linked with the police, veiled threats of powers extraordinary in times of emergency, e.g., the right to enter individual houses, etc. So it can be seen that Hitler and our ruling class speak the same language when their interests are at stake.

Surely at such a time the voice of the Socialist should be heeded by all thoughtful members of the working class. History has placed the solution in your hands and given you the opportunity to rid yourselves, once and for all, of the poverty and misery and grey anxiety which capitalism entails. You, the working class, are the overwhelming majority of the population. It is you who make everything possible under capitalism, including war. When this is realised in sufficient numbers, you can take appropriate action, not only to dispense with capitalism, but to build a system of society fitted to the needs of a decent existence. By becoming Socialists you will help to swell our ranks, so that, when sufficient numbers are gained, there can begin that last and greatest march of the working class out of the grey menacing shadows of capitalism into the light of a system of society based, not on the dictates of a minority, but on the needs of humanity.

Ted Wilmott