Up boys and atom (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the workers of this unhappy planet are hearing the call to arms. From the pages of the national press the sensational headlines are once more screaming war news straight from the battle fronts. The heavy, serious tone of the B.B.C. announcers adds to the urgency of the situation. A crisis is upon us, we are told, of far greater gravity than the 1938 Munich turn-out and every able-bodied man and woman is required to defend the home of freedom, democracy, the British way of life, our homes, children and the host of other valuable treasures that we of the working class hold dear to our hearts. Let us kill, maim and destroy the heinous swine who threaten our very existence. Into battle, let right (which is always our virtue) prevail, and with God’s help (His help is always available to us) we shall smash home to another glorious and bloody victory. So the hysterical clap trap is ceaselessly poured out, gradually preparing workers to kill and be killed.

Up to present our masters are a little ashamed of us. There appears to be a certain reluctance on the part of the masses to throw themselves wholeheartedly into the general struggle for survival. The necessity to expend more blood, tears and sweat in the cause of freedom, etc., does not seem to have registered fully. There is too much interest being shown in the results on the back page of the newspapers and too little being shown in the struggle against aggression as reported on the front page. Truly here is good reason for concern and at least one of our national newspapers has set out to remedy this little defect. “Are you prepared to spend just one hour a day wrestling with the great problems that confront us?” asks the Daily Express. Are you, the man in the street, prepared to grapple with and try to understand the significance of events occurring thousands of miles away. Anyway for the price of one penny a team of “ experts ” are at your disposal to guide and instruct you in the sometimes unintelligible ways of this funny old world. Maps of the battle front with the familiar little arrows representing the attacks and counter-attacks of the opposing armies, are once again printed for our attention and perusal. As these little black arrows move to and fro, people all over the world learn with horror and grief that some loved one will never again return. But economic interests are paramount to human life and suffering and it is the earnest hope of our masters that the mass destruction of their enemies will in the near future take precedence over the fortunes of “ One Eyed Jack ” in the 2.30.

Nevertheless the supporters of British capitalism sometimes lament woefully on the apathy of people towards a nice juicy war. Civil defence was the theme discussed recently in the House of Commons. Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd opened the debate and in the course of his speech, urging greater support from the “Smith’s and Jones’s ” for civil defence, he was reported to have made the following observations (Daily Graphic 25.7.50).

“The Government must have the responsibility for making plans, but it needs the co-operation of the population.

“The greatest difficulties were general revulsion against the whole idea of war and the psychological impact of atomic warfare on public opinion.”

He went on to add that the Home Secretary could assure us that an atomic bomb would not, as the “egregious Dean of Canterbury” had claimed, melt stones and rocks 60 miles from the explosion.

Certainly this terrible idea that war and all it implies is revolting and undesirable, is something that no sane individual will understand. Why, now that we have the personal assurance of our eminent Home Secretary that stones and rocks will not melt at 60 miles distance from an atomic explosion, the whole idea becomes almost attractive. To those people who might enquire as to what might happen to a human being residing 60 miles from an explosion, we can only say that such questions are far out of the scope of this humble organ and that no doubt the team of “experts” employed by such organs as the Daily Express will be able to put your mind at rest.

All over the Capitalist world, in Britain, America, Russia, etc., the working class is being cajoled, urged and panicked into taking up arms on behalf of their respective masters. The economic trade war that is a constant aspect of capitalist society is once more, as in the past, threatening to develop into another bout of blood-letting. All the “peace pledges” and petitions that pacifists and such like are touting about can be of no avail and will go the same way as their predecessors. Knowledge is the only weapon that can destroy for ever the economic conditions that give rise to war. One day the working class of this world will possess this knowledge and then only will capitalism disappear forever, taking with it all the evils of Poverty, unemployment and war that fester on the back of humanity at present. The atom bomb and all modern means of destruction will then take their rightful place alongside the spears and bows and arrows in our museums.

G.L.

News in Review: Berlin again (1962)

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

Berlin again

Berlin seems to be developing into one of capitalism’s nastier perennials.

With each year’s squabbles over the divided city — some of the more minor ones being prime examples of the ridiculous lengths to which capitalist powers go in the risky game of international tit-for-tat–the Russians advance their cause in Germany a little further.

Last year’s wall, a temporary-seeming structure then, is now solider and more permanent. The East German police range their guns along it. This year the Russians have withdrawn their commandant in East Berlin, leaving the Western powers to negotiate with the civilian administration there, or else with nobody.

In retaliation the Western powers have forced the Russians to use a more direct route when taking the guard to their war memorial which stands in West Berlin.

This petty and undignified bickering is only the detail of a more serious situation.

The Soviet object, it seems, is to force the Western powers to acknowledge that Berlin — and indeed Germany — is permanently divided. (Permanently, that is, until another European war draws out the frontiers again, creating new zones of dispute and tension.) If they can do this, the Russians will have won a new foothold in Europe and another buffer state will be between her and any threat of a re-emergent German capitalism.

There was a lot of indignant sob-stuff in the press about Peter Fechter, the 18 year old who was shot down by the East Berlin police and left by them to bleed to death beneath the Wall.

None of the papers recalled that when Fechter was born they were all busily telling us that it was heroic and laudable to kill Germans. At that time the Allied air offensive against Germany was at its height; the persistent bombers killed thousands of Germans quite indiscriminately. It was not their fault that the infant Fechter survived, to die so horribly later.

Berlin is typical of capitalism’s international rivalries. It is fought out over apparently minor details. But its potential is frighteningly dangerous.

And it is all sustained by cynical lies.

Chinese Bomb

Although they were quick to retract it, the statement from the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in Washington that China would be able to set off a nuclear explosion in a few months was enough to send a shiver down our spines.

More bombs. More tests. More fallout. More suffering. More death.

That is the immediate prospect. For the longer run, China’s bomb will mean a fiercer arms race and an increase in the tension in any dispute between her and the other great powers. And perhaps in the end a bigger and more destructive war.

China, like any aspirant capitalist power, has long been determined to make nuclear weapons. And, just like the others, she will excuse them with any sort of lying propaganda.

Last year, the general manager of Reuters persuaded the Chinese Foreign Secretary to talk on this subject. Marshall Chen Yi said that China’s having the bomb would actually decrease the chance of a war, because when only a few powers had it they were more tempted to throw their weight about.

We may permit ourselves a grim smile at this, for it is the very reverse of the deterrent theory which the nuclear powers now use to justify their having the bomb. These countries have always claimed that what stops a war is the fact that they have an almost exclusive possession of the biggest of all sticks.

Who should we believe in this? London, Washington and Moscow? Or Peking? In fact, nobody need worry about the answer to that question.

For what will China do when she has got the bomb? Will she follow the logic of Chen Yi’s argument and give the secret to the world? To India, for example? To Japan? If all the other nuclear powers are anything to go by China will forget her big-talk and keep her secrets to herself.

And perhaps we may permit ourselves a grim smile at this, too.

Capitalism will always have its ghastly weapons and it will always have its paid liars to excuse them. While they are spinning their lies the weapons get bigger and more horrifying and the conflicts grow more agonising.

Still feel like smiling?

Farnborough

Apart from the little-boy excitements of the machines themselves, what was the interesting and significant thing about this year’s Air Show at Farnborough?

Not so long ago it was a popular working-class idea that the aircraft industry was bound to expand into the future and that nobody who made his career in it could fail. This was the reason for many workers—among them graduates from universities—taking jobs with the aeroplane manufacturers.

But like many working-class assumptions, this one took no account of the nature of the beast called capitalism.

There were no turbo-prop aircraft on show this year. Yet the British aircraft industry once calculated that these would be more economical to run than the big jets and would therefore sell better to the airlines which, for all their superficial glamour, must have a sordid capitalist interest in cheap operating costs. Boeing, Douglas and Sud-Aviation in France proved this calculation wrong. So the turbo-prop is a dead-end and all the money tied up in it has gone down the drain. BOAC has its last Britannias up for sale for next to nothing.

Now the British industry is gambling on the future success of the VC10 and the de Havilland Trident. For neither of these are the prospects golden. If the fears which are expressed for them come to reality there will probably be another big cut-back in the aircraft industry and a lot more of its workers unemployed.

The airlines, too, are facing their problems. To stay in the race, each of them is forced to buy the latest, biggest, fastest (which usually also means the noisiest) machines on offer. The result up to now is that the number of seats available far exceeds the passengers who want them. So there is fierce competition, especially on the Trans-Atlantic runs.

This has caused most airlines in the world to fail to make a profit. Last month BEA one of the few profitable lines up to the present—announced that interest payments had turned a working profit of £550,000 into a loss of a million and a half pounds.

We all know what capitalism says must happen to an industry which does not make a profit. Aircraft are something of a special case; there are elements of national prestige and strategy to take into account. But in the end, in one way or another, the rule will apply.

For a lot of aircraft workers it looks like being a very bumpy ride.

Fasten your safety belts, please.

Nkrumah strikes

Doctor Nkrumah has succeeded in battling many people with his latest round of deportations and imprisonments.

It is simple enough to discern the reason for his expelling the Bishops Roseveare and Patterson. Both of them were involved in criticising the Young Pioneers, a nationalistic youth organisation whose members are required to chant, among other nonsense, that “Nkrumah never dies.”

Nobody who knows anything about Ghana under Nkrumah expected the Bishops to get away with suggesting that in the country’s youngsters should spend less time in worshipping the god in Accra and more in the (equally futile) worship of the god who they say is in a place called heaven.

But it is harder to explain the detention of Mr. Adamafio, Mr. Cofie Crabbe and Mr. Ako Adjei. The first two of these men were up to the hilt in Nkrumah’s campaign against the churches. We might have thought them safe in their jobs.

Perhaps they were involved in the bomb-throwing which has been going on in Ghana of late. Or perhaps they were just becoming too great rivals to Nkrumah’s supremacy.

Now they have gone and Krobo Edusei, famous for his wife’s £3,000 bed, is back in the government after his dismissal six months ago. Nkrumah, already overloaded with jobs (among others, he controls the Convention People’s Party, the Ghana Civil Service and the Volta Dam project) has taken on the Foreign Secretaryship.

These moves may be difficult to explain to our entire satisfaction, but one or two things can be said for sure.

Nkrumah is a dictator. His Young Pioneers are a copy, albeit a weak one, of the Hitler Youth movement. In taking on totalitarian powers, Nkrumah has betrayed the promises he made when he was fighting the British for Ghana’s independence.

There is nothing new in this. Postwar history is full of examples of nationalist dictators who ousted their country’s occupiers and came to power themselves with slogans of eternal liberty.

Many people outside Ghana were taken in by Nkrumah’s propaganda in the old days. Shocked though they may now be, they still lend their ears to the nationalists who are currently banging the independence drum.

Let Nkrumah’s Ghana stand as a warning that national independence has nothing to offer the ordinary people who are misled into supporting it and who end up by being oppressed and exploited by it.

Dr. Soblen

The death of Doctor Soblen brought to a close another of capitalism’s nasty little episodes.

Soblen killed himelf because, above everything else, he did not want to go back to the United States to serve his sentence for spying for Russia. The British government, perhaps at the insistence of Washington, were determined that he should be sent back. To get their way, they were prepared to break some of the legalities which at other times they hypocritically defend.

Great Britain has signed a treaty of extradition with, among others, the United States. This treaty means that if, say, a murderer escapes to America the government there will catch him and end him to this country for trial.

This treaty expressly excludes spies. The reasons are obvious, all countries have their network of espionage and it would be embarrassing for all of them if, should one of their agents flee, he could be extradited by the country he had been spying on.

Soblen should have been covered by this provision; in a sense, he was. The government never fought his case on the grounds that he was to be extradited. They only insisted that he should be deported.

But deportation only means that a person is sent out of a country—it does not mean that he must be sent to any particular other country. He can choose, in fact, the frontier by which he leaves, if Soblen had been deported he might have chosen to go to one of the Iron Curtain countries where, no doubt, he would have been welcomed as a hero.

The government were, of course, aware of this. In the name of the Anglo-American alliance they ignored the laws which they themselves have made to make their system run more smoothly.

Soblen was a tragic dupe to the illusion that Russian capitalism is worth working and dying for. This does not obscure the fact that he was a victim of the callous cynicism which all capitalist powers—including Russia fall back on when it suits them.

South Africa

At the time of the Sharpeville shootings and the “Boycott South African” campaign many anti-apartheid spokesmen went to great lengths to show how South Africa’s economy would suffer as a result of world opinion and moral indignation.

Up to the present the owners of the means of life in South Africa are no more or less affected by trials and tribulations than their brothers in less race-prejudiced countries. In fact, some foreign industrialists think the place has some attraction?.

Textile chief Mr. Cyril Lord intends to move the contents of two cotton mills from Lancashire to the Bantu areas of the Union. He says the British Government has failed to protect textile interests against cheap Asian competition. Some 100 key men are offered jobs abroad; the rest face the sack.

A South African official in London said: “Mr. Lord will have the advantages of cheap labour among others.” (Daily Herald, September 12th, 1962.)

Will Mr. Lord continue to demand that the British Government protect their textile interests by keeping out his cheap South African cotton goods? Boycotters and “Ban this and that” mongers may note that, while workers may be threatened with ills such as unemployment, propertied groups do not suffer economically, even though they sanction or commit acts which are quite anti-social.

H-Bomb diplomacy (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Well, it had to happen. Of course, on all sides there was dismay, or fear, or anger, when first Russia and then the United States announced that they were going to resume testing nuclear bombs. And who wouldn’t feel like that. Ever since the atom bomb came mushrooming onto the world scene, there has been no lack of scientists to tell us how bad it is for our health to have the things tested. True, there is disagreement on the extent of the danger from the tests (the testing governments, as we may expect, like to play it down), but nobody has yet been able to say that they are anything but dangerous. But now the big tests have started again, and the fact is—it had to happen.

Because, as now seems fairly obvious, the nuclear powers agreed to stop tests in 1958 only after they had completed a significant stage in their nuclear weapon build up. At the time, we remember, the United States and the Soviet Union packed in a lot of tests, pushing themselves hard to beat the deadline. (Russia just failed to make it). These tests, with their predecessors, must have yielded enough knowledge for the nuclear powers to mull over whilst they were busily developing other aspects of their weapons. We all know that they have been polishing up on rocketry, perfecting their accuracy and boosting their range. Now, they are at the stage which demands further bomb tests, if the work of the last three years is not to be wasted.

The big snag is that, for political reasons, neither side wanted to be labelled as the one which started it all again. Over recent years, Russian foreign policy has often shown itself sensitive to such things. Perhaps Khruschev did not want Russia to be the country to break the test ban. Perhaps he held off as long as he could, until his hand was forced. There certainly seems to be in Moscow a belligerent, military pressure group which regards Khruschev’s policy as too conciliatory to the West, just as America and this country have their hotheads who are all for a showdown. We saw some of the work of the Moscow group when Khruschev was forced to break up the last Summit meeting in Paris. If these people have had their way again, that would explain the brusque manner in which the Kremlin announced the resumption of tests.

So it might have been a clever waiting game, with each side needing to test but reluctant to make the first move for fear of the political repercussions in countries like India and on the African continent. There is no reason to blame the U.S.S.R. for losing the game, nor to suppose that the Americans held out for humanitarian reasons. For when it came to it, they were just about as ready to let off their bombs again as were the Russians. We know that all capitalist countries like to describe their policies as being inspired by zeal for human benefits. But that simply does not even start to wash as far as nuclear weapons go. There is one certain way in which Russia, America and the rest could serve human interests, and solve the problem of nuclear warfare at the same time. They could destroy all their weapons and refuse to make any more.

That sounds like a pipe dream. In fact, it is a pipe dream. Capitalist nations build up their armouries because they must always strive for military supremacy, to defend the economic and commercial interests of their ruling class. Britain wants a base in Cyprus so that she can keep troops and weapons there, handy to move into Kuwait or any other trouble spot in the oil rich, economically vital Middle East. The United States wants its missile bases on the Continent, its Polaris ships in Holy Loch, because they cannot allow Russian capitalism to expand freely into Europe. Now these competing economic interests are an essential part of capitalism; if Russia and America were to settle their differences tomorrow, the day after we would have some other powers at loggerheads. Once you have such competition, you have armed forces. Once you have armed forces you have weapons, with each force trying for the weapon which will make it the most powerful of the lot. That sounds too simple for words, but it is in fact the reason behind the horror story of the development of weapons. That is the story to tell the unilateral nuclear disarmers, because it is the hundred per cent. reason for not being one of them.

Perhaps without realising it, Khruschev and Kennedy have punched a big hole in the case of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Let us suppose that the C.N.D. had its way, and that the governments of the world agreed to renounce the use and manufacture of nuclear weapons. All the diplomats would gather at Geneva, or some other equally pleasant place, to sign the instrument of renunciation. There would be moving speeches about a new era of human welfare, a better chance for children yet unborn: we all know what to expect on such occasions.

But the sombre fact is that, after the fine words have evaporated, treaties and agreements are worthless to the governments of capitalism. Germany’s signature to the 1919 treaty which disarmed her was worthless. The powers which signed the Locarno Treaty of friendship in 1924 were very soon at war with each other. The post war problem of Berlin is chock full of agreements which have been broken or ignored. And in the same way, now that it suits their purpose to do so, the nuclear powers have ignored their 1958 agreement to ban tests. There is no evidence to suggest that they would behave any differently about an agreement to renounce nuclear bombs completely.

There is nothing necessarily dishonourable in this. The diplomats in themselves might be men of sensitive’ integrity. It is the disputing nature of capitalist society which forces them to make, and break, their pledges. However deep in the mud they may lie, or however thick on the pavement they may sit, the unilateralists will never get around that problem.

In fundamentals, the policies of capitalist governments never change, although in more superficial matters there are opportunities to alter their immediate policy, and they often do so. For example, there is a lot of evidence that since Stalin’s death the Russian ruling class has tended to adopt a less belligerent attitude towards their opponents. Stalin, whatever else can be said of him, was one of capitalism’s strong men; his successors have shown a more subtle touch. That is what has made Moscow’s tough attitude on the tests that little bit more chilling.

How serious is it, then? Travellers from the United States and from Eastern Europe tell the same story — of people all in a panic about war. But we should keep the bomb tests in their perspective, and remember that weapons are not in themselves the cause of war. The next conflict will spring from the disputes of capitalism — from the Koreas, the Kuwaits, the Berlins. In the meantime, with their bomb tests, space shots, sub-Arctic submarines and the rest, the powers are only taking the normal capitalist precaution of arming themselves as destructively as they can.

Yes, the tests had to happen again. That may sound crazy, but that’s the way it is. Because for the majority of people, happy to keep capitalism going, that is the way they want it.

Ivan

Pathfinders: Big Red Button (2026)

The Pathfinders Column from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last year Hollywood director Kathryn Bigelow caused a minor stir with A House of Dynamite, an earnest and compelling warning against nuclear war in the tradition of Fail Safe (1964), or its comedy twin Dr Strangelove (1964). Unlike her other films it probably won’t win any gongs though, because it annoyed a lot of people.

Note, this paragraph contains spoilers. Critics complained that the film wasn’t a ‘proper’ story, with a beginning, middle and end, but instead was a looping repeat of the same chain of events from different character viewpoints. Nor did it have an ending. The viewer is just left hanging. Does the missile blow up the city? Does the US launch a retaliatory strike, and against whom? We don’t find out. But that’s ok, because the ending wasn’t the point.

The point of Dynamite is how we got ourselves into this situation in the first place. ‘We all built a house filled with dynamite… and then we just kept on livin’ in it,’ says one character. Jacobin magazine sniffily objected that the film doesn’t really say anything, and is essentially an ‘impotent and unserious exercise in handwringing’. We might sniffily object in turn that anyone who doesn’t advocate the immediate abolition of capitalism is also merely handwringing. Which would include all of the left including Jacobin magazine.

Because while capitalism has done a lot of good things for humanity, it’s also an out-of-control profit-making machine that comes with some catastrophic downsides. Runaway global warming isn’t even the worst of these. We can probably survive that, as a species. But who would survive nuclear Armageddon? Who would even want to?

For all the Boomer generation’s supposed privileges, like free higher education, affordable houses, job security and career advancement, they still had to grow up in the Cold War under the shadow of the Bomb, not knowing whether each day would be their last. Now Gen Z and Gen Alpha, on top of their other problems, may come to know what that feels like. ‘On January 27, 2026, the Doomsday Clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its history’.

Who’s got nukes?

Nine countries today have a total of around 13,000 weapons, down from the Cold War’s 60,000, but arsenals are increasing again. You can see the distribution at a glance at armscontrol.org. Most belong to Russia and the US, but China is fast playing catch-up. These are not just nukes, but BIG nukes. ‘For example, the warheads on just one US nuclear-armed submarine have seven times the destructive power of all the bombs dropped during World War II, including the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. And the United States usually has ten of those submarines at sea’ (ucs.org).

Who wants nukes?

Basically, every country’s ruling elite, following the National Rifle Association’s argument that in an armed society, you’re safer if you’re packing heat too. Ukraine gave up its nukes in 1994 and what happened? It got invaded. Iran keeps being bombed by Israel, but who dares bomb nuclear North Korea? The lesson is obvious and unavoidable. Disarmament is for losers. To paraphrase Mark Carney at Davos, if you’re not at the nuclear table, you’re on the menu.

There are fewer total nukes than in the Cold War era, so why is the threat worse today? Because treaties are easier when there are only two sides to negotiate. After the panic of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War finally settled into stasis with arms control treaties. Now there are three major nuclear powers, and more on the way. In February this year the 2010 START nuclear non-proliferation treaty expired, and no nuclear power shows any interest in reviving or replacing it. Instead, with Russia fighting in Ukraine, China threatening Taiwan, India and Pakistan having cross-border skirmishes, and the US under Trump threatening to remove the ‘extended deterrence’ umbrella from its own NATO allies, the gloves are off. Any country that can get its hands on nukes and more nukes is going gangbusters to do just that, and never mind other internal costs like health and social welfare.

The upshot is proliferation. Now even America worries that, despite its gigantic arsenal, it won’t have enough to go round if adversaries like Russia and China decide to join forces. There is a terrifying escalatory logic at play, as the Economist points out. A country may opt for ‘minimal deterrence’, having just enough nukes to survive a first strike and still deliver unconscionable devastation on enemy cities. But beyond minimal deterrence, military planners aim for ‘damage limitation’, which means having enough missiles to take out all the other side’s nuclear silos, submarines and mobile launchers. If this capacity is achieved, it only drives the other side to acquire further weapons, and so on indefinitely (‘Nukes of Hazard‘).

Even if war is not the immediate result, this multi-sided arms race makes the prospects of any binding arms treaty look more remote, and the chances of a Fail Safe-like accidental launch greater than ever. But we, the vast majority of the world’s people, didn’t do this. We are merely the grunts who do all the work of maintaining what we like to call civilisation. It’s the rich who have built a world of dynamite and are sitting on top of it, smoking fat cigars. Our only mistake is continuing to support and vote for the market system which created the rich, and their nukes, in the first place.

J Robert Oppenheimer, the self-styled ‘destroyer of worlds’, was along with Einstein a founder of the Doomsday Clock that now ticks perilously close to midnight. There’s still time for humanity to claw its way back from the brink, and use its miraculous science and technology purely for the collective benefit, but only if it stops deluding itself. Capitalism is not sustainable, nor our best option. It’s a death cult with a Big Red Button.

Paddy Shannon

Editorial: A more dangerous place (2026)

Editorial from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that the world has become a yet more dangerous place with states with nuclear weapons throwing their weight about, bullying weaker non-nuclear states and preparing for war with each other, some are suggesting reviving a campaign for nuclear disarmament so that at least the next world war won’t threaten the future of humanity.

We are all in favour of making the world working class aware of the dangers of nuclear war, but it is futile to expect capitalist states which possess nuclear weapons to agree to give them up, and so it also is futile to support a campaign to demand that they do. To campaign for this impossible demand would divert time and energy from campaigning for world socialism, the only framework within which disarmament, non-nuclear as well as nuclear, will ever be achieved.

Wars are built into capitalism. Preparations for war, the threat of war and actual wars will remain one of capitalism’s features as long as it lasts. Wars are fought between capitalist states over sources of raw materials, trade routes, markets, investment outlets, and strategic points and places to acquire and protect these. Initially, such disputes are dealt with through diplomacy.

However, in such diplomatic negotiations, the military strength of the sides plays an important part in the outcome. In international relations between states, ‘might is right’ and always was even before Trump openly admitted this to be the case. All states, therefore, have an interest in equipping themselves with the most up-to-date and most destructive weapons that they can afford, including nuclear.

As long as capitalism continues, it can be expected that more and more states will seek to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Some will succeed despite the efforts of the current nuclear-armed states to try to prevent this, in their own interest to deprive weaker rivals of the added bargaining strength that possessing such weapons would give them.

Even if nuclear weapons were to be outlawed (which they won’t be), wars would still continue and cause the immense destruction and mass killing that they always do, as can be seen from the current non-nuclear wars going on in Ukraine and Gaza.

The only way to get rid of nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war and its consequences for the future of humanity is to get rid of capitalism. This means that the efforts of socialists should be aimed at persuading workers to take political action to end capitalism and bring in its place a world society without frontiers in which the natural and industrial resources of the planet will be the common heritage of all. In short, worldwide socialism.

Then, and only then, will the threat of war, non-nuclear as well as nuclear, be removed and humanity be in a position to set about re-orienting production away from seeking profits and accumulating capital to solely and directly meeting human needs on the basis of ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

Notes by the Way: Something to Cheer About? (1947)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Something to Cheer About?

On November 6th Molotov announced that Russia had solved the secrets of making atom bombs.

The following is from the Daily Worker (7/11/47) : 

“When a mass meeting of 15,000 in the largest hall in Paris were told of the Molotov atom bomb statement, they rose to their feet and cheered enthusiastically for 20 full minutes.”

* * *

Scientists in Russia

In “Scientist in Russia” (Pelican Books Edition, 1s.), Professor Ashby tells what happened to a Russian scientist who opposed the scientific theory backed by the Russian Government. He writes as follows :

“The argument by heresy-hunt was used with deadly effect against the most outspoken and devastating critic of Lysenko, the famous Russian biologist N. I. Vavilov. Vavilov probably went beyond safe limits in condemning the new genetics as an outbreak of medieval obscurantism. He paid a high price. He was accused of dilatoriness in getting practical results, of lending support to fascists by his theory of centres of origin of crops, and of aligning himself with Bateson, the leader of genetics in England. In 1940 he was deprived of his directorship of the Institute of Plant Industry. He was subsequently imprisoned and he died, without any announcement or explanation, probably in 1943. The type of argument used against Vavilov is well illustrated by a comment made to me by a prominent animal physiologist in Moscow in October, 1945. ‘I reject Vavilov’s views,’ he said, ‘because Vavilov believed in Bateson, and Timiryazev condemned Bateson.’ The same argument has been put on paper by Prezent.” (P. 111).

In a letter to the Manchester Guardian, as in the book itself, Professor Ashby made it clear that such intolerance is not in his view the whole picture. He wrote :

“It is true that Vavilov was killed because he adhered to bourgeois genetics; it is no less true that there are to this day two professors of bourgeois genetics in the University of Moscow—no other kind of genetics is taught there, and the official text-book was written by an American. This sort of inconsistency is, in my opinion, the key to an understanding of Russian policy not only in science but also in public affairs.”—(Manchester Guardian, 1/11/47.)

To which the Manchester Guardian reviewer replied as follows :

“When Russian scientists see a political adventurer, half charlatan and half visionary, attacking the most eminent scientist of the country with pseudo-scientific, slogans steeped in political venom ; when they have to stand by helplessly and watch the victim standing at bay and being hounded in the end to prison and death (the campaign took about, ten years from start to finish) – then I am sure they felt exactly as any of us would if this happened here. The more dearly they love their country, the more bitter is their shame and horror, and their seeming unconcern is simply a token of the reigning political terror.”— (Manchester Guardian, 11/11//47.)

* * *

Why Financiers Like Labour Government

The following is from the Financial Times, (8/9/47):

“Despite a formidable total of bear points—inadequate supplies of coal, steel and other materials, reduced home consumption, dollar shortage, and a possible autumn Budget—there are more favourable aspects which, at the moment the market tends rather to ignore.

“This is the view expressed in their current circular by a leading firm of Stock Exchange brokers.

”‘There can be no comparison with conditions in 1931 when industry was facing a widespread saturation of its markets through over production,’ says the circular, ‘and while the sequence of events ten years earlier after the 1914-18 war were rather more closely comparable, there is one significant difference—the fact that a Labour Government is in office will surely mean that we need not fear widespread or long lasting strikes of the character which then caused the collapse of post-war industrial activity.”

* * *

Machinery and Unemployment

“NEW YORK, Friday.— Mechanisation and other agricultural developments threaten to make displaced persons of many American farmers, according to a report by the House of Representatives’ Agricultural Committee.

“More than 3,000,000 farm labourers were unemployed last year because of mechanisation, although crops beat all records.

“Further displacement of people now making some kind of living from the land is expected, says the report.–Reuter.”—(Evening Standard, 12/9/47.)

* * *

The U.S.A. and the Mediterranean

“Admiral Bieri, commanding the United States Mediterranean Fleet, has given an interview in Naples to the correspondent of the Milan daily Corriere Lombardo in the course of which he is alleged to have said :

”The United States Fleet is here and intends to stay here in Italian and Mediterranean waters. American interests in Europe will not cease with the signing of the German treaty. In accordance with the policy of the United States Navy Minister American forces will be allocated wherever there are American interests, in closest co-operation with the British’.”— (Manchester Guardian, 10/9/17.)

* * *

The Miners’ New Masters

“Mr. Bernard Rees, chairman of the National Union of Mineworkers’ lodge at Arrail Griffin Colliery, Abertillery, where 16,000 miners are on strike, said this afternoon :

” ‘Surface workers are still being paid wages at starvation level and the National’ Coal Board’s policy of subjection has been worse than anything we ever experienced under free enterprise.

” ‘N.C.B. officials are standing over men to time their movements, and the miners say that they are turning our colliery into something which resembles a concentration camp.’ “—(Evening Standard, 21/10/47.)

* * *

NOT the Socialist Party

“One of the richest men in England has just joined the Socialist Party. He is metal-magnate Steven James Lindsay Hardie, 62-year-old Scot, chairman of British Oxygen Company and its associated companies.

“British Oxygen has a capital of £6,000,000 and directly controls eight companies, with interests in South Africa, Australia, India find Norway.

“Total directorships held by Hardie, 27. Among them is vice-chairmanship of the £2,750,000 firm of Metal Industries, Ltd. As an industrialist Hardie makes metal products ranging from screws to ships.”— (Evening Standard, 14/10/47.)

* * *

Erstwhile Internationalist Proclaim National Sovreignt

The report to the Warsaw Conference at which the new Communist International organisation was formed was made by an influential Russian Communist, Zhdanov. Much of it was reproduced by the Manchester Guardian (3/11/47). One illuminating passage reads as follows:

“Taken up by the bourgeois intelligentsia, dreamers and pacifists, the idea of a ‘world government’ is being used not only as a means of ideologically disarming the people still defending their independence from the encroachments of American imperialism, but also as a slogan specially aimed at the Soviet Union, which constantly and consistently defends the principle of true equality and the maintenance of the sovereign rights of all nations, great and small.”

In the meantime Russia,, like the other capitalist Powers, keeps troops in occupation of several countries and is at the moment trying to induce the Persian Government to carry out the agreement to set up a Russian controlled oil concern in North Persia, the agreement having been forced on the Persian Government last year while Russian troops were in occupation.

The Passing Show: A sad, sad story (1966)

The Passing Show Column from the November 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

A sad, sad story

A week or two ago a four-page leaflet fell out of a laundry parcel. I read it later the same day in snatches, between mouthfuls of food at lunch time. It was a lament — in black, white and brown printing—by a group of launderers and dry cleaners, over the new taxes and other hardships they are having to bear under the present government. Did you know, for example, that the Selective Employment Tax will add another £7 million a year to the launderers' labour costs?

But the amusing note is struck in a paragraph on the prices “standstill”. The launderers have found a loophole (one of many) which allows them ‘‘some latitude" because their costs are affected by government action. "So you can see," they wail, ‘‘that our dilemma lies in balancing co-operation against financial suicide." A neat turn of phrase, coined to sugar the pill, because the local laundry has now slapped on a surcharge of a penny in the shilling.

Can you imagine yourself approaching your employer right now for a wage increase, and using the same sort of talk? Try moaning to him about balancing this against that, and see how far you get. He'll probably look at you as if you’ve gone mad, murmur something about the pay freeze, and bring the interview very effectively to a close. No good telling him you’re going to make a surcharge. He just won’t pay it to you. and that’s that. Your position is radically different from that of the launderers or any other capitalists. You have only your labour power to sell, and the government is determined that you are not going to get a pay rise for at least six months, but as far as price control in general is concerned the whole thing is just a very bad joke.

We have dealt with this situation elsewhere, so perhaps just one last thought is all that is necessary here. Were you one of those simple folk who believed what this and other governments have told you about being much better off if only you’d curb your wage demands? By that logic, then, you should be a lot better off by next spring. Perhaps you don’t believe it any more? No, and neither does the government.

Korea—some of the story

General MacArthur was sacked from his command because, among other things, he was pressing for the Korean war to be carried into China and for atom bombs to be used there. There was a sigh of relief from left-wingers when he went, and perhaps a murmur or two of applause for President Truman’s action.

Not long after that, Eisenhower became U.S. President and from his recent television talk (September 18) it seems that pressures to extend the “police action” did not all originate from MacArthur. In fact Eisenhower wielded the atom bomb as a strong diplomatic weapon in his armistice talks with the North Koreans and let them and the Chinese know that America was ready to use it if negotiations were protracted much longer.

It is only now, when the truth begins to trickle out in very small quantities, that people can begin to guess how perilously close to the brink of another big shooting war the capitalist world was drifting in the early .1950s. War is not fought to Queensbury rules; practically anything goes if one side or the other thinks it can get away with it. And nuclear weapons must have been a sore temptation to the U.S. authorities, whatever President Truman may have thought. 

The television interview was in the first of a series of programmes called The Struggle For Peace—surely a gigantic misnomer. Accordingly Eisenhower, the American forces alone sustained 135,000 casualties. Some “police action”; some “peace”.

The naked truth

You can be alternately bored and amused for an hour or two if you go and see one of the rather corny nudist films on in London's West End just now. 1 saw one called World Without Shame, and its plot, if such it can be called, is heavily laden with the delightfully naive message that if only we’d all take our clothes off, spend most of the day sunning ourselves and generally “get back to nature,” the problems of the world would be solved.

The story starts with a young man winning about £26,000 on the pools. He and his wife chuck up their jobs in London and go to live with a few chosen friends on a quiet Mediterranean island. “We’ll get away for good from the rat race. We’ll be completely self-supporting,” enthuses our young man, fingering the pools cheque in his pocket. So off they go. There is even the political hint in another of his reasons when he talks of “some maniac pressing the H Bomb button and blowing us all to hell.” Someone ought to have reminded the producers that the Mediterranean would hardly go unscathed in such an event.

Never mind. They settle on the island in their birthday suits, dividing their time between sleeping, eating, some work and a great deal of sunbathing. The sun always shines—someone seems to have forgotten that the weather can often be cold and wet even in those parts—and presumably we are to believe they all live happily ever after. The scenery is .beautiful, the direction and acting embarrassingly poor (you often find yourself laughing in the wrong places), and the pathetic naivete of the whole proposition glaringly apparent.

We have never thought much of the idea that you can buy yourself out of the rat race, although a few thousand pounds can of course make things a lot easier for you. But the effects of the scramble are all around you, and the notion of an oasis of self-sufficiency in a desert of capitalism is a non-starter. Even the film has to concede this in part when one of the characters, a painter, runs out of canvas, and gets fresh supplies by sailing to the mainland and selling some of his pictures.

Gaspers

“The new strategy demands a great increase in fertilizer production, which can only be achieved if foreign capital can be induced to invest heavily and quickly." (The Times correspondent on Indian food production, 19.9.66).

Dr. Seretse Khama, who was exiled from his homeland by the last Labour government after his marriage to a white woman, was yesterday created a Knight Commander of the British Empire.” (Guardian, 21.9.66).

“This is our socialism: assertion of social responsibility for our economic welfare and for the welfare of the individual family." (Harold Wilson Purpose in Power, quoted in Nova magazine interview, Sept., 1966).

“The Prime Minister, I understand, has no intention of involving himself in doctrinal arguments about the true meaning of socialism which he believes has done enough harm to the party already. (Nora Beloff in The Observer, 2.10.66).

“Sir Isaac Wolfson reports that because of the freeze, dividends which could have been 36½ per cent will be held at 32½ per cent, the same as last year.” (Daily Express, 11.10.66).

There is nothing in Mr. Wilson’s present policy which a Tory Prime Minister, faced by a comparable crisis, would necessarily reject. (Peregrine Worsthorne—Conservatism Today).

Eddie Critchfield

World View: Nuclear Testing (1996)

From the July 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

China’s nuclear test on 8 June sparked off a wave of protest. Greenpeace sent one of its ships to Shanghai. Demonstrators gathered outside Chinese embassies in Asia and Europe. Socialists are opposed to all weapon tests of any kind by any government but we know that governments don’t take any notice of protests.

They can't allow themselves to as under capitalism, where all states compete against each other for profits and spheres of influences, might is right. All capitalist states (and China is a capitalist state) must seek to arm themselves with the most effective weapons they can afford, including weapons of mass destruction like nuclear bombs.

The test ban treaty, which China says it will sign when its current series of tests is over is just a cynical move by the nuclear powers to maintain their monopoly of this particular weapon of mass destruction. Possessing nuclear weapons gives them an advantage which they don’t want any more of their rivals to possess. They won’t give up their nuclear bombs and missiles but they want to stop other states developing them. There will never be nuclear disarmament under capitalism so the threat of a nuclear war will exist as long as capitalism does.

Socialism is opposed to war and to what war represents. At the same time it is the only solution to the conditions that breed war. It is a new form of society in which the people of the world will work harmoniously together for their mutual benefit, for there will be no privilege, property or profit to cause enmity. No coercion will be needed because each part of the world will gain from co-operating harmoniously with the rest. With the establishment of socialism, i.e. a worldwide system without frontiers where the means of production and distribution are held in common and things are produced solely in order to meet human needs, war will disappear and humanity will have taken the first step out of the jungle.

Some anti-nuclear protesters, while agreeing that capitalism is the cause of war in the modern world, maintain that although a new social organisation may be necessary, a nuclear war would prevent the establishment of this, perhaps for all time, and therefore the anti-nuclear movement should be given priority over socialism.

This argument is logically unsound. It assumes that which has yet to be demonstrated. It pre-supposes that such a campaign will be able to prevent a nuclear war occurring. But for it to “succeed” it would have to have a majority of people who were opposed unconditionally to nuclear weapons, in the major countries of the world. These majorities would have to be prepared to oppose their own ruling classes, to put aside all, nationalistic feeling and be immune from all attempts of their rulers to influence them during periods of international crisis and tension.

Is it possible that such internationalist solidarity could be achieved by a movement which would be composed of so many fundamentally diverse elements and which lacked any clear conception of an alternative to our inhuman social system, No, only a revolutionary socialist consciousness could ensure such a united unshakeable attitude and in that event the question of opposition to nuclear weapons alone would be redundant.

Our view is that there is no way out of the contemporary dilemma other than by the building of a new kind of society. Socialists re-affirm the supreme relevance of Marx's classic exhortation—Workers of All Countries—Unite!

Chapter Five: Reforms At Election Time (1984)

From Samuel Leight's book, The Futility of Reformism

About 2½ weeks prior to the Mid-term General Election, during a televised speech on October 14, 1982 President Reagan, our leader at the helm, in a supposed non-partisan report on the economy, urged:

“We can do it, my fellow Americans, by staying the course.”

Meanwhile, below decks, the working class were at the oars and 11.6 million unemployed American workers were overboard in the high seas attempting to survive.

The candidates were all united on one basic issue—capitalism was unquestionably acceptable, but adjustments were needed and proper leadership was necessary. The reformist programs verified that the system was in no jeopardy whatsoever. The “leaders,” all apparently endowed with superior talents at problem-solving, masqueraded as opponents representing different ideologies that professed disagreements but maintained an unspoken alliance on fundamentals. The political stage-setting was customary; all items were concerned with the running of capitalism, while none stood for the interests of the working class.

Both the Republican and Democratic Parties echoed the same refrain of cutting down the federal deficits, keeping a hold on taxes and limiting governmental powers. A third candidate for the U.S. Senate race in Arizona came from the Libertarian Party. He sported an unconventional beard and ponytail, but appearances are no indication of revolutionary thinking. The Libertarian Party’s main thrust is to reform capitalism by attempting to curtail government interference until it eventually declines and is no longer needed. However, as they are not suggesting a replacement with socialism this notion becomes outlandish wishful thinking.

There were a total of 237 statewide ballot measures in 42 states with the Nuclear Freeze as the most common issue, followed by the Environment with four Western states seemingly concerned that the landscapes should not be sullied with discarded cans and bottles. Crime was also a prominent topic, and there were 27 ballot items dealing with taxes.

The State of Arizona had various measures on the General Election Ballot, submitted for voter approval or rejection. They ranged from establishing deposits and refunds for certain beverage containers, to a “nuclear freeze” proposal allied to a declaration of a “Peace Sunday.” The nine propositions were all described in a Publicity Pamphlet issued by the State of Arizona, typical of political trivia that was presented country-wide. The nuclear freeze issue was subsequently approved in 8 out of 9 states, with Arizona being the sole dissenter. Other specific issues included the regulation of ambulances and ambulance services; prohibiting bail for persons charged with or convicted of a felony who pose a danger to society; an amendment relating to the compensation of state elective and judicial officers; tax exemption for certain property in slum or blighted areas; the composition of the State Board of Education; establishing a system of permitting registration of voters at the time and place where they apply for a drivers license; and a recommendation by the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers to increase the salaries of Legislators.

All these propositions, were they to be approved or disapproved, bear no relevance to any of the real problems that beset propertyless workers, beleaguered with unemployment, insecurity, poverty and war. They constitute an enticement to the unwary to become involved in piddling non-issues.

The text of Proposition 201, dealing with the Nuclear Freeze issue, reads as follows:

“Be it enacted by the people of the State of Arizona:

Section I:Text of Transmittal. The governor shall prepare and transmit on or before December 1, 1982 the following communication to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and all members of the United States Congress:

  ‘The People of the State of Arizona recognizing that the safety and security of the United States must be paramount in the concerns of the American people, and further recognizing that our national security is reduced, not increased, by the growing danger of a nuclear holocaust between the United States and the Soviet Union which would result in millions of deaths of people in Arizona and throughout the nation; do hereby urge that the Government of the United States propose to the Government of the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides.’

Section 2: Peace Sunday — The Governor of the State of Arizona shall declare the last Sunday in May of each year to be Peace Sunday for the purpose of remembering those who died in combat, and to encourage the people of the State of Arizona to work for peace.”

Proposition 201 was accompanied by various arguments “for” and one “against.” The pro-argument given by the Phoenix Chapter of Business Alert to Nuclear War was unbelievably insensitive and tasteless with its heading in bold print: “Nuclear War And The Arms Race Is Bad For Business.” Immediately following this absurdity the first sentence reads as follows:

“The most profound result of accelerating our nuclear arms race is the eventual destruction of our people and our society, along with our business-economic system.”

Granted that the sequence in the sentence places “people” before the “business-economic system,” but to even mention the destruction of the system, and to apparently mourn its passing, in the same context of a catastrophe that could eliminate humanity, gives an insight into the warped approach that some supporters of capitalism possess. To discover such sentiments within a government publication would pre-suppose a sympathetic reaction from the powers-that-be. Of one thing you can be sure—socialist attitudes were not aired. Many religious groups were in evidence along with various bodies and individuals all clamoring for peace; arguing that with the present build-up of nuclear weapons “enough is enough,” and “the freeze is the first step.”

The argument against a Nuclear Freeze has been the assertion from President Reagan and his supporters that the U.S.S.R. is ahead of the U.S.A. in its nuclear power, and they want a verifiable reduction in arms to equal levels, prior to a freeze; coupled with the problem of appropriately being able to monitor Russian weapon development.

The whole question is insoluble, impractical and a complete waste of time. First, the colossal build-up of nuclear armaments has already been accomplished, it is a fait accompli. A so-called freeze will do absolutely nothing to diminish the potential for destruction that already exists. Second, the cause of war is inherent within capitalism—this is a chronic condition that is both irremovable and incurable as long as the system survives. Given a society organized as a gigantic market place, wars will continue to be fought over private property and related issues when diplomacy and negotiations fail. The big question is: will the “small” wars continue on a daily basis, as they have for decades, or will they be interrupted by a worldwide nuclear disaster? At the present time the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R. have the capability of destroying life on earth many times over. We are therefore being asked to sanctify the existing nightmare by calling a halt to further advancement of the madness, but at the same time doing nothing to eradicate the cause of the problem. If it were possible to introduce a so-called nuclear freeze tomorrow the conditions that could activate World War III would still remain—in fact, they always will until the system is removed. Incidentally, it was estimated in 1976 by the authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute that within nine years about 35 countries will be able to manufacture atomic weapons. China joined the nuclear “club” in 1968; Britain, France and India are “members,” and many other nations may already have the weapons in their possession. The situation, therefore, becomes a global one, not limited exclusively to the two major powers, or for that matter within their control.

A “freeze” on nuclear armament production would be “bad business” for certain arms manufacturers; good business for the capitalist class as a whole who would be saved substantial tax sums. It would not change the status of the working class one iota. The possibility of both classes being wiped out by a nuclear war would remain undiminished, freeze or no freeze.

Crying out for peace, joining in peace marches, creating peace movements, deploring the nuclear build-up and writing pleading letters to heads of governments, are all activities that are useless from a practical standpoint because they ignore the cause of war. They are always fully manned by the reformists and supporters of capitalism—the culprit that is never properly identified or condemned, except by the socialist. Ironically, many of the “peace proponents” in the past have broken ranks when wars occur, willing to justify their change of policy under the banners of newly discovered ideals and revitalized nationalism.

The reformists, disregarding the causes of war and the true nature of capitalism, have permitted an unprecedented arsenal of the most horrendous weapons to be created. Then, after the stock-piles acquired a grotesque over-kill capacity, they once again ply their trade with fresh reforms that will preserve the creation but hopefully would prevent its further growth. Should the so-called freeze ever take place the world would still be left as a sitting target because the nuclear weapons would not have been deactivated but would still be ever-ready to fulfill their original function should the buttons be pressed. Capitalism has so far not been able to satisfactorily solve the disposal problem of ordinary nuclear waste, let alone the elimination of nuclear armaments which are firmly established as a supposed deterrent, akin to mutual terror, ora first-strike possibility.

It can be assumed that a nuclear war, should it erupt, will not be started as a result of democratic procedures, but will occur either through a surprise first strike initiative or through some kind of miscalculation or technical error—unlikely, but still a possibility, “Peace Sundays” and “Nuclear Freezes” notwithstanding. Further, according to the 1982-83 edition of Jane’s Weapons Systems, a London-based military survey, war in space is now feasible and aircraft-launched anti-satellite systems are the latest developments in the U.S. and Soviet arsenals, likely to destabilize the balance of power. Add to all the foregoing the existing “conventional,” germ and chemical warfare weaponry and the very contemplation of reformism as a practical solution becomes illogical and pathetically incomprehensible.

 II

Candidates for political office nation-wide discussed other issues that included unemployment, social security, crime and violence, a balanced budget, the environment, military affairs, abortion, prayer in the schools, water needs and education. Most of these questions ultimately involve decisions related to, directly or otherwise, the allocation of funds, the determination of priorities, together with the collection of revenues to defray expenditures. They are business matters concerned with the running of capitalism. When workers become involved in such considerations they abrogate their own interests in favor of their masters’.

Unemployment, referred to elsewhere, defies the rhetoric of the politicians together with the ingenuity of the professional economists. In times of world recession it assumes an international character that affects the majority of the countries, especially those that find themselves dependent upon each other for trade. The malady does not limit itself to national borders and therefore solutions are not discovered fortuitously by the candidates at election time. Capitalism always runs its course, controlling the performance of the administrators more than they would care to confess.

“Social security” is a misnomer for the reorganization of the misery and poverty of the elderly. Most receive meagre allowances at the age of 65 and, on average, survive for only a few years afterwards. The fund has reached a financial crisis with an expected need for new revenues of between $150 billion to $200 billion through the next decade, as reported by the Social Security Review Commission in November, 1982. Assuming that the system is kept afloat, it guarantees the recipients a sub-standard poverty level for their few remaining years.

When one considers the legal theft that occurs when workers produce surplus values for which no payment is given, and the legal violence unleashed by the state machine when wars are prosecuted, the illegal acts of individuals, deplorable as they might be, are put into proper focus. To discuss the pros and cons of handgun control, for example, and at the same time condone a society that can produce a nuclear war, which could destroy untold millions, is nothing short of political madness displaying topsy-turvy priorities. The imposition of stiffer penalties for crimes, the expansion of jail facilities, the attempts to control drug smuggling, are all doomed for failure. They deal only with the effects of a system that spawns anti-social behavior patterns caused primarily by antagonisms, conflicts and situations related to insecurity, poverty and private property. A study conducted by the Center for Applied Social Research at Northeastern University in Boston was published in an issue of the journal Crime & Delinquency in 1981. The study of capital punishment in New York from 1907 to 1963 indicated that the number of homicides increased slightly in the month after an execution was carried out. The researchers called the implication of their findings “ominous.” Of course, the evidence has always confirmed that punishment has never been an adequate deterrent to acts of personal violence and crime. Socialism cannot be expected to immediately eradicate 100 per cent of all forms of violence. There would certainly be no comparison, however, between the violence produced by capitalism as compared to the anti-social acts of a small minority, in socialism, who might well be genuine cases requiring medical attention, possibly hangovers from the previous era.

The Reagan administration has conceded that deficits in the Budget could crest between $150 billion to $200 billion for fiscal 1984. The politicians clamor for a balanced budget but the problem remains. This is not a working class issue—workers are challenged enough attempting to balance their own budgets, let alone those of the ruling class. It’s their system—let them figure it out, while we introduce a replacement!

Years ago the military sahibs of the British Empire, ensconced in their comfortable clubs, would delight in theoretical discussions of military maneuvers relating to past and present wars, sometimes using cruets and silverware to simulate the movements of armies. The technology of destruction has now escalated to the nuclear age. Their modern-day counterparts in the U.S. are now engrossed in the analysis of theB-1 bomber program, the contemplated MX missile horror, together with a host of other major weapons systems. Working class participation in such matters is tantamount to becoming involved in grandiose schemes for their own possible future demise. Alongside of these deadly considerations, incongruous concern is shown for “the environment” with the proper monitoring of air standards and the extension of cleanup deadlines. The reformists are intent on both a “strong America” and “a clean one.” We can only hope that the first aspiration does not, at some time, negate the second.

Abortion is a non-political issue as far as the socialist is concerned—a personal matter between the individuals, their medical advisors, and their conscience. It is presently being used by the politicians to suit their own purposes of demagoguery and hypocrisy. When politicians and priests evoke a supreme reverence for life by opposing abortion, they contradict their professed compassion and become charlatans with their support of wars and their acceptance of the conditions that give rise to them.

The educational system is under continual surveillance because it has the responsibility to produce potential workers equipped with the ability to function properly in a highly complex and technological society motivated by the profit incentive. In addition, pupils receive a nationalistic indoctrination that proves beneficial for military recruitment purposes and the prosecution of war. Currently, a minor furor has developed amongst candidates as to whether organized prayer should be allowed in schools. The socialist opposes all the supernatural, man-made fantasies of religion wherever they may occur, either inside or outside the schools. To the extent that the working class become socialist, religion will be rejected; socialist parents can then be relied upon to rebut any religious nonsense that the schools might offer.

The Los Angeles Times reported October 24, 1982 that 50 school officials recently met secretly with Attorney General George Deukmejian, the Republican candidate for Governor in California, who subsequently was returned to office. One might be deservedly skeptical of such anti-democratic procedures. However, Deukmajian did spell out to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that:

“Teacher strikes are illegal, and I will work to keep them so.”

Quite obviously the good governor is not a strong union man; neither apparently does he favor open public meetings, irrespective of the issues under discussion.

For the fourth time George Wallace was re-elected Governor of Alabama. It is interesting to recall that this apparently “reformed” segregationist and racist emerged on the national scene in 1963 when he personally blocked the school house door in an attempt to prevent federal officials from enrolling a black student in the previously segregated University of Alabama. A majority of black voters must have forgiven him, because without their support he would not have won as easily as he did, 60 per cent to 40 per cent. Apparently, in this instance, one past generation must surely have learned a lesson about bigotry which, sad to relate, was soon forgotten by another.

The final outcome of the election from the 66 million voters on November 2, 1982 was that the Democratic Party picked up 26 House seats and 7 governorships, with no gains in the Senate. One oilman, seeking re-election, spent $14 million, and lost; another shopping center tycoon $7 million, and lost; and other candidates also spent massive sums of their own money to no avail. Money is therefore not the automatic key to political victory. As is usual a large bloc of voters abstained from voting, and one wonders why. Were they apathetic, apolitical, disillusioned, or perhaps in need of a new, revolutionary presentation? We can but hope so. One thing is certain. The only clear message that the American working class who voted gave, was: carry on with capitalism. However, nothing is static, the future lies ahead, and the working class have a mission yet to be accomplished.

The 1984 U.S. General Election found eight Democratic Party presidential candidates competing with each other. One would reasonably assume that as they all belong to the same Party, they would more or less be in agreement with each other on basic reformist proposals. Superficially, at any rate, such is not the case. Once again, the ambitious leaders must convey the impression that they as individuals possess the talent, knowledge and charisma to solve problems that have defied their predecessors for well over two centuries.

In a three-hour, nationally televised marathon debate on January 15, 1984 at Dartmouth College, they peddled and argued the same old, time-worn hackeneyed issues. Proposals for reducing budget deficits were aired—but these were vague in content, without specific price tags. Cuts were favored for the military and agricultural programs, as well as holding down health care costs; a raise in taxes was suggested and additions for selected social programs. “Defense,” or rather armament strategies, were debated; a consensus agreed that a woman should receive strong consideration asa running mate. Apparently there was more agreement than controversy on the nuclear weapons freeze issue. The candidates criticized the U.S. military position in Lebanon, but no one volunteered exactly how to get out.

Walter Mondale, the front runner and former vice president, said that he would have a strong and effective policy to deal justly with all workers, businesses and farmers (my emphasis). Does such puerile, evasive nonsense deserve comment? At one point in the debate Mondale was challenged by one of his Party opponents who said, “You cannot lead this country if you have promised everybody everything.” Mondale denied he had done any such thing. Then he added, I think most pointedly, “America is nothing if it isn’t promises. That is what America is about.”

With some modifications, that is what reformism is all about— unfulfilled promises, wasted energy, and prolonged futility.

Editorial: Yet another Middle East war (2025)

Editorial from the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Israel, the US’s rogue proxy in the Middle East with its own agenda, initiated the current war by attacking Iran with the declared aim of physically preventing it acquiring the nuclear bomb.

According to Netanyahu, Iran’s possession of the nuclear bomb would present an existential threat to the state of Israel. The suggestion is that, if Iran had the bomb, it would use it to annihilate Israel. This is just propaganda as Iran wants the bomb for the same reason as the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India and Pakistan have it – as a deterrent against being attacked. If Iran did have the bomb it would be very foolish of it to use it against Israel as Israel itself is a nuclear state.

The real reason for the war – and why the United States, Britain and the others are behind Israel in practice – is to maintain the balance of power in the Middle East. In relations between capitalist states ‘might is right’ and Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would increase its ‘might’ and so shift the balance in its favour. It’s this that the Western states, who currently dominate the area because it is the source of much of the oil and gas they need to power their production, wish to prevent, ideally by diplomacy, but Israel has forced their hand.

Who controls the oil, and the trade routes and pipelines to get it out, has been the stake in all the many wars in the Middle East since the end of the last World War. On the surface the issue appears to be the existence of the state of Israel, established in 1948 as a ‘Jewish homeland’ on land that been the home for generations of non-Jews. This, in itself, was bound to create resentment but it might have worked had not the United States decided to build up Israel’s military might as its proxy on the ground in the region to defend its economic interests there.

The rulers of Iran may invoke religion as why they don’t want a Jewish state to control Jerusalem but they are well aware of the economic issues at stake. Here is what Ayatollah Khameini declared on 4 October last year:

‘The insistence of the United States and its allies on ensuring the security of the usurping regime serves as a cover for their murderous policy of transforming the [Zionist] regime into a tool to seize all the resources of this region and use it [this regime] in major global conflicts. Their policy is to transform this regime into a portal for exporting energy from West Asia to the West and importing Western goods and technologies to the region, to ensure the survival of the usurping regime and the dependence of the entire region on them’ (translated from French).

Which capitalist states control the economic resources of the region is of no concern to the workers and other ordinary people living there. The civilians on both sides are being killed and wounded and buildings and useful infrastructure destroyed, as happens in all wars, for an issue that is only of capitalist concern. The interest of workers in both Israel and Iran is to join with workers everywhere to bring to an end the war-prone capitalist system.

News in Review: The Pope and peace (1965)

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

The Pope and peace

Of course it made some nice headlines for the newspapers; but the one thing the Pope's visit to New York last month was not concerned with was peace.

It is difficult to imagine anyone being taken in by the Pope’s speech, so numerous and familiar are the appeals and declarations which are constantly being made on the subject—often by politicians who are up to their necks in war.

None of the world leaders who make these appeals ever has the slightest difficulty in excusing the wars in which he gets involved. None of them ever has any difficulty in excusing the most horrible of atrocities; all of them are concerned with the national interests of their ruling class before any considerations of humanity.

In one way, it was fitting that the Pope should make his appeal at the United Nations, for that more than anything highlighted its ineffectuality. UNO has a function when the smaller nations are involved in a comparatively trivial dispute, which the bigger powers want to see cleared up. But when the stakes are higher, it is a different matter.

UNO was helpless in Korea. It could do nothing over the Berlin crisis. The vague noises it made over Cuba were not allowed to divert Russia and America from their stern purpose. It stands helplessly by now, as the war rages in Vietnam.

Just as the great powers of capitalism do not allow UNO to affect the way in which they protect their interests, so they do not tolerate interference from religious leaders. The Pope has his uses to capitalism, but international politics cannot be settled in the Vatican.

In any case, what are any appeals for peace worth? War in the modern world does not happen by accident, or because the leaders of world religion have omitted to make a speech about peace. War is a direct result of the nature of capitalism and there is no more ardent supporter of that system than the Catholic Church.

That is why Catholics are in no two minds, when a war breaks out. With the blessing of their Church, they take arms—often killing their fellow Catholics on the other side.

The time for a religious leader to speak out is when the shooting starts. But to do so would be to challenge the capitalist social system; it would be to expose religious hypocrisy, with which the churches constantly divert working class energies from the essential task of building a world of peace and brotherhood.

It is only necessary to state this proposition, to see how ridiculous it is.

New York had quite a time during the Pope’s flying visit. And when he was gone they went back to the business of running capitalism; in factories and offices the American workers were still exploited, the Stock Exchange went on with its dealings, in the South the Negro was still persecuted. And the Pentagon was still running the show in Vietnam.

Indonesia

“PALACE COLONEL OUSTS SOEKARNO.'’ 

“JAKARTA CLAIMS COUP CRUSHED.”

Conflicting headlines—always a sign that nobody is quite sure what is going on, but everybody’s doing their best—brought Indonesia once again onto the front pages. Not that Indonesia is out of the news for very long. This “Republic of Islands”, as one newspaper aptly described it, is the largest country in South East Asia.

Like so many new States that were once colonies of a European power, Indonesia is a rather ramshackle affair, with great difficulty in holding its scattered parts together. The boundaries of these colonies were largely fixed by what the colonisers could grab, and hold against the attacks of their greedy rivals.

They are not always particularly easy to administer as an independent state. In addition Indonesia has terribly poverty. This has not however prevented their new ruling class from embarking on a continual policy of Imperialist expansion, aimed at making Indonesian the dominant power in South East Asia.

One’s mind goes back to 1945, when the “Dutch East Indies” proclaimed their' Independence, and began a fight against Holland. It was one of the first to do so, and great hopes were held by the “Left” as to their prospects.

“Australian Unions” organised strikes to hold up shipments of arms, and “Hands off Indonesia” placards were carried on May Day in London. Independence was gained, and their followed the usual process of exploitation by the new ruling class that had replaced the old.

The main conclusion was that this revolt, which appears to have been “Communist” inspired, would weaken Indonesia’s ties with China. This may be the case, but should anybody happen to be worrying, if it suits the interests of the ruling classes in these two countries, the ties will soon tighten up again.

Gas strike

Towards the end of last September British Petroleum announced that they had struck natural gas beneath the North Sea, although they were not sure that they had found enough to make it a paying proposition.

This was the first strike of any importance in the search which eight groups are carrying on in the North Sea, at a cost somewhere near £100 million. At that price, they obviously hope to find something worthwhile and the news from BP gave them the first glimmering of hope that they will do so.

Of course, the press rhapsodised upon the benefits which the gas strike is supposed to be bringing the people of this country. But a couple of weeks later another piece of news put the matter in a different perspective.

On 6th October the Dutch and British governments signed an agreement which fixed the exact line dividing the areas over which each of them has the right to grant licences to drill for gas and oil. The British government already had applications for licences from the big oil firms in their pending trays.

What this means is that, in the search for valuable raw materials and fuels, the British and Dutch ruling classes have simply annexed the North Sea, giving themselves the legal powers to do so in the process.

This is something like what happened when the newborn capitalist powers were opening up the world to their manufacturers and commerce. They simply moved in and stole vast areas of the world, suppressed the inhabitants, fixed the borders, signed agreements with other international robbers and gave licences and concessions to their own companies to exploit the place. 

There is, of course, no need to suppress the fish in the North Sea. But the carve-up of the area could be as much a source of dispute in the future as was the division of Africa and the Far East.

We are being told that nothing but joy and plenty will result from the discovery of gas and oil under the North Sea. Yet there are no grounds to believe this.

How much happiness did the Congo’s rubber bring? What contribution to the peace of the world has the oil in the Middle East made? What were the effects on the war in Algeria, when the French discovered- oil and gas under the Sahara?

Capitalism is a competitive system, in which rival powers fight ruthlessly for advantage. In this set-up, the discovery of sources of natural wealth often turn out to be anything but a blessing for mankind.

If the North Sea is the El Dorado which some of the experts think, it may well become another sore spot. The agreements which now divide the area will be challenged by those powers which arrived too late to get a share. Legal arguments—and perhaps worse—will be used in the dispute; there will be the customary declamations about “right” and “heritage”. And who dare say what the end of it will be?

Indian A-Bomb

The plain fact about the Indian government’s much publicised decision, several years ago, not to produce an atomic bomb is that it is too good to be true.

And so it is turning out.

India's renunciation meant that some people thought of her as a country where human interests were put above those of narrow nationalism. India was held up as an example for the rest of the sabre-rattling world to follow.

This has never been consistent with the way India acted over, say Goa and Kashmir—incidents which made Delhi’s attitude to atomic weapons look suspiciously like one inspired by anything but humanitarianism.

In any case, the Indian government always made it clear that, if the international situation demanded it, they would make the Bomb. For a long time they have been working on the basics of a nuclear weapon—their separation plant near Bombay, which produces plutonium, has been working for over a year.

And now comes the news from New Delhi that the pressure from Indian military and political circles to make the Bomb is growing, and that (according to The Guardian of 27th September last) the first one may be exploded sometime next year.

The campaign in favour of an Indian Bomb, to go with the rest in the world, has gathered strength from recent events. Indian military men complain that Pakistan had the advantage of advanced American weapons in the fighting in Kashmir, and that the threat from China looms ever larger.

They also claim that the old argument, that the Bomb was too expensive, has been disproved. The estimated cost is now around £20 million. There is no record yet of anyone in India protesting at this sort of money being spent on weapons by a country which has such a chronic problem of hunger and disease.

Such considerations are irrelevant. The reasons for making the Bomb are always the same; one senior Indian officer summed them up: " . . if national interests are at stake . . . we have no alternative but to go ahead.”

Everyone is familiar now with the argument of “national interests”. It is used to excuse any suffering, any atrocity, any betrayal. It is an argument which will be used by many nations if and when a global nuclear war ever starts.

It is only appropriate that we should be hearing the same argument now that India may be getting ready to go back on her word over atomic weapons. It is also appropriate that India, who has done so much to foster the idea that there are such things as oases of nobility among the murderous desert of capitalism. should herself expose the fallacy.