So They Say: Protests too much (1977)

The So They Say Column from the December 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Protests too much

An article in The Spectator of 12th November entitled “The irrelevance of class” which attempts to justify its title by showing how various important men have risen from what are discreetly referred to as “humble births”, reminds us that the class war still prompts professional hacks (and quacks) to issue it, at regular intervals with a formal death certificate. The entire irrelevance of class structure within society led the writer of the article to over 50 column-inches to make his point and if The Spectator is prepared to pay for and publish this sort of thing, we have high hopes for our own submission entitled “The irrelevance of air—hot and cold.”

The inconvenient obstacle to the claim however is one of fact. Obstacles of this nature may or may not impress Spectator’s writers who are prepared to spend a good deal of time apparently in dealing with what they consider “irrelevances”, but it cannot seriously be denied that capitalist society is divided, on the one hand into those who own and control the means of life and on the other, into those who must work for a member of the owning class in order to live. If this class division were non-existent, or irrelevant, we could only express surprise at the great deal of verbiage mustered to assure us of the claim.

Not cricket

Although the owning class as a whole have class interests in common, namely the retention of private- property society and they will unite on issues which may threaten this, each member also has individual interests in the day-to-day business of increasing their particular share of the social wealth, and this process obliges them to enter into battles among themselves. Whereas the working class, the non-owners, represent a class enemy to be held off by a variety of means, other members of the capitalist class are rivals and as such require direct attention.

Fresh diplomatic protests have been tendered by the Government over breaches in agreements by Japanese (Motor) manufacturers to hold down sales in Britain.

(Daily Telegraph, 10th November 77)

The British motor manufacturers claim that the Japanese are carrying out an “invasion” of the British markets contrary to an undertaking given by the Japanese to restrain sales to the UK. It all sounds very reasonable—an arrangement between friends. The Japanese motor men have argued before that it had all been a misunderstanding and they may well do so again. The fact that the British government now argues the case on behalf of its own national manufacturers shows that they are not deceived. Both parties are aware that “undertakings” are weak restraints on the pressures of capitalist expansion.

Making the point, in the same newspaper, was the Chairman of the Welsh council of the CBI who advises his members that British manufacturers can satisfactorily meet Japanese competition by putting in “the same intensity of effort as the Japanese”, by which he means a greater degree of exploitation of the British working class. This gentleman was speaking from experience. He is the chairman of a machine-tool company.

Last year I put one Japanese firm out of business and two other Japanese firms have given up their markets to me.

(Daily Telegraph, 10th November 77)

It seems probable that the aforementioned Japanese firms may be petitioning him soon to give an “undertaking” for restraint.

Plenty of problems

The Japanese Prime Minister has become increasingly concerned at the economic problems he faces as the yen rises against other currencies and the exporters are finding it more difficult to compete successfully in overseas markets. He now refers to exports as a “negligible factor in expanding economic growth in future.” The new strategy he revealed is to be the stimulation of home demand by increasing public spending, which we seem to have heard somewhere before.

Mr. Fukuda neatly put his finger on one of the major difficulties facing the Japanese, who are by no means alone in the matter, and shows that capitalism, despite the efforts of so-called planning, simply continues to produce problems and contradictions. The profit motive governs production.

The important thing is to create demand in the midst of the problems of overcapacity and unemployment.

(The Times, 11th November 77)

Capitalist ideologies

The Chinese are said to have approached the British government with a view to ordering Harrier jump-jets. Apparently the so-called socialists are faced with a build up of forces on their border with the other so-called socialists, the Russians. The fact that the British government also refers to itself as “socialist” no doubt lends justification to the approach and completes the picture of this happy socialist band who act so differently from the capitalist governments. To an un-trained eye it would appear to be a straightforward business arrangement.

However Britain is a member of a NATO organization called Cocom whose function is to prevent the sale of weapons and plant for producing them, to “communist” countries. America is also a member and it might be thought that they would, as they are entitled, veto consideration of the order. Surely the Americans would not permit any hole-in-the-wall arrangement between all these “socialists". It appears however that the Americans have an un-trained eye in the matter. They have their reasons too.

The fact that there is a company to company agreement between Hawker Siddeley and Macdonald Douglas to manufacture the Harrier under licence in no way interferes with the sale of the Harrier by Britain to other states, I was authoritatively informed yesterday. A non-British member of Cocom’s coordinating committee told me a few days ago that the United States rarely raised any objection to the export of strategic materials to a Communist country if it was produced or manufactured in America.

(Daily Telegraph, 9th November 77)

The Passing Show: The Eternal Triangle (1952)

The Passing Show Column from the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Eternal Triangle

The attitude of the United States over the Anglo-Persian oil dispute is instructive in view of the protestations of everlasting friendship and alliance which regularly emanate from leading politicians and businessmen in both Britain and America. The British capitalist case is simple. Persia, says the British Government, has stolen the plant and machinery and oil belonging to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and has gone back on the Concession of 1933, by which Persia gave permission to the Company to work its oil. If you believe in the sanctity of private property, this case is unassailable.

Pandering to the Natives

But in spite of the natural attraction of such an attitude to a great capitalist power like America, and in spite of the “ties of blood” which are supposed to connect the two “Anglo-Saxon Powers,” Britain and America are far from being in agreement about the problem. If blood is thicker than water, then oil is thicker than blood. For America wants to secure for itself the valuable Persian supply of oil, and at all costs it wants to prevent it falling into Russian hands; and in order to attain these objectives, it is prepared to disregard the feelings of British capitalists, and even the prized theory of the inviolability of private property. However, America does not want to be too open about its aims. After all, Britain has an important place in American plans for the next war as an unsinkable aircraft-carrier, and so far the natives have been remarkably friendly. There are 30,000 American airmen in Britain, plus anti-aircraft forces and army engineers—easily the largest foreign force ever stationed in Britain in peacetime. Yet Britain has been most deferential in her treatment of these foreign armed troops. For example, members of the American armed forces accused of any crime in Britain are prosecuted in American courts; a concession which Britain herself has not been able to obtain for her own troops in Japan, as the case of the sailors at Kobe emphasised. 

In these circumstances, the Americans do not want to be too blatant in their coercion of the British over Persian oil.

#    #    #    #

Iron Hand

But although for these reasons the Americans are wearing the velvet glove, the iron hand is still there beneath. Her oilmen have been beating a path to the door of Dr. Mossadeq, the sworn enemy of the British. Mr. Alton Jones, director of the U.S. Cities Service Oil Corporation, has been touring Abadan and other oil centres, from which the British were expelled, accompanied by representatives of the National Iranian Oil Company and the Persian Government, which expelled them. On September 4th he was said to have “submitted a report to the Prime Minister discussing the possibility of a resumption of oil flow from Persia.” Four days later the American oil buyers Mr. Richard Nelson and Mr. Gerald Waldron, who earlier this year signed a contract agreeing to buy three million tons of Persian oil every year for five years, arrived in Teheran; it was reported that they handed over £70,000 as a first instalment. And it seems unlikely that American businessmen would part with that much money unless they were pretty sure that the American Government would support them against British capitalism which is at present maintaining a virtual embargo on the export of oil from Persia.

#    #    #    #

Truman first, Churchill second

In order to put a better appearance on things, America joined with Britain at the end of August to submit new proposals to Persia. The Note was signed by Harry S. Truman and Winston S. Churchill in that order, and this is symbolic of the order in which the interests of British and American capitalism are consulted in the proposals. Seldom has British capitalism lost so much prestige in the course of a single short statement. For in the Note;

1. Britain accepts the fact of nationalisation, that is of the “theft” by Persia of British capitalist property.
2. It is suggested that the question of compensation be submitted to the International Court of Justice, which has already, in July, refused the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s appeal that it should decide the question of the ownership of the oil, saying that the matter lay outside its jurisdiction.
3. It is agreed that the International Court shall also take into consideration the Persian claims in respect of the revenue it has lost as a result of its action in nationalising its oil.
4. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company offers to buy the oil which was produced under its management, by its technicians, and is now stored in what were formerly its own tanks in Abadan.
5. The British Government promises (if Persia accepts these terms) to relax restrictions on exports to Persia and on Persia’s use of sterling; and the American Government promises an immediate gift of ten million dollars to Persia.

But Dr. Mossadeq, evidently believing that if America could force Britain to make such sweeping concessions, he will be able to get anything he asks for, has replied making even more demands.

#    #    #    #

Jackals

What can be said of the undignified role played by the British Conservative Government in this affair ? The Tories came to power after an election in which all of them, but particularly their leader Mr. Churchill, made grandiloquent and bombastic speeches promising to lift British capitalism again to a position of power and leadership in world affairs; and in the event, the realities of power have forced Mr. Churchill to play the jackal to the Americans just as much as Mr. Attlee ever did. There is now no apter phrase to describe the leader of the British Tories than that which he himself once used to jibe at Mussolini—“this sawdust Caesar.”

#    #    #    #

Cause and effect

So many people have been trying their hands recently at suggesting new reasons for war that it seems to have become almost a new kind of parlour game. The main suggestions are fairly well known. Wars break out, it is said, because the other side have always been aggressive. Others say the last peace treaty was too strong, or was not strong enough. Or perhaps you prefer the view which sees the Russians, or the Americans, as inspired by the Devil, and thinks of Moscow, or Washington, as merely branch offices of Hell. There are even those who think we have a lot of wars nowadays because it was forecast in the Bible (this being the view so far as the writer understands it, of the Jehovah's Witnesses). Again, there are the sporting reasons—wars break out because Hitler, or Stalin, never learnt to play cricket in his youth, or because the rival statesmen have never shot grouse together in Scotland (see last month’s Socialist Standard for an elucidation of this interesting new theory).

#    #    #    #

He said Hello, but it sounded aggressive

One of the most remarkable of recent suggestions was made to a hall-full of sober scientists at the Belfast meeting of the British Association. The Dally Herald (5-9-52) reported it like this;

“Dr. P. L. Richardson, a Scottish research worker, has spent twelve years studying the relationship between language and war. And, he said, he found there was ‘something bellicose' associated with the Spanish language, and that those who spoke Chinese were likely to be more pacific."

We must certainly give the learned doctor credit for disinterestedness. That is to say. he has made no attempt to square his conclusions with known facts before presenting them to the public. His examples were unfortunate. Spain, for all its bellicose language, is one of the few European countries which managed to keep out of both World Wars. As for the "more pacific" China, it has scarcely known a year's peace since the Revolution of 1911. The internal quarrel between the Communists and the Kuomintang was only patched up in order that both factions could fight the Japanese. Hardly had they been defeated than the Chinese were at each other's throats again. And no sooner had the Communists thrown Chiang Kai-Shek off the mainland than they were in Korea fighting the Americans.

It surely doesn't need twelve years' research in order to perceive that wars are fought because the rulers of one state want something the rulers of another state already have, and want it so much that they are prepared to make war about it. The question of whether the rulers speak Sanscrit or Patagonian has no effect on this issue.

#    #    #    #

Quiz

Who made these remarks ?

1. "The people are faced with the choice of consuming less or producing more. 'We' have to sell 'our' goods abroad at competitive prices. If 'we’ price ourselves out of world markets ‘we’ will be creating unemployment."

Was it (A) a wealthy businessman speaking to the council of the Federation of British Industries ? or (B) a "working-class leader" speaking to the Trades Union Congress ?

2. “Wage-demands designed merely to cause unrest in trade unionists' minds, and often 'unrelated to reality' but intended only to buttress extreme political views, could be regarded only as a betrayal of union members. Without an increase in productivity, substantial wage-increases were bound to raise costs. The country's economic difficulties will not be lessened if trade unions pursue a policy which inevitably increases production costs and ‘compels' exporters to ask higher prices for their goods."

Was this (A) a Tory M.P. speaking to an audience of shareholders? or (B) another "working-class leader" speaking at the Trades Union Congress ?

3. "We will be betraying British lads at the front if we do not support rearmament."

Was this (A) General Sir Cuthbert Blimp speaking in 1901 ? or (B) a criminal lunatic on the run from Broadmoor ? or (C) yet another “working-class leader" at the T.U.C.?

#    #    #    #

Answers

You were right every time—or you would have been if you had known anything about the present day leaders of the trade unions. For the record, the proud speechmakers were:

1. Mr. Lincoln Evans, member of the General Council of the T.U.C.

2. Mr. Arthur Deakin, president of the T.U.C.

3. Mr. J. F. McDermott, delegate to the T.U.C. from the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers.

#    #    #    # 

Humanity and Reason

On August 17th the following news item was reported from Hamburg by Reuters:

“Dr. Hermann Ehlers, President of the West German Lower House, speaking yesterday during the unveiling ceremony to Hamburg's 50,000 men, women and children who were killed during air raids in the 1939-45 war, said that nobody in Germany and few people in Britain had raised their voices against total warfare.

Therefore we must think of the one man who publicly protested against this kind of warfare—the Lord Bishop of Chichester, he said. 

Today our special respect is due to the lone caller for humanity and reason."

This will be news to members of the Socialist Party. Socialist speakers and writers protested many times during the war both against the war itself and against the inhumanity with which it was being conducted. It seems hard now to see the credit going to a member of the Bench of Bishops, who, as a body, were among the most bloodthirsty supporters of the war. Socialists agreed that the Germans suffered under the Nazi regime but we never saw the argument that we should help to kill them off in their thousands just to prove our sympathy for them. Socialists refused to help in the murder of the German and Japanese workers, and, for that refusal, some of them spent the war years being hunted by the police. Still, we may take this opportunity of telling Dr. Ehlers that we shall be publicly protesting against total war in any third world war too. We shall be calling for humanity and reason, that is to say, for Socialism, at every opportunity we have. And we shall be opposing the slaughter of the Russians, or of any other "enemy” our rulers may select for us.

#    #    #    #

Everything in its place

Mr. Harold Wilson again underlines the difference in the attitude of the Labour and Socialist Parties to war in his latest pamphlet, "The arms programme," he says, “will have to fall into its proper place in our national priorities." So the arms programme has a proper place in our national priorities, Mr. Wilson ? Like the would-be conscientious objector, who to the question "Are you against all wars ?" replied, "Oh no—just this one," the Bevanites are not against all armaments—they just want a few less. One thousand atom bombs, say, instead of one thousand one hundred.

The proper place of the arms programme, Mr. Wilson, is in the policy of capitalist political parties, and that is where it is found. It has no place whatever in Socialist policy.

#    #    #    #

Leave it to the Boss

One man out of step at the T.U.C. was Mr. Walter Stevens, of the Electrical Trades Union, who amidst the calls for moderation and restraint in wage-claims, remarked "We shall all find when we make our wage-claims that the employers themselves will inject a sufficient modicum of restraint and we shall not have to bother."

Mr. Stevens, however, might also pass this on to the workers in Russia who suffer the same injections from his friends there.

Alwyn Edgar

Editorial: Marx, Methodism and the Labour Party (1950)

Editorial from the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Morgan Phillips, Secretary of the Labour Party has caused a stir by the way he has restated the outlook of his Party. In a speech to a gathering of European Labour Parties at Copenhagen he elaborated the proposition that the philosophy and method of the British organisation is “Methodist rather than Marxist.” Here are some of his statements.

“British socialism owes little to Karl Marx, either in theory or practice, or in its methods of organising the working classes. Marx’s economics as well as his politics were challenged and finally renounced by the founders and teachers of the British Labour Party.” 

“Marx’s conception of the political organisation required for waging the class war was not accepted by the British Labour movement.”

". . . Marxism as a philosophy of materialism, as an economic theory, and as a form of political organisation with revolutionary intention and aim, is historically an aberrant tendency in the development of British Socialism.”

“British Socialists do not consider it at all a reproach or a source of weakness in their intellectual and political positions that their movement has been profoundly influenced by religious thought. The very organisation of our British working-class movement embodies methods we have taken over from religious institutions.” (Manchester Guardian, 3/6/50).

Among the religious influences he mentioned particularly is Methodism. There is nothing new in this. It was said by many of the early leaders of the Labour Party and was a commonplace criticism of them in S.P.G.B. propaganda forty years ago.

In 1922 the late Phillip Snowden wrote of his Party:—“The British Labour Party is certainly not Socialist in the sense in which socialism is understood upon the Continent. It is not based upon the recognition of the class struggle; it does not accept the teachings of Marx.” (Manchester Guardian Reconstruction Supplement, October 26, 1922).

But though it is not new it has a significance now that it did not have years ago. When the British Labour Party was younger, before it had had experience as a government, and before the Communists seized power in Russia, the lead among the Labour Parties of Europe was taken by the German Party. It was the German Social Democratic Party that was largest and seemed to be most successful and nearest to becoming the government. The future of Labourism throughout Europe was thought to be bound up with the fate of the German party. Like all of the continental parties the German S.D.P. was traditionally hostile towards religion and the church and paid lip service to Marxism.

Now several new factors have brought the British Labour Party into greater prominence and influence. The German S.D.P. was greatly weakened by the war and by the rise of the Communists; Marxism has been brought into popular disrepute by the distortion of it associated with the Russian dictatorship; the new balance of world capitalism has produced the line-up of America, Britain and Western Europe on the one side against Russia and her satellites on the other; and lastly the British Labour Party is now almost alone among the Labour parties of Europe in holding governmental power. In these circumstances the lead among the Labour Parties has been taken by the British Party, and the prospect is that the traditional lip service paid to Marxism by the Continental parties will be allowed to fall into the background.

This development represents a certain change; but no progress towards a greater understanding of socialism. It exposes the fundamental lack of socialist principle that characterises all the Labour parties, and shows the extent to which their policies are in fact bound up with the requirements of capitalism in the various countries. It needs to be studied in relation to another pronouncement made by Morgan Phillips at the same conference. Because the West European Trade Unions and Labour parties are now backing Marshall Aid and the tie-up with U.S.A., and the American trade unions play an increasingly influential role in the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in its fight with the Communist World Federation of Trade Unions, it becomes expedient to whitewash American capitalism, hence the following from Mr. Phillips: —

“Socialist prejudice against the United States must be exposed as out of date. For more than two decades the United States has been the most progressive country in the world outside Britain and Scandinavia. . . . At present most European Governments are less progressive than the Truman administration. I hope you will forgive me if I say that we must not be too smug about European traditions. It must not be forgotten that in the period between the two world wars America reacted to the world crisis by producing Roosevelt and the New Deal while Europe produced Hitler and Mussolini. Totalitarianism is in fact a European product.”

(Manchester Guardian 5/6/50).

There is nothing at all illogical in the British Labour Party, which stands for the reform of capitalism, looking with a sympathetic eye on Roosevelt’s and Truman’s reforms of American capitalism. It does not surprise Socialists though it may be a bitter pill for those Labourites to swallow who have liked to cherish the delusion that the Labour Party stands for something distinctive. Like Morgan Phillips they will seek comfort in the notion that at least they have been consistent in abhorring totalitarianism. But even here they are doomed to disappointment. Just now Mr. Phillips is asking them to admire the progressiveness of democratic American capitalism under Truman but not so long ago—before the opening of the “cold war”—Mr. Phillips was equally admiring of totalitarian capitalism in Russia., He visited Russia in 1946 and wrote up his observations in the Daily Herald (20 August, 1946). This is one of his remarks: —

“In Britain we are only just beginning our Socialist planning; in Russia it has been going on for 28 years. In some ways British social standards are well ahead of the Russian, and in others the Russians can teach us a lot.”

Before leaving Mr. Phillips and his views on Socialism we may usefully quote what he has to say of the aim the British.Labour Party sets before itself:—“It promises . . .  the attainment of a planned economy in which proletarian exploitation is not tolerated, and where the fundamental freedoms of the individual citizens, worker and wage-earner are safeguarded ” Marx showed conclusively that the exploitation of the working class cannot be ended while the workers continue to be a wage-earning class, hence his insistence that the unions should see the need to aim at the abolition of the wages system. Morgan Phillips, lacking Marx’s understanding of capitalism and socialism, cannot even perceive that the continued existence of the wages system in Russia and Britain makes nonsense of the claim in both countries to have ended exploitation and introduced socialism. He glories in the fact that the Labour Party rejected Marxism but cannot see that in so doing it was rejecting Socialism.

Material World: Trade deals – and artful dealers (2025)

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

Noel Edmonds has much to answer for. His TV game show ‘Deal or No Deal’ popularised the idea of ‘deals’ as being one-time games. Each contestant had a box, which ‘The Banker’ would offer them money for, based on seeing the contents of other player’s boxes. The aim was to either have the £250K prize ticket in the box, or get The Banker to offer more money than the ticket in the box.

Most deals, though, are part of ongoing relationships: especially deals between enduring entities like countries. They are capable of constant and infinite revision. Good contracts allow the parties to vary the terms by agreement, rather than go to the palaver of completely striking a new arrangement. Edmonds, though, was an entertainer, and so could be forgiven for putting drama first; for politicians it is a different story.

Keir Starmer has been making hay out of having signed three trade deals with significant partners: USA, EU and India. Obviously, such agreements are complex, the result of many hours of hard work by professional negotiators and trade experts, and require the key role of a Prime Minister to choose winners and losers. It is right that in a democratic society such arrangements are made available for serious scrutiny and widespread deliberation, since the effects of trade deals are so far-reaching for so many people.

We do not, though, live in a properly democratic society: we live in a propagandised one. The party in government tries to spin complicated deals and draw our attention to what’s being won, while cannily hiding what’s being lost. They like to big-up the leader, ignoring the officials and their work. In these cases, the trade deals have often been commenced under the previous government and concluded under the current one. It would be interesting to see what difference the change of regime made: Starmer himself brayed in the House of Commons that he had struck deals where the Tory Party could not.

This hoopla is an interesting post-Brexit effect. Over the years, opponents of the EU tried to rein in the power of the government to strike deals through diplomacy, and the EU itself removed a lot of what goes on in trade deals from the back room and made it part of a public process via the EU Commission and Parliament.

Now that is all over, trade becomes an exclusive province of the executive: all relevant treaties are signed under Royal Prerogative. Other polities require treaties to be approved by their legislature, but there is no such requirement in the UK. Our democratic (such as they are) organs will only be involved in any legislation required to give effect to the agreement. This, in part, makes sense of the desire of the Prime Minister to make a big thing of it: this is an area where he alone can decide and give effect to such deals.

If we look, we can see that the UK actually has formal arrangements with most of the countries in the world. Even for those that it does not have a direct deal with, the World Trade Organisation rules are in place so trade can take place. So, in effect, so-called ‘Trade Deals’ are just a variance of existing relationships, and the relative formalisation or extension of existing rules .

The UK, its citizens and companies are currently the second biggest holder of US government debt . So, there is a natural intertwining of interest between the two economies, and British Prime Ministers love to talk about ‘the special relationship’, although it is not clear whether it is reciprocated.

‘The United States intends to provide certain key UK imports with modified reciprocal tariff treatment, based on our balanced trading relationship and shared national security priorities. Any such modifications will be consistent with those shared national security priorities’ .

So it is clear that joint military relations play a big part of the deal.

It should be noted, even if not written into the deal, that the US signed off on the Chagos Island deal around the same time as making the trade agreement again. Secret diplomacy is back, and great power politics has its part to play in the trade deals. Diego Garcia helps the US project its force over Pacific maritime trade, and the UK is in a position to assist that.

Shortly after Brexit, then Prime Minister Theresa May hinted darkly that Britain remains a military power. Clearly the UK government is leaning into that, using ‘security co-operation’ as part of its trading negotiation stance. This can be seen in the UK/EU agreement, where Starmer has been trumpeting getting UK access to the €150 billion Security Action for Europe (SAFE) fund: this will be used to support the UK’s armaments industry, which will doubtless, in turn, be used to fuel arms exports for both profit and strategic interests. Likewise, the deal will enable more top-level engagement between British and EU leaders for security co-operation.

The headlines of that agreement revolved around extending EU fisheries’ access to UK waters. This is an example of the government picking winners and losers. UK fishers could have had exclusive access to all the fish, but the UK government traded that for giving agricultural UK products easier access into Europe via the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) regime of the EU. This gives the lie to the so-called national interest: it is the particular interest of specific industries.

Hence, the India deal involves improved tariff terms for luxury goods like whisky and gin, hardly worthwhile to most people, but a significant gain for whisky distillers and distributors.

Trade deals are the way that capitalism tries to plan the world economy. If we lived in a democratic society, such arrangements would be subject to extensive public deliberation rather than the fiat of one man. We owe Starmer a debt of sorts: his hoopla shows how the system is run in the interest of war and profit rather than human need.

Pik Smeet

The Passing Show: Declaration of Washington (1956)

The Passing Show Column from the March 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Declaration of Washington

The declaration issued jointly by President Eisenhower and Sir Anthony Eden after their recent talks in Washington must long stand as an object-lesson in the art of inserting the maximum amount of inaccuracy in the minimum amount of space. The declaration occasionally approaches the truth when it deals with the misdeeds of “the other side,” the Soviet bloc.; but when they dwell on their own records and aims, the president and the Premier rarely get even with hailing distance of the facts.


Theological Gambit

The Anglo-American leaders begin roundly:

“We are conscious that in this year of 1956, there still rages the age-old struggle between those who believe that man has his origin and his destiny in God and those who treat man as if he were designed merely to serve a state machine.”—(The Times, 2-2-56.)

Eden and Eisenhower thus blandly ignore both those of no religion who support the Anglo-American bloc, and all those fervent religionists—including the large Russian Orthodox Church, for example—who would die for the Stalinists. In fact the struggle between the two blocs has nothing whatever to do with religion or irreligion: each state has its tame churches to give it the divine sanction: the struggle is between the British ruling class and the American ruling class (who happen to have sufficient mutual interests to support an alliance) on the one hand, and the Russian ruling class (usually supported by their Chinese opposite numbers) on the other. But the desire for self-justification is strong: hence the habit of claiming the approval of the Almighty.

One for Ripley

But this is merely an opening canter. Warming to its theme, the second paragraph of the declaration runs (believe it or not):

“ Because of our belief that the state should exist for the benefit of the individual and not the individual for the benefit of the state, we uphold the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice."

Or, as one might paraphrase it when one has regard to reality, “because of our belief in something we don't believe in, we uphold what we deny.” The claim of Eden and Eisenhower to believe that “the state should exist for the benefit of the individual and not the individual for the benefit of the state” surely borders on the farcical. Both the President and the Prime Minister were in the highest counsels of Great Britain and the U.S.A. during the last war, when the state in each of these countries so far denied the elementary rights of the individual that it conscripted millions of its citizens and sent them off to kill other individuals and be killed themselves. Not only do Eden and Eisenhower believe that the individual exists for the benefit of the state: they go further—they believe that when called upon he should cease to exist for the benefit of the state. But official pronouncements would not read so well if they confined themselves to the truth, nor would they make such good propaganda.

What can be said about the second part of this almost incredible paragraph, where the signatories allege that they uphold the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice? When one thinks of the Prime Minister giving his consent to this clause, at a time when British troops are on an active footing in British Guiana, Cyprus, Kenya and Malaya expressly to prevent their people's having governments of their own choice, one can only feel grateful that the cares of high office have not deprived Sir Anthony of his sense of humour.

All my own work

Lack of space prevents the analysis of the Declaration in the detail it deserves. But one other paragraph must be quoted:

“During the past ten and more years 600 million men and women in nearly a score of lands have, with our support and assistance, attained nationhood. Many millions more are being helped surely and steadily towards self-government. Thus, the reality and effectiveness of what we have done is proof of our sincerity."

Since Britain has been in the Empire racket longer than America, the insincerity of this statement is more immediately obvious in regard to Eden than Eisenhower. Britain attempted to retain her Indian Empire (which contains the great majority of the 600 millions referred to) by every means at her disposal. A great army was maintained there; any expression of opinion in favour of independence invited ruthless official action; if the people demonstrated for independence they were forcibly scattered and the leaders (including for example Pandit Nehru) thrown into British jails. Riots and shootings and massacres marked the progress of the years. At length the British power waned, and the British State could no longer afford to maintain the repression in face of the almost unanimous opposition of the peoples of the Indian Empire. And so the Attlee Government withdrew from India, being no longer physically capable of remaining there. It is this eviction of the British by the Indians which Sir Anthony Eden now tries to describe as a British achievement. It is as if a boxer, after fighting a dozen rounds, is at length knocked out; and as he is carried from the ring opens one eye long enough to remark “I retire voluntarily from the contest and claim all the credit for my opponent’s victory.”

Who said aggression ?

No doubt if the British are thrown out of Cyprus this will also be counted as a great British contribution to the establishment of self-government, and the British ruling class will expect the Greek ruling class (which will take over from. them) to be duly grateful. But until this happens the task is to explain why Cyprus should not have self-government. In this connection a recent letter written to The Times (11-2-56) by Lord Vansittart is of considerable interest.

It appears that Britain has every right to be in Cyprus, because it “belongs to us.” Since Lord Vansittart coyly refrains from explaining how it came to “belong to us,” a word on the subject might not be out of place. Briefly, in 1877-8 Russia attacked Turkey, with the aim of seizing part of her Balkan territories; Great Britain, in the role of knight in shining armour, sprang to Turkey’s side to defend her against Russian aggression; the fleet was ordered to the Turkish coast, and alarm and counter-alarm succeeded each other. But when the smoke had cleared away, it was found that the noble British Government had taken advantage of the crisis to force Turkey to hand Cyprus over to British rule. The Cypriots, of course, had not been consulted.

It is this expert piece of sharp practice which Lord Vansittart now contends gives “us” the right to stay in Cyprus.

A little late to recant

But do not think that Lord Vansittart’s endorsement of this smooth-faced knavery means that he has no principles. He has. Or rather he used to have. He refers in his letter to “ the primary principles for which millions died in two vast wars”: and among them, it will be remembered, was the principle of self-determination. None was more vociferous than Lord Vansittart in his clamour for strict measures against German aggression before 1939, and for the merciless prosecution of total war against Germany between 1939 and 1945. But now, it appears, Lord Vansittart has had second thoughts. The principle for which millions died, to quote his own letter, no longer engages his support That “self-determination should be automatic ” Lord Vansittart now decries as a “delusion” The Germans under Hitler, of course, were in favour of self-determination in certain circumstances; it was only the application of the principle to countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland that they objected to, because there it was against the economic interest of the German ruling class. Lord Vansittart has now accepted the pre-1945 German view of the matter, which could be summarized as “self-determination unless it conflicts with one’s own interests.”

And so Lord Vansittart changes his mind. But all the British soldiers who died in the war of which Lord Vansittart was the prophet, and in which he beat the drums louder than anyone else, they stay dead. The principle they thought they were fighting for is now found by the noble lord to be a “delusion.” If only it was as easy to bring the millions of dead to life again as it is for a politician to change his principles!

Alwyn Edgar

News in Review: Aftermath of Profumo (1963)

The News in Review column from the August 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Aftermath of Profumo

If Mr. Macmillan is forced out and if, as now seems likely, the Tories lose the next election, we may be sure that the unhappy Mr. Profumo will get a lot of the blame for it.

This, of course, will be hardly fair or accurate, The government have been in trouble for a long time and so has the Prime Minister. Profumo's indiscretion was only the last, if the most News of the Worldish, of the events which have exploded under the Tories’ confident conviction that they could do no wrong and that there was no reason why they should not stay in power for ever.

There were good grounds for this confidence. As each political crisis was ridden, as each potentially dangerous policy was ruthlessly pushed through, as Macmillan airily brushed all criticism under the nearest carpet, the working class faithfully piled up the Tory majorities. Mac and whoever he chose for his men seemed to be unbeatable.

Now, it seems all that is to be changed and, unless after hanging on, the Conservatives can recover the ground they have lost, we shall have a Labour government next time.

If that does happen the reasons for it will be no less foolish than in the past. The working class voters will think that the Labour Party is more efficient, cleverer, perhaps morally sounder, than the Tories. They may decide that the secrets of British capitalism will be better guarded under, say, Mr. George Wigg than they have been under Mr. Macmillan. Or perhaps they will virtually give up thinking about it and simply decide, as if politics were like a game of Ludo, that it is time Labour had a turn.

Whatever the detailed reasons, if the electorate return a Labour government it will be because they are hoping for better things from them. In this hope they will be as mistaken as they were in 1945 and again twelve years ago when they changed back to the Tories. Neither of these parties—nor indeed any capitalist party—can provide the sort of world which human beings should live in.

It is a safe bet that some future journalist-cum-historian will write up a romantic, exaggerated account of the Profumo affair in which the ex-Minister of War will be given an importance out of his due. In fact, the most that he has done is to contribute a little more to the probability that the British working class, sometime in the next year or so, will change from supporting one capitalist party to another.

BTC dies

The British Transport Commission is now dead. Would there be any of its stockholders grateful enough to contribute towards a suitable memorial?

Consider the facts. Doctor Beeching has proved, says the government, that a lot of the railway system cannot make a profit. Under the Beeching regime lines have been shut down wholesale and, of course, there is the Big Chop yet to come.

Now if this sort of thing happened in a privately controlled industry the people who held stock in it would suffer. Their dividends at the least would be cut and in all probability would disappear altogether.

Not so on the railways, nor in the other nationalised concerns. The Transport Commission’s final accounts showed a total deficit for its term of life of £143.6 million, almost entirely due to the unprofitable operation of the railways. Yet concealed in this deficit was the sum of £74.4 million arising from payments of interest on stock and other central charges.

Which means that tens of millions of pounds have been paid out to stockholders, of one kind or another, from railway lines many of which were not making a profit and some of which have indeed been closed.

The story is the same in the coal industry, where the recent small surplus represented an actual operating profit of £25.4 million, when we take into account the interest which the NCB is liable to pay. And this interest, again, bore no relation to the fact that there have been widespread closures of coal mines.

Even for capitalism, this is something of an Alice-in-Wonderland story. The whole point, which is quite obscured in the regular hullabaloo over the finances of State industries, is that nationalisation basically changes nothing. The workers in State industries continue to turn out surplus value, a fair chunk of which goes out in the form of profit. For them, it is exploitation as usual.

For the capitalist class it is profits as usual. Even if the profits are unusual—and unusually generous.

The Kennedy tour

It was not, of course, just to visit the Ould Homestead that Mr. Kennedy came to Europe, although one of the uses of his tour was to make plain, by his refusal to open the Giant's Causeway and his other references to Anglo-Irish relations, his support for the cause of Irish republicanism.

The Irish part of the journey was, predictably, a pressman’s junket, with a faked up cottage, pigs dragged into the kitchen and the President taking a dish of tea with kind, puddeny Irish ma's.

Beneath this ballyhoo, Kennedy was in deadly earnest. He came to rally support for his governments European policy, which has been under some heavy fire of late. He came to put the de Gaulle concept of an independently united Europe in what Washington thinks is its place. He came to win Germany away from the temptations of the stubborn old man in Paris and to make sure that Adenauer’s successor will be receptive to American influence.

It was also noticeable that, for the usual diplomatic reasons, Kennedy did not see Harold Wilson. This gave some support to the rumours that one of the results of Wilson’s recent trip to Washington is that the American government does not look favourably upon the prospect of a Labour win at the next election. Did Wilson really give Kennedy cause to adopt this attitude? Perhaps, if Labour is returned next time, we shall find out.

The real reason for visits like Kennedy’s is all too often hidden in a cloud of newspaper nonsense. The men who meet in high conference are there to stand up for the interests of their country’s ruling class. They talk about the carve up of the capitalist world and the economic and military steps they can take to keep the carve up as they want it. They discuss the disputes which capitalism is so constantly heir to.

These men appear to hold the fate of the world in their hands. But the reality lies deeper. The working class must see this essential fact and resolve to do away with the social system which produces these leaders, their cynicism, and the perpetual threat of war.

Storm over Shipping (1944)

From the April 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The most critical period of World War 2 is now but a painful memory to the members of the British and American capitalist class. The dark days of Dunkirk, of Singapore, of Pearl Harbour, are to them fast receding into history. They were indeed anxious, perilous days for them—days during which their whole economy was ruthlessly transformed and moulded, their wealth and material resources made subordinate to the needs of a struggle, the stake of which they realised, almost too late, was their very existence as major capitalist powers.

The fortunes of battle have turned. Optimism over the prospects of winning out in the struggle has given way to confidence. No longer immersed in the arduous struggle for self-preservation, they have begun to devote more of their attention to matters much more pleasing to their hearts— and, incidentally, to their pockets.

As a contrast to the airy nature of their promises of Atlantic Charters and Four Year Plans, their statements on this subject have not been marked by any lack of frankness. Recrimination and accusation have been equally indulged in by both sides. In industry after industry, particularly during this last year, has this conflict of interest made itself manifest. Some months ago controversy arose between Britain and the U.S.A. over post-war air transport. Hardly had this died down when mutual denunciation ensued over natural and the question of natural and synthetic rubber. Even more recently many hard words have been said by both parties over petroleum supplies during and after the war. On the subject of this increasing friction between the interests of British and American capitalism, the United States News (October 22nd, 1943) says the following : —

“Nationalistic suspicions are putting a new strain upon the relations between the U.S. and its British and Russian allies. They break out at every turn—over oil, bases, rubber, lend-lease supplies, shipping.”

In no industry has there been more mutual suspicion and ill-will aroused than that of shipping.

To British capitalism, a large and efficient merchant marine is an absolute and vital necessity. During the nineteenth century, when she was the “workshop of the world,” she possessed a virtual monopoly of the world’s shipping tonnage. Since 1900 that supremacy has been gradually whittled down until the proportion now owned by British shipowners amounts to but 26 per cent. of the world total.

The history of American shipping has followed a much different course. Although the end of the First Great War saw the U.S. emerge as the possessor of a large merchant fleet, the passing of high tariff laws, almost always fatal to the development of a large home shipping industry, caused the tonnage to decline rapidly. Playing in this war the same role she played in the last—that of the arsenal of her Allies—she has again been compelled to develop a large merchant marine. There is evidence, however, to show that after this war is over, she intends to maintain her maritime supremacy. It is evident that there are other motives at work besides philanthropic ones in this concern of hers for a strong mercantile marine. She sees the prospect that the conclusion of this war will witness the emergence of the U.S.A. as the dominant capitalist power of the world. From the speeches of her statesmen and businessmen, she appears to make her economic influence felt throughout the whole five continents. Already she has in some cases backed up those speeches with action—e.g., the building of air and sea bases. To the American capitalist class it is obvious that their plans to “muscle in” in the economic sphere will be far from watertight without the possession of a large merchant fleet to carry their commodities at reasonable rates. It would be economic suicide for them to produce goods to flood the markets of the world, only to find themselves held to ransom, by exorbitant freight charges in foreign vessels. They have made their intentions in the matter quite clear, witness Time (October 18th, 1943) : —

“A hoarse warning bellow tore through the fog of post-war shipping plans last week, set Britons tooting nervously. Back in Washington from a three-week visit to London, U.S. Maritime Commission’s Rear-Admiral Howard L. Vickery announced that he had told the British the U.S. ‘had become a maritime nation and intended to remain one; that we would do it by cooperation if they wanted to, but if they didn’t want to, we were going to do it anyway’. . . .”

And further :—

“The U.S. merchant fleet will be responsible almost completely for the distribution of the world’s goods immediately after, the war.” (Frank Taylor, President, American Merchant Marine Institute, Sunday Pictorial, November 21st, 1943.)

The significance of these remarks has not been lost upon British shipowners, who are themselves naturally very much concerned with their own post-war prospects and problems. The Stock Exchange Gazette (November 27th, 1943, page 1291) says, for instance: —

“Meanwhile shipowners have been able, through the General Council of British Shipping, to get down to some very important national problems, and, in this respect, will be more fitted to come to grips with actualities when the end of the war quickens the pace.”

The General Council had itself something to say in reply to Vickery’s challenging statements (Time, October 18th, 1943) : —

“Shippers have sufficient faith in American realism to believe that it will be recognised that, however important the possession of an adequate merchant marine may be to the U.S., to Britain it is a vital necessity.”

Neither British nor American representatives appear very happy about the position, however. Oscar R. Hobson, City Editor of the News Chronicle, says in this connection (October 19th, 1943) :—.

“The policy of the U.S. is to remain one of the dominant maritime powers of the world. Admiral Land, discussing the relations between the U.S. and the other maritime powers hoped that a policy of collaboration would be followed, but admitted that it would not be easy to achieve. He suggested that all the nations concerned would want a larger share of the shipping trade than the others would be willing to concede to them. Everybody, he said, wants to cut the pie, but no one wants to take a small piece. His suggestion was one which will commend itself to all right-thinking people: ‘I recommend that we bake a bigger pie.’”

In one respect, however, British and American capitalists and their economic experts are at one—neither party can put forward any solution to the problem convincing enough to bear even superficial scrutiny. The only solution which Admiral Land can advocate is “that we bake a bigger pie,” which is an argument he himself has already demolished in his own previous remarks. Whatever the size of the pie, everybody, as he himself says, wants to cut it, and no one wants a small piece.

The Stock Exchange Gazette (November 27th, 1943) is even more pessimistic : —

“It is easy, with sufficient State aid (and sufficiently complacent taxpayers) to build a mercantile marine up to any size. It is another thing to be able to use that mercantile marine, not necessarily profitably but at all, except by sailing the ships round the world in ballast. Otherwise they must be tied up at the buoys, as the unfortunate American ships were in the Hudson River and elsewhere after the last war because they were the wrong ships for such scanty post-war employment as was available.”

There it is in black and white. After the last war. the spectacle was seen of dozens—nay, hundreds—of ships lying idle in rivers, docks and other waterways, lying idle not only in the Hudson river, but in the Clyde, Mersey and Tyne; lying idle not only in Britain and the U.S.A., but in. every country possessing a merchant marine worthy of the name; hundreds of vessels rusting and rotting for lack of profitable cargoes, whilst millions of the world’s inhabitants went hungry, cold and comfortless, and this at a time when—crowning, tragic irony of all—foodstuffs were being burnt, raw materials destroyed, machines deliberately scrapped or rendered idle, and millions of human beings the whole world over, who could have set to and produced the means of human satisfaction were wasting their miserable lives away in poverty and idleness.

The stresses and strains manifest now in shipping are but the reflection of forces at work throughout the whole of industry. The struggles for economic advantage now taking place are paralleled in oil, rubber, textiles, steel, air transport; these struggles, heated and violent as they are now whilst the war is still being waged, will be nothing to the conflicts set in motion after the war has been won.

Whatever group of capitalists wins out in this economic struggle, the conditions the workers experienced before the war they will suffer again in a more aggravated form after it. Socialism still remains the only solution to their problems. Their task is still before them : to organise consciously and politically for the abolition of capitalism and all that it entails, and in its place to establish Socialism, a system in which all the world’s resources will be utilised to the full, in which production will be made subordinate, not to the will for profit of a few, but to the needs of all its inhabitants.

Stan Hampson

Trade relations after the war (1942)

From the February 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Notwithstanding the hopes of some worker-optimists and the fears of some capitalists, capitalism will not disappear after and as a consequence of the war. It will change some of its features but it cannot disappear until such time as the working class of the world is ready to establish Socialism, and that cannot be until much more has been done to propagate Socialist ideas.

Nevertheless there wilt be changes, if only because the war will leave behind it a different relationship between the Powers, large and small. It is a fairly safe assumption that there will be re-grouping and that in place of the present multiplicity of States the world will be effectively controlled by a smaller number of large Empires and Federations. Beyond that it is difficult to go because there are no simple over-riding factors which will determine the grouping. Much depends, of course, on the degree of defeat and exhaustion suffered by the respective warring States. Within limits, therefore, it is true to say, as does the Times City Editor, that “we do not know . . . what sort of world the post-war world is going to be” (January 19th, 1942).

There are, however, two things that we can see clearly enough, first the continuance of the main capitalist rivalries in international trade, and secondly the ideas which will guide the efforts at reform on the part of various interested parties.

Let us first dispose of the idea that the acceptance of the Atlantic Charter, with its broad generalisations about international co-operation and care for the welfare of the population, settles the problem of capitalist profit-seeking and consequent international rivalries. What hope is there that the Allied “New Order” will bring to an end what Major-General Fuller describes as “the now century and a half old competitive economic struggle between the nations, which undoubtedly has in the past led to revolution within them and wars between them”? (Evening Standard, January 5th, 1942.) Will the Governments be able to agree, or even want to agree, to do away with the various practices, backed up by armed force, through which they have in the past sought to further the trading interests of the capitalist class? Most of the comments on the Atlantic Charter made by the Press have shown that even the question of Anglo-American relationship bristles with difficulties.

The Charter demands a gradual return to the long ago abandoned system of free trade, but “with due regard to existing obligations.” Some important existing obligations are the Ottawa agreements on the side of the British Empire and the United States import tariff and trade agreements with various countries. Sir Patrick Harmon, M.P., a representative of British capitalism, speaking on the question recently “expressed vigorous criticism of the trade policy of the United States” and declared that the Atlantic Charter can hardly be applied in the presence of those American trade agreements (Manchester Guardian, December 19th, 1941). The Manchester Guardian, while traditionally in favour of free trade, points out other obstacles, and is unable to go further than to suggest that concessions by Britain be made dependent on a change of attitude by U.S.A.

“What Americans strongly oppose . . . is a continuation after the war of the Empire preferences and the sterling area of exchange control. It ought to be made plain that the removal of these unwanted safeguards will depend on a much greater degree of American co-operation than has yet been envisaged.”— (“Manchester Guardian,” December 19th. 1941.)

The “Round Table” which represents influential British financial and industrial views, published in its December issue an article on Anglo-American co-operation and stressed the same difficulties of reconciling American and British standpoints. While the United States will expect the most favourable terms of trade from Britain and will want to export to this country large quantities of American goods, the capitalists of this country, owing to a greatly weakened financial position, will want preference to be given to those countries which buy British exports. This, says the “Round Table,” is a situation full of possible mischief unless the two Governments can reach understanding. An extreme view was expressed in a speech a year ago by Mr. Virgil Jordan, president of an American employers’ organisation, the National Industrial Conference Board. According to a report of his speech published by the New York Herald Tribune (quoted in Labour Research Department Fact Service, January 28th, 1941) he said: —

“If England should emerge from the struggle without defeat . . . she will be so impoverished economically and crippled in prestige that it is improbable she will be able to resume or maintain the dominant position in world affairs which she has occupied so long. At best . . . England will become a junior partner in a new Anglo-Saxon imperialism, in which the economic resources and the military and naval strength of the United States will be the centre of gravity.”

Mr. Jordan may well prove to be largely mistaken as were his forerunners who were making similar prophecies after the last war, but what is relevant here is the fact that he and his fellow capitalists in America, seeking to further their own interests through U.S.A. foreign policy, will be tempted to bring about the condition he envisages, while his opposite numbers in this country will be seeking to defend their interests through British foreign policy. In the resulting struggle the pious hopes of the Charter are likely to be soon forgotten.

A similar field for conflict will exist in the problem of reconstructing the industry of Central Europe. Some interests here and in America will see the prospect of profitable activity for themselves in helping to carry out that reconstruction, and Mr. Leonard Behrens, speaking at the Manchester branch of the Institute of Export, affirms that “after the war we must re-establish in Europe industries which would compete with ours. He believed the hope of our exporting industries lay not in any policy of exclusion but in encouraging increased consumption” (Manchester Guardian, December 10th, 1941). But what will be the view of the British capitalists who see themselves adversely affected by this competition from Central Europe? They will naturally ask for subsidies or tariffs or some other form of protection without giving another thought to the Atlantic Charter.

One aspect of the drive for trade after the war will be the demand for protection for British agriculture. While the present Minister of Agriculture has declared that agriculture must be protected against the importation of cheap food, industrial capitalists will have opposite views, as also will the wheat producing countries. According to the Daily Express (January 22nd, 1942), the glut of wheat in Canada, U.S.A., Australia and Argentina has now reached the “staggering total” of 1,750-million bushels, or much more than double the pre-war average.

Then there is the growing tendency of Governments themselves to conduct bulk trading operations because of the stronger bargaining position this gives them as compared with individual capitalist trading. Russia and Germany are among the countries which had carried this practice far in the years before the present war. Following their example, the British Government in 1940 set up the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation, financed with Government money, with the object of carrying on “a general trading business … as merchants, concessionaires, and financiers … in any part of the world.” In an article dealing with the work of the Corporation and its subsidiaries, the Economist (January 17th, 1942) sees the likelihood that it will have to be retained after the war—”There may be a good case for its continued handling of such trade (i.e., trade in raw materials with Russia) which even under normal peace conditions will have to be conducted with a Government monopoly on the other side of the counter.”

It will be noticed that all of the above mentioned planners of post-war international trade take for granted the continuance of the capitalist trading system with its necessary acceptance of the desire to realise profit out of the export of goods on the most favourable terms. In other words, they all accept the continuance of the economic struggle which has had such disastrous results in the past.

The other side of the New Order is the insistence on the desirability of raising the standard of living of the world’s population. Here you find the Conservative Times and the Labour leader, Mr. Herbert Morrison, agreeing about the form of words to be used. The Times (October 4th, 1941) says that the old conception of “Wealth of Nations” is “finding more positive expression in ‘the welfare of nations,'” and Mr. Morrison suggests “the conception of human welfare as the avowed aim and object of international post-war policy” (Times, June 7th, 1941). But the magic word “welfare” and the seeming agreement get us nowhere. Before human welfare can be the aim and object of international policy that aim and that object have got to be adopted by those who control the Government and that cannot be while capitalism is the established order of society. The aim of the capitalist, whether individually or through capitalist trading and industrial associations or through Governments, is and must continue to be the production and sale of goods for profit.

Governments may come under the control of men or parties which profess other aims, but so long as they have the task of administering capitalism it will be the profit motive, not the idealistic aim, that will and must determine their conduct and policy at home and in the international field.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: A Few Words on the Atlantic Charter (1941)

Editorial from the October 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Atlantic Charter drafted by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill lays down the principles of the post-war international settlement as viewed by the U.S.A. and Britain. It has now received the general support of Russia and of the small Powers allied against Germany. It suggests obvious comparisons with the attempt to settle world affairs after the last war and with the scheme the German Government has put forward for enforcement if they are the victors. If it were as easy to dispose of awkward problems as it is to draft fine sounding proclamations we could perhaps agree about the superiority of the Atlantic Charter over the Versailles settlement and over the German plan. There is this to be said for the Atlantic Charter, that it is phrased in terms which do not envisage dividing up the spoils of world trade for the benefit of the victors. In Point 4 it pledges Great Britain and the U.S.A. that they will endeavour, “with due respect for their existing obligations” (more about this later) “to further enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.”

This has been compared with the third of President Wilson’s 14 points drafted in 1918, which promised similar equality of trade conditions, but only “among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.” In other words, Germany and her allies were in effect barred.

Similarly it may be compared with the plan for world settlement recently elaborated by one of the leading Nazi economists, Werner Daitz. This was summarised in the Times (September 10th, 1941); under this plan the world is to be divided into six groups, the East-Asiatic, the Indo-Malay, the European, the African, the North American and the South American. The European, which is to take in all Western Russia and Great Britain, is to be under German dominance and according to Daitz it will have complete control over Africa, and there is to be no nonsense of equal trading conditions: —

“Europe will exercise a dominating power over the world. She will need much less food and raw materials from oversea than heretofore, but she will remain the greatest selling market for the countries producing rawstuffs. Consequently, she will be able to dictate the terms on which she buys. What will happen to Australia if Germany refuses her wool ? Or to the Argentine if she declines her beef ? Or to the United States if she will have no cotton? Europe will be able to use the fact that she is the world’s greatest consumer and the world’s intensest centre of industrial production as a political lever to control the other Lebensraume.”

Promise and Performance

But while the words and sentiments differ, what about the prospect of fulfilment? It will not be forgotten that when President Wilson had been disposed of other men and other interests actually dominated the settlement, and paid not even lip-service to the liberal sentiments expressed by Wilson in others of his 14 Points.

Already there has been questioning about that innocent little clause in the Atlantic Charter which reads: “With due respect for their existing obligations.” At the meeting of the nine allied Governments held in London, on September 24th, the representative of the Dutch Government raised objection and said “it was the view of his Government that this reservation might diminish the beneficial effect of the whole clause.”—(News-Chronicle, September 25th, 1941.)

The City Editor of the same journal supported the Dutch Government’s protest though pointing out that that Government too is asking preferential treatment for its own interest. He added: —

“Politicians, business men and leading civil servants are already busily engaged in explaining away Point 4. Some of them are even reported to have argued with scant tact; in the United States that we must maintain exchange control and trade bilateralism as permanent features of our economic set-up, since we “cannot afford” to do without them.

Bilateralism is the system of trade which says, “I won’t buy from you unless you buy as much from me.” That system is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the equal access principle, which says, “I submit to no conditions from those to whom I sell and impose no conditions on those from whom I buy.”

If Point 4 of the Atlantic Charter means anything at all, it means adherence to the latter, “multilateral,” system of trade, and it is disquieting to find even distinguished economists setting at defiance both our signature to the Atlantic Charter and the most elementary doctrines of their own science”.— (News Chronicle, September 25th, 1941.)

So already it is plain that Clause 4 is going to have a rough passage and if its opponents have their way, to quote the News-Chronicle, “all that in practice is likely to be left of a fine principle is a fine phrase.”

Who will Slay the Capitalist Giants?

All the emphasis in the Atlantic Charter is laid on the relations between nations, but what about the great capitalist combines at home? The Atlantic Charter sees the need to protect the small nations against dominance by the larger ones if they are to trade and have access to raw materials on equal terms. But if capitalism is to continue, as Roosevelt and Churchill take for granted that it will, how is this to be done? How will they deal with the great capitalist concerns like Unilever, Imperial Chemical Industries and similar concerns in other lands? Who is going to slay these giant international semi-monopolies which are the real dominators of world trade? What is the use of saying that trade is on equal terms, a fair field and no favour, when these octopus organisations are left with their tentacles sprawling across the globe, not to mention the fact that they will naturally seek to use their great influence with governments to advance their interests.

This is the acid test of the talk of putting capitalist trade on a better basis. Is there any intention among the upholders of capitalism of reversing a half century of development towards bigger and bigger monopolies? Some twenty years ago a Labour leader, Mr. J. R. Clynes, said that his party thought it better to have a large number of small capitalists than a small number of large ones. Would Mr. Clynes or any other Labour leader say that to-day? Indeed, how could they when they are committed to a programme of amalgamation and formation of great public utility corporations ?

Is Agriculture to be Destroyed by Cheap Foreign Imports ?

There is another awkward fact to be faced by those who think that fine words about equal trade conditions are a contribution to settling the world’s problems. Are any countries to be allowed to impose protective tariffs or give subsidies to agriculture or other industries in order to save them from bankruptcy in face of a flood of cheaper products from abroad ? The News-Chronicle, true to its free-trade doctrines, says that the Atlantic Charter rules out these practices, as it logically does, but where do the Conservative Party and the Labour Party stand ? The Conservatives and many individuals in the Labour Party are already committed to a policy of protecting agriculture in Britain against a flood of imports from countries able to grow food more cheaply. What do they understand by Clause 4? And if they demand protective measures or subsidies for agriculture how will they object to Germany and other countries following a similar line for various industries ? In short, how will the trade scramble after this war be any different from that before the war’?

Twenty odd years ago the Labour Party had an answer. They were prepared to take the free trade line and let agriculture or any other industry sink or swim without aid. In their 1918 “Labour and the new social order,” they said “we ourselves object to all Protective Customs Tariffs,” and on the question of agriculture they said specifically that nothing must be done which would raise the price of foodstuffs here above the price level of foodstuffs imported from abroad.

They would no doubt give a somewhat different answer now but change is not necessarily progress, and the task of making capitalism work harmoniously is at least as difficult now as it was then. Socialists have no doubt about their attitude. Capitalism cannot be made to work satisfactorily. It must be abolished. Those who think differently, and this includes all those who have hastened to applaud the sentiments of the Atlantic Charter, should at least face up to these problems and decide where they stand.

Tit-Bits from the Press (1941)

From the August 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fierce Competition after the War

At the annual meeting of Salts (Saltaire), Ltd., Sir Frank B. Sanderson, M.P., stated (Daily Telegraph, July I7th, 1941) : —

“Britain must plan now for post-war export trade. Peace would bring in its train fierce competition in the world’s markets, and it was only by planning in advance that we should be able to hold our own. A definite, carefully calculated, and well-defined trading policy would be essential. Preferential exports, priority of transport facilities, and stabilising of exchanges were but a few of the matters that would require searching thought.”

There is something rather clear-cut about this picture—something rather different from the nebulous images of the Priestleys. the Morrisons, and the Bevins. It pictures the return of capitalism as we know it from the past—not only fierce competition in the markets of the world, but fierce competition for jobs, unemployment, and poverty and insecurity for the producers.

What Dorothy Thompson Thinks

Among the reasons being given as to why the U.S.A. should enter the war now, the following, by the well-known American writer, Dorothy Thompson, is worth placing on record : —

“The alternative to acting now is either the possible defeat of the British Isles before this year is over, and, in that case, the certainty of a terribly disadvantageous war for the United States, or a very long and exhausting war of attrition, with unforeseeable revolutionary consequences arising out of chaos and starvation.”

Who will do the Unpleasant Tasks ?

One of the most frequent objections raised to Socialist ideas is that under Socialism most people will want to do the pleasant tasks. The present war provides an irrefutable answer to this objection. Numerous instances have been recorded in the Press of how not only men, but women and youths, have, without reward, risked their lives in extinguishing incendiary bombs, putting out fires, rescuing people from falling debris, driving ambulances while bombs are falling, and so on. The motive for these acts of heroism is the belief that the war is a just one—for freedom and the stamping out of Fascism and Nazism. Just as willingly will people be ready to take part in all the tasks of the community when they have assured knowledge that all those tasks are indeed directed towards the common weal.

R. M.

Notes by the Way: Starvation as an Incentive. (1941)

The Notes by the Way Column from the June 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Starvation as an Incentive.

Correspondence has been going on in The Times as to whether it is possible to run industry without the profit motive. One contributor, Sir Francis Lindley, maintained that the great majority of the human race, when not enslaved, have worked for profit. To which Mr. Julian Huxley replied, pointing out (April 29th, 1941) that “the great majority of men in primitive societies worked for subsistence, and in advanced societies for wages or salaries.”

Some remarks made recently by Mr. Bevin, Minister of Labour, have bearing on this capitalist illusion that workers work because of the prospect of making a profit. Speaking in the House of Commons on April 2nd, Mr. Bevin referred to an M.P. who had said that industry relies on the power of dismissal to maintain discipline. Then he continued : —

“What does that mean ? It means that there is an economic drive on the workman to work, the ability to force your will on another by the imposition of starvation, which inculcates fear and resentment in the other man’s mind. That means that the basic condition upon which your system is run has been starvation or the ability to make another citizen unemployed. Well, that has meant war.”

Speaking on the same subject in a broadcast to America, reported in the Daily Herald (April 26th, 1941), he claimed that experience had shown that an improvement takes place when the threat of the sack is removed: —

“A factor that is becoming apparent is you get better discipline and loyalty with fear of dismissal removed than you do by the threat of it.”

If this improvement can take place under existing conditions, it is an indication of what would be possible when, under Socialism, production is carried on solely for the common good.

The Sunday Express (March 30th, 1941) published a story showing the capacity of the workers to carry on production in the absence of the employer. The latter, an Italian, was interned for nine months, and while he was away ‘his British employees have been running his factory admirably.’ The absent employer, who has not yet been permitted to visit his factory, received a letter from his 200 employees assuring him ‘that they would carry on in my interests until I was able to take charge again.'”

He remarks: “They have done magnificently.”

* * * *

Why the Workers Save

The Times (April 21st 1941) published an article based on first-hand knowledge of the workers’ attitude towards the Government savings campaign. The writer comments on the fact that many workers save in order to be able to face the anticipated depression after the war. “A majority of the working-class expect hard times after the war,” he writes, and quotes a Bradford weaver, who said : —

“I think there’ll be a big slump. I was in t’last slump; it was a terrible time. People didn’t save anything. I was always telling them, if it’s only two or three shillings, don’t spend more than you need. If it’s anything like the last, God help them.”

The naive writer of the article is rather surprised to learn that the attitude of the workers towards saving is not like that of the capitalist: —

“It is only in a very few instances that a working man is putting by money as a form of capital accumulation, which will eventually enable him to invest in property or become a small trader. Most often saving is a form of insurance against known contingencies : marriage, sickness, death, unemployment, old age, hard times . . . even at the poverty level families frequently save, at the expense of their elementary subsistence needs . . . ”—(The Times, April 21st, 1941.)

In short, the capitalist saves out of his superfluity in order to accumulate capital; the worker saves out of his insufficiency in order to protect himself against capitalism and the capitalist.

* * * *

Re-assuring the U.S.A.

One of the questions Mr. Wendell Willkie kept asking while in this country was: “Is it true England is going Red?” The answers he received must have convinced him that he had been somewhat misinformed.—(News-Chronicle, February 25th, 1941.)

“To suggest Britain will go Communist, Socialist or Totalitarian, is fantastic.”—Lord Halifax (News-Chronicle, April 4th, 1941).

* * * *

Catholicism and the Social Order

In a letter to the Manchester Guardian (May I7th, 1941), a director of the Catholic Social Guild summarised the declarations made by the Papacy on social problems. He stated that it is 50 years since Pope Leo XIII protested against the maldistribution of wealth by which “a few very rich men lay upon the labouring poor a yoke little better than slavery.” Leo, and later on Pius XI, “laid the blame on economic liberalism and opportunist politics by which social and political relationships were divorced from morality.”

The Catholic Church nowadays, while condemning socialism, also condemns capitalism, and makes the claim that the Catholic proposals are a practicable and superior alternative. It is a fair criticism to point out that within the half-century since Leo’s declaration there have been long periods during which professedly Catholic governments have ruled over predominantly Catholic countries. Spain and Italy are two examples. Can it be said that these countries have been In any way superior to other capitalist countries from the standpoint of social relationship? The Catholic authorities in those countries did not get rid of capitalism and did not rescue the labouring poor from their yoke of slavery to the rich. Indeed, some at least of the Italian and Spanish workers have gained the impression that the Catholic Church was as much interested in maintaining’ capitalism as any of the non-Catholic governments.

As for the point about political relationship being based on morality, it is interesting to see The Times (March 1st, 1941) stating that the late King Alfonso of Spain, and the Spanish Dictator General Primo de Rivera—both of them Catholics—”had undoubtedly violated the Constitution of the Realm, and their enemies made a particular point of the fact that King Alfonso had broken his oath to respect it.”

Edgar Hardcastle