Holocaust 2 (1982)

From the September 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

The campaign of genocide which is the current military policy of the State of Israel is a tragic reflection of the real face of nationalism. The mythical image of Zionism as a movement of pioneering, progressive, pious, peace-loving nation-building has been more than exposed by the ruthless attempt to liquidate the city of Beirut “for reasons of national security”.

In early August the Canadian ambassador surveyed fifty-five separate areas of Beirut and declared that “this would make Berlin of 1944 look like a tea party”. The International Red Cross has declared that “at least 80 per cent of the casualties are civilians” (Sunday Times, 8 August 1982). Our TV screens abound with pictures of families which have lost fathers, mothers and children—victims of a senseless struggle of national ambition. In early August a block of flats in West Beirut was destroyed and nearly all of its civilian inhabitants died. Not for a long time has the horror of capitalist war been quite so evident as in the Lebanon.

As ever, when there is killing to be done, God’s rep on earth is to be found sanctifying it. Just as God’s Anglicans were blessing the British killers as they set off for the Falklands, so the British Chief Rabbi, in an interview in the Guardian on August 7, had to say that “to the extent that the only principle governing this action is one of self defence, or that of the security of the State, yes, Biblical or divine sanction can be claimed for it”. One might ask God’s spokesman precisely how a soldier carrying a gun or a pilot dropping a bomb can be engaging in self-defence against unarmed children, but then, one might as well engage in such a seminar with the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

The curse of nationalism is not new. Let it be clear that unlike certain anti-Zionists, socialists do not oppose the tunnel-vision mentality of nationalism only when it is Jewish. To us, the flag-waving, trigger-happy Zionists are no more ignorant and abhorrent than those who have swallowed the diversionary, nationalist message of the PLO. Socialists do not take sides in national conflicts because it is not our aim to support one or other of the competing capitalist or would-be capitalist factions, each of which seeks its own territories and exploitable populations. No socialist will ever fight to defend a border—we want to do away with the divisiveness of countries and states.

But there is a bitter irony about Zionist nationalism. In Dachau, the site of the old Nazi murder camp, a permanent exhibition stands as testimony to the atrocities committed in modern times against millions of Jews. That the survivors of such persecution sought refuge in a nation of their own—a country which would never persecute or exterminate anyone and would be free of the perverse national chauvinism on which Nazism was based—is not difficult to understand. In Israel, and here in Britain, not a few Zionists are now beginning to ask themselves the question: “How can it be that the country created by the holocaust is now inflicting similar misery on people who are just as defenceless as the Jews in Europe had been?” Some of them are blaming Begin. Others say that the PLO has pushed the Israeli government to such measures. The truth is that those who saw a solution in Zionist nationalism—in having their own laws, prisons, borders, army and weapons of destruction—were naive. Their form of nationalism is no less aggressive or bigoted than is ever the case under a system of society where the laws of the jungle are presented as being the rules of civilised conduct. Every nation’s flag is dripping with the blood of its enemies; every ruling class pays for its power in other people’s lives.

Nationalism can never be a solution to the problems of oppression: it was not for the Jews; it would not be for the Palestinians. The problem is class, not national, racial, or religious origins. As a class, workers have no country. The British do not own Britain, the majority of Israelis have no significant economic stake in Israel, the impoverished Arabs do not share their exploiters’ national wealth. There are two classes in society: those who possess without producing and those who produce without possessing. Wars are fought over the interests of the capitalists and would-be capitalists. In the 1940s an aspirant Israeli ruling class, represented by such vicious thugs as the Stern gang (of which the present Israeli Foreign Minister was a member), used terrorist tactics to secure their goal. Having obtained power violently, who could have expected the Israeli ruling class to have maintained power except by the continued use of violence? Israeli workers identify with the aims of their rulers—they see their national identity as more important than their class identity with Arab and other workers. In this they are dangerously mistaken.

The socialist solution to the Middle East conflict is not a piecemeal policy. We do not advocate re-drawing the border or political deals or the exchange of one (American-backed) ruling class for another (Russian-backed) one. These amount to mere rearrangements of the capitalist furniture. Only when Israeli and Arab workers join the worldwide movement for a society without class ownership, nations or armies will the war finally cease.

This is not a pious hope for the future. Workers are dying in Beirut and there is every sign that more will be killed. What is now a local war could turn into something rather bigger. Who will stop the killing once and for all—Habib, Begin or Arafat? To expect this to happen is like hoping for Brezhnev and Reagan to shake hands, make up and disarm. We leave such dreams to the Utopians who are fond of calling themselves Realists. For socialists, it is clear that if there is ever to be peace it is those who are the sitting targets of war who must actively pursue it.

Steve Coleman

Preparing for war again (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The world is in a pretty mess, and our newspapers are full of the news that the various nations are getting ready, rearming, for yet another, a third, world war.

No one can view this position with equanimity. Two world wars in one generation, with colossal destruction everywhere. Our masters, the capitalist class, have no solution or alternative, but to prepare for a third world war. The socialist is the only alternative policy, that is why we persist in advocating it to you. Look where you will, you will find no other solution.

We read a statement by Lord Boyd Orr, reported in Reynolds (7/8/49). He thinks we would be idle but for war work. He said:—

“ If the Great Powers were not spending more than one-third of their national revenues preparing for the third world war, the unemployment position would be far worse.

“If by some miracle peace descended on the earth and men were released from the Forces and from making bombers and other weapons, the strain would be too great for our economic structure.”

Yet there is still a housing shortage; we still have to exist on short rations. Surely this labour, wasted in producing war goods, could be more usefully employed.

But, No, say our capitalist masters, the workers must not get higher wages, must still exist on rationed food, so that our capitalist order may prepare for another war, destroying once more on a wholesale scale. Where does all this work and production for war get us? After yet another war, we shall surely return to what we are experiencing now. It gets us nowhere, poverty and starvation and worry for the masses, more and more wealth for the master class.

No, fellow-worker, this is all wasted effort; it perpetuates the system of Capitalism, the system which exploits us.

We ask you to seriously examine our attitude, and if you agree, as you surely must agree, we ask you to help us in our propaganda, to spread the knowledge of Socialism among our fellow-workers, by joining the S.P.G.B., and so do your share towards making this a better world. Help us to ABOLISH the capitalist system which prepares for wars and then indulges in an orgy of destruction. 

 Floro.

Answer to a Correspondent: Some questions about Socialism. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some questions about Socialism.

(Reply to E. S, Dorset.)

(1) Under Socialism there would be no persons living on incomes derived from the private ownership of property, whether in the form of rent, interest or profit. The landlord, like the owner of shares, derives his income from the wealth produced by the working class.

(2) You ask whether there would be taxation under Socialism, and if not, how would “social services” be carried on. Taxation is only necessary in a social system in which there is a privileged class and a subject class. Taxation in a modern capitalist country exists in order to enable the Government to maintain armed and civil forces, pay interest on money borrowed from investors, and meet the cost of so-called “social services," i.e., old-age pensions, health and unemployment insurance, etc. The latter would, of course, be unnecessary under Socialism, for each person would have free access to the necessaries of life, and the old and infirm would, therefore, not need private or State charity. Under Socialism all services would, in the real sense, be “social services,” for all able-bodied persons would co-operate in the production of wealth, to be consumed by the whole population, without distinction of class. There would be no investors.

(3) When goods are produced for the purpose of being freely available to all the members of society, there would be no place for a money system. A money system can exist only where there is private ownership of the means of production and of the products.

(4) The danger of war can only be removed by abolishing the underlying causes. The underlying cause of war in the modern world is capitalist economic rivalry. When goods are produced for use and not for sale at a profit, the incentive to seek foreign markets or areas of foreign investment will disappear, and with it the danger of war between rival groups of capitalist nations. Those who misunderstand the nature of modern wars, and regard war as if it were a method of preventing individuals from creating disorder, doubt the possibility of abolishing war by abolishing private ownership. Society would, under any system, have to take steps, if necessary, to prevent individuals or minorities from acting contrary to the basic needs of society, but action of that kind, when private ownership is abolished, would not bear any resemblance to modern war. Modern war is not a process of suppressing law-breakers, but a clash of interests between rival capitalist groups. Neither in its objects nor in its methods can it be compared with such suppression of anti-social conduct by individuals.

(5) Workers would not be “graded as regards wages," for there will be no wages. Wages are the price paid by the capitalist when he buys the labour-power of the workers. Under Socialism there will be neither a capitalist class nor a working class, but all will be simply members of society.

You ask if a man with a technical training will be paid more than a man without such training. Under capitalism the employer has to pay wages according to the requirements of each particular kind of worker. This is based ultimately on the cost of producing each kind of labour, i.e., the food, clothing, shelter, etc., of the workers and the cost of training. Under Socialism, if society needs a certain number of men and women trained for particular kinds of work it will see to it that the desired number are trained to meet the needs of society. No question of paying higher or lower wages, or any wages, can arise.

(6) You ask if the owners of industrial concerns will be compensated. Once you grasp clearly what Socialism is you will see that it is not a question of whether compensation is, or is not, desirable. Compensation is impossible.

Under capitalism the one basic feature which distinguishes capitalists from workers is that the capitalists possess the privilege of living without working, that is, of living on the wealth produced by the workers.

Socialism is impossible until that privilege is taken away, and having taken it away there remains no conceivable method by which the former capitalists could be compensated. They must either retain their privilege—which means capitalism, or they must lose it in order to make Socialism possible.

On the other hand, the loss of capitalist privilege will usher in a system of society in which all members of society—including the ex-capitalists—will have a degree of comfort and security, and possibilities of leading a full life. The ex-capitalists will possess the same opportunities as everybody else, more that that they cannot have.

Ed. Comm.

To the brink in Vietnam (1965)

From the September 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Second World War broke out the Socialist Party of Great Britain had no hesitation in declaring its opposition. We maintained throughout that war the same position as we had taken in 1914. We based our attitude on the Socialist principle of International working-class unity and argued that the war resulted from the commercial rivalry between capitalist nations over such things as world markets, spheres of influence and investments, and mineral resources, etc. From the Socialist viewpoint workers do not own countries, empires or vested interests, they do not own the wealth which they alone produce nor the factories and so on where production takes place. Therefore, when rival capitalists fall out, as they constantly do, over the division of the wealth they have plundered from the workers, no working-class interest can be involved. Further, the workers in every country have a common interest in uniting together to get rid of their common enemy, the world’s capitalist class, by bringing to an end the system that exploits and degrades them.

This attitude brought us much scorn and bitterness from the war-supporting members of the Labour and so-called Communist Parties. These and other self-appointed champions of the working-class had joined forces with the avowedly capitalist parties to win the war. They argued that democracy was at stake and therefore the interest of the workers was involved in defeating Fascism and dictatorship. There is always some plausible sounding get-out to make it appear that this war “is a just war”; the readiness of workers to accept such stories is what makes war a continuing possibility.

For the “Communists” however, this new found love of democracy only came after the Daily Worker (23/8/1939) had hailed the Russian pact with Hitler as a “Victory for Peace and Socialism,” and completely ignored the fact that Russia was itself a dictatorship where no vestige of democracy existed. The “Communists” having survived their former friend Hitler, are still suffering from political double-vision concerning democracy. The Socialist Party of Great Britain maintained that war could not be used as a means of defending democracy or of maintaining freedom. We pointed out that talk of freedom and democracy was just an ideological cover-up for the commercial ambitions of the rival capitalist classes, and that peace could never be other than an illusion as long as capitalism remained. There would always be new line-ups, new power-blocks as enemies became allies in the continuous quest for markets and profits. Throughout our existence we have insisted in face of all the clamourings for “something now” that the thing for world workers to do “now” is to recognise their identity of interests and unite for Socialism. Thus ending in one move the foul system which produces and reproduces all the day-to-day issues they clamour about.

There are countless examples from capitalism to prove our position to be the only sound one and, conversely, that all the arguments of our opponents are dangerous nonsense.

The most blatant current example is provided by the war in Vietnam. American capitalism is embroiled in a blood¬bath which, as usual, the propaganda machine describes as a fight for freedom. The double-talk and hypocrisy have failed to hide the real nature of the regime in South Vietnam, which is openly referred to in the British newspapers as a dictatorship. On July 4th the Sunday Mirror published an interview with a self-confessed murderer named Nguyễn Cao Kỳ. Under American patronage this thug became the tenth Prime Minister of South Vietnam in 20 months. In the interview he declared that his only hero is Adolf Hitler and boasted about shooting anyone who got in the way. The interview sparked off a chain of reactions, but the Sunday Mirror (formerly the Sunday Pictorial which supported the Second World War did not condemn this American stooge. The situation emerges where America, having fought the Second World War allegedly “to make the world safe for democracy” against Hitlerism is now backing up a Hitlerite in the name of “freedom.” The politicians of capitalism are, however, nothing if not thick-skinned. The embarrassment does not seem to have been too much for the British Government or the House of Commons. The day after the interview appeared, Mr. William Warbey, a Labour M.P., raised the matter in the House, but the Speaker, Sir Harry Hylton Foster, refused a debate. Another Labour member, Mr. Frank Allaun, tabled a question for the Foreign Secretary, seeking to break off diplomatic relations with the Government of South Vietnam “whose Prime Minister has declared the policy of following Hitlerian principles.” But as the Sunday Mirror points out, “Mr. Stewart is unlikely to agree.” The Labour Government cannot afford to be squeamish about supporting a dictatorship, they are committed to running British capitalism and they need the goodwill of American capitalism economically and militarily. Just as capitalism once made bed-fellows of Russia and Nazi Germany, it now does the same for the Labour Government and Hitler’s latest admirer. Cynicism and hypocrisy are inescapable for all who would retain capitalism. Democracy and freedom are ruthlessly trodden under foot and become empty words in the battle for propaganda advantage.

We seize the opportunity to again affirm —

“That the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers.

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain pledges itself to keep the issue clear by expounding the CLASS STRUGGLE, and whilst placing on record its abhorrence of this latest manifestation of the callous, sordid and mercenary nature of the international capitalist class, and declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood …”  (Extract from SPGB Statement on War, August, 1914)

Harry Baldwin

Editorial: A Cut at the S.L.P. (1917)

Editorial from the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The criticism of the Socialist Labour Party which appears in the S.P.G.B. Manifesto to the Proposed International Socialist Congress seems to have met with the disapproval of the people criticised. The people criticised try — we were going to write “to hit back,” but this would not be correct: they do not try to hit back, they simply try to parry the blow.

Of course, they cannot be blamed for confining their efforts to such defensive measures. That they can find no opening in our defence is apparently obvious, even to them. They have done their best with the unpromising material to hand, and it amounts to this:

An effusion of cheap sneers, stale witticisms, and the like as a mask to cover their skedaddling from the real issue ; a vague charge (vague in that it is unsupported by any evidence) of “flagrant dishonesty ” ; a ludicrous and lying attempt to explain away an awkward statement which appeared in their official organ ; and finally a display of fireworks on their own behalf which is as amusing as such things usually are.

Regarding the criticism in our Manifesto to the Proposed Socialist Congress, the S.L.P. state in their organ : “For ourselves we can smile at the weak criticism passed on the S.L.P.” And having thus adopted the policy of “grin and bear it, or take it lying down,” they pass on to the lighter task of finding funny names to fit the signature of our correspondent ”B.B.B.” In such easy ways are victories won in the class struggle!

“B.B.B.” quoted in our July issue the following (described by the “Socialist” of August as “an Editorial note”) from Nov. ’14 “Socialist”:

“That there are differences of opinion in the S.L.P. as in other parties, on the question of the war must have been apparent to most readers of “The Socialist.” Last month I tried to show what the different views were, but I have not been able to find out what support each side has, consequently I cannot say definitely what the official attitude of the Party is.”

And this is how the S.L.P. try to explain away that very curious, not to say damaging, statement :

“This note was quite in order; in accordance with our policy of allowing full expression of different opinions in our columns, letters were published urging a pre-war (? pro-war) policy. A discussion took place in our columns on the attitude of Socialism to the war, but the pro-war correspondents were in every case non-members of the S.L.P.

Some individuals, mislead by the correspondence and discussion, accused the S.L.P. of wavering on internationalism ; but later, when the Party Manifesto was issued and the air cleared, it was seen that the whole membership was solidly anti-war.”

That is enough to go on with. We will now proceed to handle the S.L.P. on the matter contained in this quotation.

First of all let it be noted that our opponents cling desperately to the pronouncement our comrade and contributor “B.B.B.” adduced against them. They had not the courage — or should we say indiscretion? — to reprint it, for it would then at once have provided the answer — complete and crushing — to their miserable attempt to defend it. “This note was quite in order” the S.L.P. champion says. Good.

Now what is the explanation ? “A discussion took place in our columns on the attitude of Socialism to the war, but the pro-war correspondents were in every case non-members of the S.L.P.” But the note which is “quite in order” says that it “must have been apparent to most readers of ‘The Socialist'” that “there are differences in the S.L.P. . . .  on the question of the war.” Nothing there about non-members of the S.L.P. That which MUST have been apparent to readers of “The Socialist” (and therefore necessarily from evidence appearing in that paper), was differences inside the S.L.P., concerning the war, not outside it. Who said “flagrant dishonesty” ?

It is true that in the May 1915 issue of “The Socialist” the following delectable passage occurs (“Impressions of the Conference “) :

“Imagine the surprise of all the delegates present when it was found that the Party was absolutely unanimous against the war, and that the two writers who had created the impression that the S.L.P. was a house divided, were not even members of the Party.”

But who were the two writers referred to ? Were they “M.” and Joseph Andrews, who, addressing the Editor as “Comrade,” were permitted to spread themselves over seven columns in the Jan. 1915 issue and five in the previous November number ? Were they these men, who could write such things as “The maintenance of the balance of power on the Continent is Great Britain’s object and it should be the object of all Socialists” (“M”) and “I propose that . . realising that German militarism is now a menace to the very existence of Europe, we support the Allies in their armed resistance” ? (J. Andrews.) But if these were the two non-members referred to, that still leaves unaccounted for the man who wrote the article “Shall If Fight” in the December 1914 issue of “The Socialist,” the man who penned this : “I cannot understand the stand being taken by some Socialists of refusing to kill,” and this : “I do not regard this question as a test of one’s sincerity as a Socialist,” and this : “So long as the other fellow remains armed and sets out to make mince-meat of me I reserve the right to retaliate,” and a lot more leading up to the position that we should fight. We should be pleased to be assured that this writer was a non-member of the Party; we should be hilariously delighted to “imagine the surprise of all the delegates present when it was found that” besides being the vehicle for the conveyance to the workers of the capitalist case and the capitalist pleadings for drenching the world with working-class blood, the official organ of the S.L.P. was edited by one who was “not even” a member of the Party !

We claim that it is a lie that all the pro-war correspondents were non-members of the S.L.P., and if this is not so will the editor of “The Socialist” explain that reference to the differences in the S.L.P. which must have become apparent — who to? — to those who read “The Socialist”?

Mark what the Editor of our contemporary himself says in the August issue concerning the “note” which was “quite in order,” in his vain endeavour to wriggle out of its implications :

“Bold Bad Boy, or Bunkum Balderdash and Blether, or whatever the mysterious initials cover, quotes from an article in the June 1917 “Socialist,” . . . and compares it with an extract from the November 1914 “Socialist,” where an Editorial note calls attention to the differences of opinion on the war expressed in the columns of the “Socialist,” . . . ”  (The italics are ours).

There again our opponents give themselves away. The note itself spoke of differences of opinion in the S.L.P., the Editor’s latest wriggle says that those differences were expressed in the columns of “The Socialist.” Then what becomes of the statement that the pro-war correspondents “were in every case non members of the S.L.P.”? Who said bunkum, balderdash and blether?

“Compare the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. in their actions,” says our contemporary. Well, suppose we do. In the first place we freely admit that there have been individuals in our party whose knowledge was not sufficient to keep them sound on the question of the war. We have never claimed that our Declaration of Principles could prevent the entry of undesirable people into our organisation ; but we do claim that when such people reveal themselves, by word or deed, as unfit material for a Socialist organisation, the Declaration of Principles to which they give their signatures on joining is an efficient instrument for dealing with them, and putting them outside. In the few cases where the war has revealed unhealthy elements the Party has promptly purged itself of such.

On the other hand, what have been the actions of the S.L.P. in this connection? The Editor of their official organ himself shows that even the columns of that journal have been used to give publicity to the pro-war views of members of the S.L.P. We do not know what action that party took in the secrecy of their councils, but the columns of their organ have not been used to give publicity to any handling of the pro-war members thereof. When the Editor of “The Socialist” is compelled to write, three months after the war broke out, “Last month I tried to show what those different views were, but I have not been able to find out what support each side has, consequently I cannot say definitely what the official attitude of the Party is “—when such a statement as that, we say, can appear in the official organ of the party, how can the party handle pro-war members ? The official organ, the mouthpiece of the Executive and therefore of the party, does not know, in the face of the controversy on such a vital question as that of the “attitude of Socialism to the war,” what the party position is ; how, then, can individual members be expected to know that position, or be dealt with for not knowing it ?

For years it has been the practice of the S.L.P. to refuse to soldiers admission to their ranks. Foolish as this was under pre-war conditions, the logic of such an attitude left no mistake as to the proper course to be taken on the outbreak of war. Yet this party, who, before the war, could not abide an unfortunate member of the working class whom stress of circumstances had compelled to sell his labour-power to the master class in the only capacity open to him, had no “official position” in relation to the war when it had been in progress three months. Up to that time, at all events, the members were “quite in order” in shouting for the despised and rejected soldier to begin the work for which he was despised and rejected, and by that same token the members were in order in “joining up” and getting on with the butchery themselves. The party was divided on “the attitude of Socialism to the war”; its Press could not “find out what support each side had,” and therefore could not say whether it was the duty of the members to rush off and join the Army, or get themselves incarcerated for opposing the war.

That is how we “compare the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. in their actions.”

But we have not done yet: we may as well make a job of it while we are about it. Our opponents try to prove their status as a revolutionary organisation. What is the evidence they offer ? Do they present us revolutionary principles and prove their policy to be consistent therewith ? No. They have a very different standard for judging revolutionary organisations. They judge — by the number of members they have had in prison ! In this respect what a long way they are behind the Suffragettes !

“We have had many of our members on the Clyde imprisoned and deported for revolutionary propaganda,” our contemporary says in course of proving their revolutionary character. “We have Editors, past and present, in gaol or under the shadow of gaol. (A former Editor – A. McManus – was deported and again arrested for working-class activity in the recent strike.”) All of which wears a different complexion when we remember that the S.L.P. “martyrs” to gaol in spite of abject contrition, and that McManus, if reports be true, has taken the chair for Tom Mann, whom the S.L.P. has so roundly denounced upon occasion. “And our Press and organ have been under the ban of the military,” our contemporary goes on, finally asking : “Do these things happen to a party which is pro-war, or anything but a revolutionary organisation?” Such things certainly may, as witness the Suffrage movement. But at all events, we should imagine the Government would have paid pretty heavily for some of the stuff which appeared in “The Socialist” after the outbreak of .the war. It takes rank with Harold Begbie’s ” What do you lack, Sonny?” as a contribution to the confusion which made it possible for the capitalist butchers to drag our fellow workers from their homes to the shambles. Perhaps the S.L.P. can now see how lightly “B.B.B.” let them down.

Words that bear repeating. (1917)

From the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our good will and socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.

The World for the Workers.

— S.P.G.B. Manifesto, September 1914.

End capitalism to end war (1986)

From the Winter 1986-7 issue of the World Socialist

Recently two leading war protestors, who are also "leftists" were given space in the Times/Colonist of Victoria, British Columbia, to update the age-old "guns versus butter" controversy which flares up during every economic depression.

Nobody is ecstatic about the immense financing of weapons of destruction while people starve in Third World countries. However, such contradictions are inevitable where the human race is torn into two antagonistic classes, the exploiters and the exploited. The world is organized as a predatory system, not as a humanitarian one. The means of production and distribution, whether operated privately or under the aegis of the state, are monopolized by about 10 per cent of the population and are used by them to accumulate capital by exploiting the other 90 per cent. Production is for sale/profit and "no profit, no production" the basic economic law.

The human race is further divided into competitive, geo-political units called nations, for administering this dog-eat-dog system. Commodities accumulated in one country from the exploitation process come into conflict on the international market with those from other countries. The struggle is also for trade routes and exploitable populations. During a world depression the struggle intensifies. Fewer workers are needed. More armaments are required. The profit priority is King.

It is a myth (and not a new one) to think that if money was not spent on arms, it could be used to feed the destitute. The economic laws of capitalism (including the state variety of Russia and China) dictate that money be invested to reap profits by appropriating the unpaid part of the labor of the producing class, not by feeding hungry people.

The two "leftists" were probably no more appalled than Gorde Hunter, the "rightist", when he reported in the Times/Colonist that Ethiopia was air freighting 5 tons of fresh fruit and vegetables weekly to London, England, probably at high prices to rich consumers. This report is understandable in the light of capitalism's market laws. The starving people in that country have no legal (money) right to an adequate diet. The profitability of that food has to be realized through exchange for cash.

Likewise, in the United States, destitute people sleep on the streets. In the USSR elderly women wait in line at 7.00 a.m., outside grocery stores in subzero temperatures for rationed food in limited supply. While the ruling Russian élite revels in luxury.

People are led into wars

Both the aforementioned Times/Colonist writers (one was a member of the New Democratic Party, the other seemingly a closet Leninist) seemed to realize that the arms race does not exist in isolation from other social issues and that the solution for one is the answer for all. This is a forward step. But both referred to national political leaders being at fault, one urging the peace movement to work for a change in attitude by those "who are set in authority over us".

It is precisely because the function of leaders is to wield the authority of the ruling class over the mass of ordinary people that there is only one kind of leader regardless of attitude. Trusting leaders is like trusting the Mafia to guard the bank. And such trust, or faith, arises from ignorance.

Leaders use ideologies to conceal the sordid commercial conflicts between nations. "Communism" versus "Democracy" is used by the two super-powers on their people to justify the cold war and the development of today's military insanity. Fear and hatred for "the other side" is instilled in workers' minds, as in other wars.

Likewise, if the super-powers could agree to a freeze on more nuclear weapons, their respective leaders could tell their workers (who are discouraged from thinking) that the danger of a holocaust was gone. Or if they reduced the number of missiles by 50 per cent Meaning that humanity could be blown off the earth only half as many times as before. Also, how about a few more crumbs allowed to fall from the banquet table to prove that progress is being made against poverty? The majority can be deluded on war if they can be made confused about society.

The disarmament movement is based upon a dangerous and perhaps fatal illusion, lulling millions into a false sense of security in the belief that something is being done. The movement also allows itself to be manipulated by the political ideology of the rulers of this divided, antagonistic world social system of selling and profits which can no more avoid war than a tiger can subsist on hay.

For instance, a basic ingredient for every war has been the mental conditioning of the workers of each country into believing that "our freedom", "our democracy", "our fatherland" was at stake or that "our country" would be invaded by evil people (who are always on the other side). This is just ruling class ideology since there is no evidence that the workers of the world own any country. Yet there has not been a peep of protest or informed rebuttal from the peace groups about the war potential in working class nationalist, chauvinist indignation over a US firm manufacturing EXPO emblems or a US icebreaker going through "our" Arctic waters. In fact the peace activists themselves use the possessive expression when referring to whatever country they live and are exploited in.

The only way to end nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons can only be ended when wars end, which cannot happen until world capitalism is replaced by Socialism. All night vigils in the rain, those three tipis and three or four pup tents at Nanoose Bay where pacifists were trying to stop renewal of a Canadian-US agreement for the US to test torpedos, or banging pots and pans in Esquimalt Harbor, Victoria, where US warships dock not saying whether or not they carry nuclear missiles, are activities which are as impotent as they sound.

War protestors are in the position of beggars asking governing politicians to do something vital in the interests of society, but which would clash with the interests of the owning class. Not much chance. Beggars can't be choosers.

A familiarity by the majority of the cause of war and a commitment to build the new society is the only guarantee that war will not occur and that nuclear weapons will not be used.

Socialism will involve the basic change in social organization from class ownership to common ownership and democratic control by and in the interest of the whole human family. Work will be carried out on the basis of voluntary co-operation to produce society's needs. Consumption will be free according to individually determined requirements. No minority class, dictating through the state, will impose forced labor on a subservient class to keep parasites rich and idle. The social cause of war will be removed since profit-making, competition, buying and selling and allied activities will end.

George Jenkins (Canada)

Korea: An Imperialist Cockpit (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 12th September Mr. Attlee addressed the House of Commons on new “defence” measures. On the same day the Evening Standard published a report of his address. From this report we learn that:

“The steps we are asking the House to endorse are taken solely with the intention of preventing another war and resisting in its early stages the onward march of aggression.”

What a familiar ring this statement has! The “steps” in question covered increased man-power and equipment for the fighting forces. Larger and more efficient fighting machines mean larger and more efficient killing and destroying machines. More and more of the world’s productive power is being concentrated upon purely destructive purposes as time goes on. During each war we are promised peace and plenty when that particular awkward squad has been removed. But no sooner has one awkward squad been liquidated than another pops up in its place. From the East we are told that the “Western Imperialists” are the niggers in the woodpile, and from the West we are told it is the “Eastern Imperialists.” The fact that it is both is only appreciated by the socialist. In 1914 similar “steps” were taken to stop the Junkers and prevent further wars; they were stopped but it made no difference; wars went on. In the 30*s the “steps” were to stop the Fascists and the Nazis. They were stopped, but not further wars. Now it is the Kremlin and so the comedy is played on. Steps are always allegedly being taken to stop wars but these “steps” consist of building up bigger and better means to wage war.

For nearly forty years we have been living in the midst of a catastrophe or on the brink of one. The Labour Government has learnt nothing more from its predecessors' failures than to follow the same well worn road to the battlefield. It has not a single policy that is directed at the root of the trouble—the property basis of society. The same thing is true of the governments of America, France, Russia and the rest.

Conditions make nonsense of all the “statesmanlike” forecasts of what will be done after hostilities cease. Those who make these forecasts forget that we are not living in a vacuum but in a real world consisting of sections of people with conflicting interests arising out of property relationships. During the last Great War, just as during the previous one, we were assured that Germany would never be allowed to arm again and become a potential threat to world “peace.” Conditions have again knocked the stuffing out of this assurance. Now we are being prepared to accept a re-armed Germany—in the interests of peace! Major-General Sir Francis de Guingard (Sunday Times, Sept. 17th) puts the question in the following way:

“This all leads to the problem of German participation in Western defence. Without it, any question of trying to hold up an aggressor on the Elbe is ruled out.  . . . We must, therefore, accept a major German participation in defence: otherwise we are likely to lose the ‘soul of Germany,’ the good will of the German people, and maybe Europe. Without it there is grave risk that Western Union defence will be unable to marshal sufficient strength, even to hold the Rhine, by 'Danger Day’—say in perhaps one or two years’ time.”

To return to Mr. Attlee’s address. He repeats the kind of phrase that was used in relation to the Nazis by members of the Tory Government.

“I have every confidence that aggression will be halted and a salutary lesson given to would-be aggressors.”

How often have we heard this banal phrase! Later on he makes nonsense of this “confidence” by stating:

“We must face the fact that what happened in Korea may in one form or another be repeated elsewhere.”

It does not require much insight to realise that this is the obvious policy for the Russian Government to follow. Imperialist Russia is in a position to use other groups as tools by playing craftily upon the cupidity of propertied sections that wish to be rid of Western influences and, at the same time, its fake anti-capitalist protestations mislead sections of the working class. The Western “Democracies” on the other hand have to convince those who must bear the burden of the fighting that their existence is jeopardised and that, on this account, sacrifices are “necessary.”

Major-General de Guingard commenced the article, to which we have already referred, with the following words;

“The Western world should be truly thankful for the Korean aggression; for it has set ablaze an alertness and determination that may prove our salvation.”

We wonder what the homeless, battered and suffering Koreans would reply to this expression of high sentiment? How do they feel about being the subject of warfare between conflicting imperialisms? Both in the North and the South homes and industries are being reduced to ruins; Koreans are dying by the thousand and by the thousand they are leaving ruined homes to trek wearily they know not where. When it is all over and some survivors return to the battered ruins that remain what will their feelings be towards their respective backers and “liberators ”? Some forms of liberation they have already experienced; the liberation from life, homes, home-ties and the means of living. An indication of the attitude of the South Koreans, as well as the soldiers of the United Nations, was given in an article by a war correspondent, Richard Hughes, which appeared in the Sunday Times on the 10th Sept. Here are some illuminating extracts from the article.

“Nor is there any real soul to this war. No profound sympathy or even warm liking exists between the Americans and the South Koreans. The soldiers of the United States and Britain notoriously have little abstract opinion or articulate comment on why they are fighting, but they usually detect in any war a menace to their country or to their home. As they profanely insist, they can perceive nothing of that sort in this war.

“However they have now developed a hatred for the enemy, largely because of his atrocities. And their earlier natural resentment at the spectacle of able-bodied Korean youths squatting impassively by the road and watching the white man move forward to ‘defend’ them has disappeared as President Syngman Rhee’s conscription orders become effective and 5,000 Koreans in American battledress are added to each American division to take over hill fighting."

The fact that masses of the South Koreans had to be conscripted before they would bother to take up arms does not suggest that they were very much worried about the threat from the North. If Information were available probably the same kind of thing could be said about the Northerners when they realised the price they were called upon to pay for what they thought would be a minor internal struggle. However both groups of pawns will have plenty more to worry about when hostilities have ceased and they have to set about rebuilding what they have lost

In fact none of the Governments involved were fundamentally concerned about liberating or defending the Koreans as a body. Korea is simply a cockpit, one of the bloodier strategic moves in the greater struggle between rival imperialisms.

In the course of his address Mr. Attlee said: “But it does mean that in our view we must take every practicable step that is possible to prevent war.” There is only one practicable step that can prevent war and that is to abolish the cause of war. This step Mr. Attlee and his colleagues are unable to take, even if they wished to do so, because they sought votes for. and became the government on, a programme that ensures the continuance of capitalism. The continuance of Capitalism necessitates the production of goods for the purpose of ensuring dividends and interest to those who invest. In order to accomplish this object goods have to be sold. Production and sale requires sources of supply of raw materials, markets in which to buy and sell products and unmolested trade routes to the markets and to the places from which the raw materials come. Out of these requirements wars arise, and as long as production is organised for the purpose of selling goods at a profit there will always be wars. When buying and selling have disappeared along with property incomes the objects of wars will no longer exist. Until then "small nations” will be the pawns of the more powerful groups and working men and women will lose their lives in quarrels that do not concern them.

Gilmac.

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.

Editorial: The Pakistan-India conflict (1965)

Editorial from the October 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

The war between Pakistan and India was another depressing reminder that men are still more ready to unite for nationalism and war rather than for world brotherhood. In a region blighted by acute poverty, hunger and disease was accompanied by fighting and violent death.

The reasons given for the conflict are especially cynical. Mr. Shastri’s Congress Party inherits the supposed ideals of Ghandi and Nehru. In the post-war years, Mr. Nehru in particular sermonised at length about peace. Today India is forced into that oldest and yet most modern of arbiters—war! Now that private property is in dispute, the pacifism of Ghandi has been forgotten.

Peace cannot exist in a violent society and Capitalism is violent. It is violent because it rests upon the exploitation of men by men. It is violent because it is geared to commercial struggles and is driven by the profit motive. Capitalism is violent because under it men act out the aggressive nature of private property. To want peace and yet preserve Capitalism is a contradiction which repeats the fatal errors of the past.

Indian and Pakistani workers rallied to the fighting with enthusiasm. Immigrants in this country lost no time in forming defence committees. Some workers readily donated a week’s wages. “My country right or wrong” prevailed.

Those workers involved in the conflict are victims of false religious loyalties, and their support for developing Capitalism in Asia. They mistakenly think that their interests are identical with the interests of the Indian and Pakistan ruling class.

The situation is one in which Capitalism asserts all its priorities. There is the fighting itself, the disruption and added misery this inevitably brings. There is the spectacle of men channelling their resources into destructive causes instead of into the creative task of ending poverty. There is the vicious fervour which can unify a nation on a war footing, stifling criticism, and temporarily diverting internal frustrations. The commitment to the senseless struggle can easily become self-perpetuating.

To Socialists the condemnation of the war between Pakistan and India is a condemnation of world Capitalism. It is not an isolated incident resulting from the aggressions of a single nation. International finger-pointing blinds men against the real cause. It is an event made possible by the support that Capitalism commands throughout the entire world. In this respect, workers in this and other countries far from the scene of fighting, are involved. It is futile to appeal to political leaders to act with more restraint or so-called wisdom. A world of harmony can only be possible when the working class of the world contract out of supporting Capitalism.

It is important to emphasise that although the conflict has been expressed in terms of Muslim versus Hindu, and although religious differences are a factor in the situation, the war was not over religion. The war was over the conflicting Capitalist interests of the Indian and Pakistan ruling classes and rapidly involved the great powers, particularly China.

Our message to Indian and Pakistan workers is that this conflict in which they have nothing to win, can only heap misery on abiding misery. Their interests in common with workers of all countries is to build Socialism.

Just as religion is a bastion of ignorance, so nationalism is a hate-filled lie. Both serve private property interests in which the worker has no stake.

This Month's Quotation: Socialist (1935)

The Front Page quote from the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Not altruism but the lust for profit is the cause of modern wars . . . "

Trade Union Leaders in Confusion (1935)

From the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Sixty-seventh Annual Conference of the Trade Union Congress met in the shadow of war, and its President, Mr. Kean, opened the proceedings with a touching, if incoherent, appeal for peace. Italy, he said, must be coerced into keeping the peace, by means of economic and financial embargo and, perhaps, by closing the Suez Canal, even if such action led the League Powers into a war with Italy. That is, we must have peace at all costs, even if we have to go to war for it. The logic is shaky, but the meaning is clear enough. Another war to end war! And the T.U.C. and the Labour Party are as blandly ready to send the workers to the shambles as if the last war had never happened.

Mussolini, cries Mr. Kean, "knows no moral principle”—so “we” should bring out “our” poison-gases and long-range guns, to convince him how much loftier are “our" principles. Mussolini has made an “unjust and rapacious assault” on Abyssinia; so Great Britain, upheld by the comfortable conviction of moral superiority, given her by the tale of her just and generous acquisition of world empire, must teach him to play the game according to the rules. The subject races of the British Empire might inquire eagerly just what those rules are; but, of course, ignorant black men cannot be expected to comprehend civilised society. The British T.U.C. apparently does not comprehend it either. They spent days reading the riddle: “When is a war not a war?” and reached the solution, “When the other side call themselves Fascists.” Thus the Fascist is being used to fill the place occupied by the “Hun” in 1914; and the T.U.C.—together, be it noted, with the Communists, with whom they refuse to associate—tell the workers that it is their interest to take up arms against Fascism.

Leaders Mislead the Workers

What a highly convenient catchword is this “Down with Fascism” rallying-cry! Just the slogan needed to disarm the “Left-wing” resistance to war, and transform anti-militarist campaigns into frantic clamouring for the defence of Abyssinia. And these “leaders of the working class” are so muddle-headed in their principles and policy that they are voluntarily playing the game of the National Government—the very Government they have in the past so often and so bitterly attacked. Give them a war they can condone, a slogan obscuring the basic issue, and they readily, unreflectingly, follow the example of the Social-Democrats and others whose 1914-1918 war record will not bear examination.

The S.P.G.B. maintains that the “Fascism” aspect of the matter is the superficial excuse necessary to render war acceptable. The underlying issue is an economic one—the workers of all the countries involved are to be used as tools to make possible the extraction of profit from Abyssinia. Great Britain is inextricably concerned, since Abyssinia is surrounded on almost all frontiers by British territory; since the Blue Nile, source of Egypt’s essential floods, rises in Lake Tana; and since Eritrea and the Somalilands are on the route to India. The British capitalist group are not anxious for war at present; but neither do they want Italy to corner all the profits they foresee in the development of Abyssinia. Therefore, the politicians at Geneva and elsewhere have been treading the knife-edge of diplomacy, endeavouring to give Italy concessions large enough to stave off war, without actually giving Italy a monopoly of Abyssinian exploitation. The workers of the world have no interest in these jugglings. What reason is there for them to support one section of their exploiters against another? Whichever side wins the wage-slaves will still be wage-slaves; the basic problem of present society will remain unsolved.

The S.P.G.B. maintains, as it has done consistently throughout its thirty-one years' existence, that the workers' interests are inescapably opposed to those of the capitalists, whatever political and national trimmings the latter may use to mask their ends. When the workers open their eyes to the facts of their exploitation, and cease to be taken in by the multifarious propaganda of the capitalists and their tools, they will see that their own interests lie simply and only in an entirely new system of society—Socialism—and will struggle indefatigably to establish it. Under Socialism the entire absence of the profit motive will once and for all eradicate the cause of war. When the workers have set up Socialism, then, and only then, will war be impossible.

Equality for Women Workers

Not a word of this did we hear from the T.U.C., and equally indefinite and non-socialist was their attitude on Britain’s internal problems. The economic position of women, the plight of the depressed areas, and the battle for shorter hours were all discussed from a purely reformist standpoint. All these problems are inherent in capitalism, but the T.U.C. conveys the impression that they can be solved piecemeal, without touching the basis of society. This impression is false: some improvements may benefit sections of the workers for a time, but the working class as a whole can never escape from exploitation by such painting the sores of capitalism. The first essential of capitalist society is an army of wage-slaves, people dependent for their lives on the sale of their energies in the labour-market ; and the commodity labour-power commands only the price necessary, for the labourer to continue his existence and reproduce his kind. That is, the workers as a whole—whatever differences and fluctuations may occur in particular sections at particular times—receive as the price of their labour-power little more than enough to keep them alive. This is an integral part of capitalism. Suppose women succeed, as the T.U.C. hope, in obtaining equal wages with men. Are they any the less exploited wage-slaves? By all means let them, in common with all their class, fight against the encroachments of their masters, but let them not be deluded into believing that their principal task. They must realise that these encroachments can be made impossible only by doing away with the private ownership of the means of life, which produced their enemy, the master class.

The Workers a “Depressed” Class

The T.U.C., with penetrating insight into social cause and effect, further disclosed to an astounded world that “the stricken areas owe their lamentable position to the decline in their main industries.” We have heard also that the circular movement of the globe on its axis may be explained as being due to the rotation of the earth. The T.U.C. was full of warm-hearted sympathy about the “shame and pity" of the depressed industries' situation, but spent no time analysing its true causes, or pointing the obvious way out. We state that these areas are “stricken" simply because the capitalists of this country cannot at present envisage making profits from them, owing to foreign competition and to more attractive investing fields elsewhere. Moreover, the whole working class all over the world is ”stricken" and lives in a state of permanent “depression.” The difference between these areas and others which receive less publicity is one of degree, and not of kind. It has been often and authoritatively stated that most workers, whether employed or not, have neither sufficient food, adequate clothing, nor sanitary homes. Such conditions are an integral part of capitalism.

Similarly, the question of hours is one which can never be solved so long as the human race is divided into two opposing camps, one owning the means of life and the other divorced from ownership, the one buying and the other selling labour-power. The buyers and sellers of labour-power have irreconcilable interests, and until private ownership and the buying and selling of labour- power is stopped for good, the haggling and wrangling over its price and time of its use must inevitably continue.

Down with all the War-makers

Finally, the T.U.C. decided to exclude Communists from holding official positions in Trades Councils. At about the same time the Communist Party announced its readiness to affiliate with the Labour Party. The T.U.C. officially stigmatised the Communists as a disruptionist element. Yet on the Abyssinian issue the Communist and T.U.C. policies are identical. So they blow hot and cold and make confusion worse confounded. The S.P.G.B. has indeed every logical reason to claim that it alone, in this maze of capitalist politics, is treading the direct path to Socialism. The Communist Party’s attitude in the Abyssinian crisis must have demonstrated unmistakably to many of its erstwhile supporters how capable that Party is of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. Why further the declared policy of a capitalist Government? Why differentiate between national sections of the world capitalist class? To dam up Italian colonial expansion in Africa, which is so attractive to Italian capitalism, is merely to bring a European explosion so much nearer. To defend Abyssinia against Italy is merely to hand it over for capitalist exploitation by the native ruling class in alliance with Britain or France, or to split it up among various Powers. Abyssinia is due to be “civilised” by some capitalist group in any case. But the Communist Party is willing to lead British workers to slaughter Italian workers under the banner “down with Fascism and war." They remind us of Butler’s “Hudibras,” whose

    "Brain 

Outweighed his rage but half a grain, 

Which made some take him for a tool 

That knaves do work with, called a fool.”

Once again we must reiterate that these internecine squabbles, for all the fine phrases used as top dressing, are no concern of the working class. The paramount issue in the world to-day is the struggle for Socialism. The S.P.G.B. calls on the workers throughout the world to realise their class position, and to determine to end class-society and all its evils by organising consciously and politically for the one end, of establishing Socialism.

D. S.

Editorial: What is war good for? Absolutely nothing (2026)

Editorial from the September 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

War has never solved, and can never solve, any working class problem; wars only help to make our position worse in the long run. They brutalise all those concerned in it, cheapening the feeling for human life and all that makes life worthwhile. Only the continued existence of capitalism drives society to war. The abolition of capitalism and the establishment of socialism will remove the causes of war – and is the only way to remove them.

In furthering the economic ends of the capitalist class within their borders, states have two objectives that are complementary. One consists of economic, political and diplomatic actions, aimed at enlarging the market for exports, securing reliable sources of supply, and finding profitable investment outlets; the other consists of actions intended to enable them to resist armed attack (or force submission on other states) by building up the most murderous and destructive forms of armament that they can afford within the range of human ingenuity at any time. The building up of armaments in turn breeds fresh economic struggles in the effort to acquire the material needed to produce these weapons such as uranium or rare earths.   

Thus there is an intermingling of economic motives in the pursuit of economic and military dominance, because the means to carry on modern warfare are rooted in access to the resources for building up methods of destruction. Sections of the international capitalist class accumulate wealth out of the labour extracted from the working class, and without ever being seen as coming within the categories of ‘war profiteers’ or ‘merchants of death’.

Ultimately, wars are only possible because workers do not understand their identity of interest with workers everywhere in opposition to the interests of their rulers everywhere. Whilst this condition remains, workers of different states can be inveigled into shedding their and other workers’ blood for alleged objectives that, even if accomplished, leave them still an exploited class.

Many subterfuges have been used to entice workers into supporting a war; such as the defence of democracy, the right of nations to self-determination, overthrowing tyranny, resisting the aggression of some other state, safeguarding essential sources of food and other supplies, and so on.

Workers in this and other countries should turn a deaf ear to all those — bellicose generals and compliant governments — who are trying to get their support for policies to increase preparations for war by spending more on so-called ‘defence’. We urge them to recognise their fundamental identity of interest as the wealth producers of the world; join together for the purpose of abolishing capitalist domination in all its forms and, by establishing socialism, make the Earth and its products the common inheritance of all. Only then will it be possible to put into operation the socialist principle that will ensure the comfort, security and well-being of the whole of humankind –‘From each according to their capacities, to each according to their needs’.

The Jamaica Plan for World Peace (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

These attempts failed to stop the second world war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alwyn Edgar

Editorial: Why war? (2026)

Editorial from the April 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran marks another dangerous moment in world politics. Airstrikes, retaliation, and rising regional tensions are being presented through the language of security, defence, and national interest. Yet beneath these justifications lies a familiar reality: ordinary people are once again being killed and maimed and their homes destroyed in a conflict that they neither chose nor control. As socialists we utterly condemn this latest manifestation of capitalist barbarity.

Governments frame wars as necessary responses to threats, but history repeatedly shows that modern wars are struggles between competing states pursuing strategic influence, military advantage, and economic power. Workers, families, and civilians — regardless of nationality — bear the real consequences through loss of life, instability, inflation, displacement, and fear.

The attack on Iran must be understood not as an isolated moral crime, but as a predictable consequence of the global system in which all states operate. The United States, Israel, and Iran each act to defend and expand their economic, political, and military power. Modern wars are not struggles between good and evil; they are structural conflicts between states competing for influence, resources, and strategic advantage. Ordinary people, who have no control over these decisions, are the ones who suffer the consequences.

Framing the conflict as the wrongdoing of one government alone is misleading. Iran is itself a capitalist state with its own regional and strategic interests. Selective anti-imperialism, which opposes Western interventions but excuses rival states, risks replacing one bloc with another and fails to address the structural causes of war.

External interventions and regime-change campaigns show that foreign powers rarely act to promote democracy or peace. Instead, they reshape governments to serve strategic and economic interests. Similarly, targeting Iran’s leadership today is less about morality or security and more about shifting the balance of power in the region. Military escalation, sanctions, and proxy conflicts are predictable outcomes of a system built on competition and profit, not justice or human rights.

The global scale of the problem is clear. Worldwide military spending exceeds two trillion dollars annually. Alliances shift according to economic and strategic advantage, not ethical principles. Civilians bear the cost of sanctions, arms races, and proxy wars. The structural drivers of conflict are embedded in the organisation of capitalist states; until these are challenged, wars will continue, regardless of who occupies leadership positions.

The socialist perspective rejects nationalism, moral alignment with any government, and the illusion that stopping one war solves the problem. True change requires international working-class awareness, solidarity across borders, and a fundamental transformation of society to remove the systemic causes of war. Only by confronting the structures that produce recurring conflict can humanity hope to prevent the next war, rather than simply reacting to its latest outbreak.

Peace is inseparable from the end of a system that profits from division, conflict, and exploitation. The working class, not governments, must become the agent of real change. Until then, each ‘crisis’ will be merely another chapter in the same predictable story of power and suffering.