Philosopher off the rails (1963)

Book Review from the June 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Perhaps it was inevitable that Bertrand Russell would be asked to write in the current Penguin Special series. After all, it would be churlish to deny that he is a remarkably vigorous old man with a mind more alert and youthful than many men half his age. Anyway, he is certainly an able writer.

But there our compliments must end. We are not really concerned with the attractiveness of Russell’s personality but with whether he has any grasp of the capitalist situation in relation to the hideous problem of war. For that is something on which he has spoken loud and often in the past few years. When judged from this standpoint, he scores very low marks.

Readers will, of course, be aware of his prominence in the C.N.D. and later the Committee of One Hundred, of some of the foolish things he has said and done in the name of Nuclear Disarmament. But if you want a concise handbook of pathetic political ignorance, then Unarmed Victory (Penguin Special 2s. 6d.) is a must. This tells of the author’s frantic appeals to the various statesmen involved in the Cuban and Sino-Indian crises toward the end of last year. The short note on the back cover even suggests that perhaps it was Bertrand Russell’s efforts which really saved the world then from nuclear disaster.

There is no evidence to support this at all. The Soviets certainly took a gigantic risk (maybe a calculated one) when they started supplying missiles to Cuba. They must have realised early on that the U.S. would bridle sooner or later, but having gone so far, it is ludicrous to suppose that the cries of Lord Russell made much difference. They were, after all, quite well aware of the man in the street’s horror of war—how often have they used this very point in their propaganda—and apart from anything else, war is a costly business, not to be embarked on lightly.

It was suggested at the time by such journals as The Economist that perhaps the Soviet Union had never really intended to go to war over Cuba, that Krushchev’s advisers probably warned him that Russia was just not ready to take a showdown that far. But who knows, maybe next time they may think differently. There will certainly be other crises to make our hearts jump with fright as we face again the prospect of obliteration.

If we are to get behind this problem, we must recognise first of all that the gathering of the war clouds is not just a nasty accident. We have, in fact, to acknowledge that the Cubas and the Berlins are manifestations of a bitter struggle which is waged incessantly between the various capitalist powers. It is useless to appeal to the statesmen, because such people are caught up in the tragedy and, as spokesmen for their respective ruling groups, are not there for humanitarian reasons. They are prepared to go to war if their interests so demand.

Lord Russell certainly has not grasped this. True, he recognises the existence of American capitalist interests in Cuba and the readiness of the U.S. Government to bolster up Batista in support of them. But he does not seem to understand a new group of rulers now has the island in its grip, having risen to power on the tide of seething discontent generated by the hated Batista regime. It has happened elsewhere in the world and is a familiar story. Dr. Castro promised to “take immediate steps to resolve” the problems of housing, unemployment, education, health, etc., but instead took immediate steps to turn Cuba into an armed camp. And for the Cuban workers there was a distinction without much difference—they could now die for Castro instead of Batista.

Throughout this book are dotted examples of the confused and contradictory thinking which seems to afflict those who are tarred with the CND brush. In a footnote on page 34, the author chides the Labour Party Executive for advocating mediation through the United Nations. “. . . Whereas we may consider the UNO to be the cat’s whiskers,” he says, “most inhabitants of the U.S. consider it merely a cat’s paw.” Nevertheless, it was Lord Russell who telegraphed Krushchev only two days before, urging “condemnation (of U.S. actions) to be sought through the United Nations.”

Again, it is not disputed that “nuclear weapons are instruments of total annihilation,” but it is foolish to say in the same breath that they “ are themselves an imminent threat to the peace of nations and a hostile act ” (page 25). For such a statement begs the entire question—why nuclear bombs? In fact, why armaments of any kind? Such horrors do not exist in a vacuum. They are produced by society, but a society deeply divided into owners and non-owners in the means of life. It is here that we must commence our search for the way to free mankind from the terrifying prospect which faces it. Socialists discovered long ago that armed conflict is the ultimate method used by one group of owners to advance its interests against those of another. How ludicrous then to try and deal with atom bombs in isolation.

Nowhere does the author give any real consideration to this vitally important aspect. He has no inkling of what causes war and he is not opposed to it in principle anyway. To him there are some wars which are justifiable and others not (see page 11). Well, at least he is honest about it, but is it any wonder that he gets into such a mess when writing about present trends towards another bloodbath, and only a few lines later is blaming the “strength and habit of tradition ” for the strife between governments since the end of the last world war?

Having mistaken notions about the cause of war, it is not surprising that Lord Russell should have faulty notions also about its future prevention. He wants a joint statement by America and Russia:

That nuclear war cannot achieve anything anybody would desire . . . that they have a common interest, namely survival, and that both will sacrifice this common interest if there is a war.

What touchingly childlike faith he has in the statements of capitalist politicians, despite ample evidence of history to show how worthless these are, even granting the sincerity of those who utter them. But there is more to come. Let all states agree, he pleads, to submit their disputes to the arbitration of disinterested parties (whatever that may mean). He feels that arbitrating bodies “would acquire such moral authority that it would be very difficult for any government to flout the decisions of the arbitrators.”

Yet in the very next paragraph, he forgets this idea and advocates instead that prime fallacy of recent years, World Government. This will not rely on moral authority, because Lord Russell says it will have armed forces “. . . capable of defeating any state or combination of states that might attempt to resist its authority.” It will have to have a monopoly of all the major weapons of war and possess the raw materials necessary for weapons of mass destruction— presumably including those of nuclear origin.

Here is the final absurdity in one hundred and twenty pages, that strife can be abolished by indulging in it. For this is what the proposal really means, ignoring for the moment all the other objections which deny World Government even the remotest chance of ever being established. The strength of such an organisation, on Lord Russell’s own admission, would depend very much on its ability to wage war, the very evil we all seek to end.

As we have already said, Bertrand Russell is an able writer, but the whole of this book is a transparent illustration of his pitiful ignorance on how to solve perhaps the most terrible problem of our time.

Eddie Critchfield

Professor Cole rides again (1956)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

We received the following letter to which a reply is attached.

S.W.3.

17.1.56.

World Socialist Movement

Dear Sirs,

In the January issue of the Socialist Standard there is a reference on p. 3 to “movements like the one sponsored by G. D. H. Cole”—presumably referring to the World Socialist Movement.  Since your writer gave a quite erroneous impression of the nature of this movement I should be obliged if you would publish the following information in the Socialist Standard.

The World Socialist Movement is not a movement craving for a mass following. Naturally we seek to convince people of the possibility and desirability of world Socialism (as, we understand, does the Socialist Party of Great Britain). Your article refers to “ those who . . . have hedged, compromised, and thrown principles to the winds in order to swell the numerical support,” etc. However applicable these statements may be to the other movements you mention, they most certainly do not apply to the World Socialist Movement, which is quite explicitly an educational and not a mass movement. Your readers can confirm this by reading our introductory leaflet (obtainable from the above address) which contains a summary of our beliefs in six principles—” the minimum, which can on no account be diluted in an attempt to gain popular support.’

Yours,

John H. Roddam.

Secretary W.S.M.

Executive Committee, S.P.G.B.,

52, Clapham High St., S.W.4.

Reply:

In an article that appeared in an American periodical “The Nation” (April 23rd. 1955), G. D. H. Cole outlined the practical suggestions he thought would come from the organisation that he proposed should be established. As a preliminary he stated:

“Besides, mass parties cannot think; they can only be influenced by the thinking of individuals or small groups of people who are prepared to think for them.”

Whit would this group of intellectual snobs do?

“The immediate task of this group would be not to act but to think together and to plan—to restate Socialist principles in relation to the most pressing contemporary problems, and to base on these principles a broad programme of action to which the various national movements would be called upon to play their part. Each member of the group, or order, would publicize its ideas in his own country and try to induce the national leaders to take them up.” 

What is this but an attempt to get a mass following of blind supporters? And what is the nature of the ideas that would be publicized?

“First, a clearly defined attitude towards the making and potential use of atomic weapons; second, a well-thought-out plan of campaign for a ‘war upon want’ designed to equalize, as nearly as possible, conditions of living in all countries; third, plans for a world economic structure that will avoid the evils both of capitalism and of bureaucratic centralization and will open up for the workers in every country rapidly increasing opportunities for democratic, responsible self-government in their working lives; and fourth the complete ending of imperialist domination, both political and economic, and the extension of self-governing independence to all people."

In other words Cole had gone back to the position of the early Fabians whose policy was largely responsible for the present position of the Labour Party.

Now let us turn to the leaflet which our critic encloses. It opens with the following three paragraphs in heavy black type:

"The World Socialist Movement strives to justify through its members its claim to be the nucleus of the coming world socialist society and not of a new party.

“We regard national governments and institutions as outmoded and aggressively competitive and militaristic in conception; and so we appeal to socialists all over the world to combine with us in the struggle to free ourselves and others from that which fetters our thoughts, falsifies our actions and makes a virtue of competition and segregation in place of co-operation and unity.

“We believe that socialists are hampered in their attempt to bring about a socialist world society less by opposition from without than by dissension from within, and our basic principles have been formulated in the belief that they are acceptable to all socialists; but they are the minimum, which can on no account be diluted in an attempt to gain popular support.”

The leaflet concludes with the following paragraph, also in heavy black type:

“We do not ask you to renounce existing loyalties; but there is no alternative to accepting new and greater loyalties if a socialist world is to come about.”

What is all this empty and dubious phraseology but an attempt to form a mass party. As an inducement they even say, in effect, stick to your old wrong-headed parties but also join us and help to swell our ranks. If this is not throwing principles to the winds, what is? To help swell their following they say, in the body of the leaflet:

“We are not concerned with attacking any country or political party. . . . There is no time to be wasted on destructive criticism;”

. . . 

“We do not believe that a socialist world can be achieved merely by persuading national governments to cooperate more closely. Neither do we believe that people will think as world citizens if we merely attack their deep rooted patriotic emotions”

. . .

“The World Socialist Movement has been started to bring together all the answers to the problems but we want everyone who shares the same reasonable belief to join us and work with us in the pursuit of our ideal.”

. . .

“But we shall have no rigid dogma that must be accepted before an individual can become a member. Every man and woman who wants a socialist world can find a place in our Movement and will be expected to give, in work and money, according to his means”

Well! Well! Well! “Never mind whether you support nationalisation, Social Credit, the Co-operative Movement or any other anti-Socialist idea that you wrongly believe is Socialist; join us and help to swell our ranks. We are the re-incarnated Fabians waiting to help you along the road to futility again!" It’s the old old stuff again with a new label on the bottle.

Now let us take a look at the “ ideal ” of this new party that is not a party. Here is their definition of it:

“The first need is to outline the sort of world we are striving for. We want a socialist world and by that we mean one in which there is common citizenship under a single code of law, in which every human being has equal rights. It means that there must be world planning for the production of raw materials and the manufacture of basic commodities, with world ownership of essential industries.”

What Labourite or advocate of state-ownership would disagree with that vague definition? Most Capitalists would find little fault with it; it is just an expansion of the “Welfare State” idea. There is nothing here about the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution by. and in the interest of, the whole community. Is there not in this country already common citizenship under a single code of law? Is it not true that the heavy hand of the law falls equally on the millionaire and the pauper if either steals a loaf of bread?

The underlying implication of the leaflet is that its authors envisage Socialism as (synonymous with State ownership—with the qualification that it is a world state and not a national one. There is no suggestion of the abolition of buying and selling: no suggestion of a class cleavage in society, nor of the power of the class state. In the main the leaflet consists of vague generalities, inept proposals, and ignorance of the nature of the social problem and of the only steps that can be taken to solve it. It contains a number of contradictory statements. We have mentioned one or two: the claim that they are not a new party—but everyone should join them; that everyone should stay in their old parties—but ought to join them; that they have no dogma—but basic principles to which all must agree.

Now let us examine the six basic principles to which, they say, all prospective members must agree.

“1. To a socialist racial prejudices, religious intolerance, and class distinctions have no justification.”

That does not get anyone farther than polite agreement, though one might argue about the “justification.” Many who are not Socialists would agree to it. as they would agree to 'statements like “Poverty, hunger and oppression have no justification.”

“2. The ultimate aim is total disarmament, renunciation of national sovereignty, and positive co-operation between all peoples.”

Here we have the cloven hoof. The ultimate aim. not the immediate aim. The immediate aim can be the reformers' usual quiverful of projects that lead up blind alleys. What reformer would disagree with that alleged principle?

“3. 'Equality of opportunity' and 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' should be applied on a worldwide as well .as a national scale.”

We note that these principles should be applied, not must or will be applied. And what is the meaning of “a world-wide as well as a national scale?” Is it suggested that they are now applied on a national scale? As there is no explanation of what the authors mean by the two principles, either here or in the body of the leaflet, we are left in the dark about how to interpret them.

"4. The means of production, distribution and exchange should belong to the community, and not to any individual or group.”

As money is the means of exchange the authors apparently envisage it belonging to the community. Consequently they are assuming the continuance of buying and selling. In an earlier part of the leaflet (which we have already quoted) they say that private enterprise has proved inadequate and the profit motive inefficient, but they do not attack state ownership—or nationalisation— so we are justified in assuming that this is what they mean by belonging “to the community” as this has always been the pseudo Socialist outlook.

“ 5. True socialism is true democracy and must be practised in political, economic and social fields.

“ 6. Socialism is a faith, an economic system and a political creed—the only real solution to the problems with which man is faced.”

What these two “principles” mean we do not know. There is nothing in the leaflet to explain them, and we take it that they are just some more wind. But we note that Socialism is “a political creed.” We assume, therefore, in spite of their denial, that they are in fact a new political party.

One thing, however, can be admitted about these “principles ”; they are so vague, windy and diluted that it would be difficult to dilute them any further. Consequently the supporters of multifarious reformist programmes, who falsely call themselves Socialists, should have no difficulty in accepting them and thereby building another road to the wilderness of futility, in the interests conscious or unconscious, of keeping the wheels of Capitalism running along smoothly.

Gilmac.

Contradiction (2024)

Book Review from the March 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Contradiction Within the Soul of Humanity. By Ernest Dyer. New Generation Publishing. 2023. 83pp.

This book is, by the author’s own admission, his personal journey of escape from the conditioning which society, via conventional upbringing and education system, marks us all with. This journey, he tells us, was triggered by his questioning of why humanity has been plagued by the horrors of war and conflict throughout much of its known history. The book’s title, with its use of the word ‘soul’, may suggest some kind of religious inspiration, but, as he makes clear, even as a teenager he realised that religious explanations made no sense and that, as he puts it ‘God was a fictional construct’. So the underlying reasons for the competition and conflict which seemed fundamental to human society had to lie elsewhere. He proceeds here to identify ‘the evil in humankind’s history’ (his words) as developing from the beginnings of ‘civil life’, referring to the start of settled agriculture and the development of fixed communities around 10,000 years ago with their hierarchies and wealth inequalities.

This is very much in line with much modern thinking about the origins of inequality, inter-group conflict and the challenge to the pro-social behaviour among homo sapiens which had largely characterised its previous 2-300,000 years of existence. That challenge, he argues, has reached its peak in modern society, where the sources of ‘evil’ are not just war and economic inequality but also environmental degradation and the threats posed by artificial intelligence. He does not stint on detailing the horrors which war has brought, and still brings, to humanity and the overwhelming waste of resources occasioned by war and preparation for it. As he rightly points out, war in the modern world is overwhelmingly caused by ‘competition over valued resources such as: water, land, fossil fuels, rare and valued metals and materials’. This, he tells us, results in ‘a mismatch between what we can now do (technologically) and our seeming inability to manage the consequences’. He sees as the driver of all this the interests of what he variously calls the ‘elite class’, ‘elite groups’ and ‘national leaders’, with the vast majority of people being ‘impotent witnesses’. He recognises that these elites are the owners or controllers of the vast majority of society’s wealth, even if he does not explicitly identify them, as we would, as the capitalist class and their representatives.

What is the author’s remedy for this contradiction between human potential and the actual reality of human society? Since, together with war, competition and inequality, the other great ‘evil’ he sees in the world is the modern nation state (described as ‘the most powerful, and currently for the World the most dangerous, entity fostering the identification of differences between peoples’), he calls for ‘world consciousness’, considering that ‘no human is irredeemably beyond the potential for some precocious sense of world-consciousness’. An admirable sentiment definitely, but how is that world consciousness to be achieved? Via some kind of ‘global governance’ body, he suggests, perhaps based on the United Nations, where representatives from different nations will get together and agree on a way of organising the world and its resources so as to eliminate armed conflict and the threat of it. The problem of course is that the United Nations is already meant to do that in theory, but it doesn’t – and can’t –, because the foremost obstacle to it is the very existence of the ‘elites’ the author talks about in each individual country and their monopoly of the wealth that they possess and seek to retain or increase via the working of their national executive committees, ie, governments.

The author does, however, glimpse a solution that could work on a world-scale when he talks about ‘the actual engagement of mass populations as a necessary precondition’ to get rid of ‘hegemonic economic competition’ and achieve ‘co-operation and peaceful co-existence’. But that will involve something this book doesn’t mention, that is an understanding by those ‘mass populations’ of the way current society, capitalism, operates and the need to change that by mass political action, democratically and ideally via the ballot box, to create a moneyless, wageless, stateless society, a society of the ‘inter-group co-operation’ the book advocates. That will truly be ‘world consciousness’ and, no matter what the author of this book, which is well-meaning and for the most part entirely admirable, would like to happen, it cannot come through some kind of moral agreement by some global body within the current system.

Howard Moss

World Government is not Socialism (1954)

From the October 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard 

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

History of World Government Movements

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

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

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

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

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

Their Policies

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

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

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

The Crusade for World Govemment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stan Parker

The United Nations and Power Politics (1953)

Book Review from the April 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Towards the end of the last war when the United Nations Organisation first hit the headlines, many war-weary workers turned hopeful eyes towards this colossus which bestrode the world and was pledged to many high ideals, including the termination of all war. The older generation of workers recalled the League of Nations, its lofty aims and resolutions, puny performance and ignominious collapse. U.N.O., however, seemed a more promising infant than the.League; the size and sweep of its conception to include all nations, large and small in a combined bid for “Peace” seemed to thousands of workers a power for good. It developed with much publicity and hatched out an awe inspiring number of off-spring in the shape of various; Councils, Committees and Associations: Specialised Agencies were linked to it on a basis of mutual help: International bodies worked in conjunction with it. The Secretariat alone (known as the World Civil Service) employs 3,000 office workers.

The Charter (1945) setting forth the aims of the organisation is over-flowing with resolutions for international peace and security, friendly relations among nations, and international co-operation in solving international problems. (Article 1.) In addition to this somewhat long-winded Charter, a “Declaration of human rights ” was published in December, 1948, by tile U.N. Association at Paris.

Sad to relate, since the inception of this vast and complicated body with its avowed intention of establishing peace, wars of varying degrees and intensity have been and still are, raging. The cumbersome machinery of U.N.O., dodders and creaks along to the sound of gunfire in sundry parts of the globe. The troops in S. Korea fight under the title of U.N. Forces. This and the state of tension between the Western Bloc and U.S.S.R. makes mock of the high-sounding hypocritical phrases of the Charter.

The book now under review “The United Nations and Power Politics” is by John Maclaurin, publishers George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London, 1951. It is a large book (450 pages) and deals comprehensively

not only with the functioning of U.N.O., but gives detailed and graphic accounts of various problems which have come before the Organisation, some dealt with successfully according to its lights, but in most cases a dismal record of outright failure. We read of the deeply rooted animosities between the delegates of the great powers; their hypocrisy, and “holier than thou” attitude towards each other; the vetos. adjournments, juggling for advantage; the strange bedfellows who come together when policy dictates and when there is an axe to grind. Maclaurin says that many delegates show little respect for the purposes of U.N.O., by their verbal sparring, sarcasm and scoring off each other. Tribute is paid to much good work done by the supplementary organisations such as the Food and Agricultural Organisation, World Health Organisation and many others.

The delegates of the smaller nations show up in a more favourable light, probably because they have not such a large stake in world affairs. In 1949 at the 4th Session of the General Assembly a feeling of revolt developed among the delegates of the smaller powers over the worsening relations between U.S., U.K., and Russia. The Syrian delegate, Mr. El Khouri, denounced the cold war in biting terms and suggested that the small nations should get together and form a third camp, thus holding the balance in their hands.

“When questions arise that do not closely touch the political and economic objectives of a government it will turn them over to a delegate whose heart is in the question, contenting itself with very general instructions and leaving the delegate a large measure of freedom.” It is repeatedly demonstrated that the nations work together amicably on humanitarian and relief matters but come to grief over power politics. Regarding U.N.R.R.A. (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) Maclaurin says there was good co-operation between the governments and technicians, so long as political and “grab” motives were absent.

On 5th April, 1949, the General Assembly of U.N.O. opened its session in New York one day after the Atlantic pact was signed, a pact which splits the world into two armed camps and makes nonsense of the Organisation’s undertaking that all nations shall combine to ensure peace. Maclaurin quotes the American Daily News of 4-4-49. “With the adoption of the North Atlantic Pact, the last reason for the United Nations’ existence will vanish ... The U.S. State Department is bellowing that the pact is strictly within the U.N. framework and will strengthen that organisation. The U.S.S.R. is staying in the U.N.O. instead of hauling out and urging a painless end to the U.N’s miserable existence.”

Many of the disputes brought before the Security Council, such as Israel and Indonesia, dragged on week, in and week out while fighting raged, in spite of “ resolutions ” calling on the combatants to cease fire.

In his concluding chapters, the author reviews the world position and the “ drift to war.” Regarding the Western Bloc’s design to “contain Russian expansion,” he says, “ With the stock-pile of atom bombs, the huge navy, the fleets of bombers, the air bases ringing the U.S.S.R., the 500 odd military bases of all sorts on the territories of other people, the military alliances, inter alia closing the Baltic and Mediterranean, it is certainly difficult to distinguish containing Russia from expanding American military dominance . . . American military, political and economic might has expanded over the earth to an extent hitherto unknown in history.”

He touches on the “balance of power” doctrine which, he says, is inevitably interpreted by its advocates as “balance in my favour... and has led in the past is leading in the present and will lead in the future to the armaments race and the scramble for political supremacy . . . and the outcome is war.”

The fostering of nationalism inflames nations against one another. Maclaurin says “There is a magic phrase that serves our governments as armour served the Knights of old, both for armaments and defence. The phrase is National interests.”

He writes of the “little man’s revolt” and says the world’s unease stems from two sources: “The revolt of the oppressed and the economic and political rivalries of the direct and indirect rulers of nation states.” Here we part company finally with the author for he suggests that the machinery of U.N.O. is suitable for world government, the only way out of the present impasse. This is anticlimax with a vengeance after reading bow ineffective and restricted the machinery is, and how it can be, and is, perverted in pursuit of cold war aims. Even if U.N.O. were a united world organisation and able to take over world government, the two conflicts would still remain, i.e., enmity between capitalist groups, and enmity between the “ haves ” and “ have nots.” If the latter conflict were resolved by an enlightened working class movement establishing socialism, the former conflict would automatically cease to exist, and wars would be a thing of the past.

In conclusion we may say, the author has a lively style of writing which helps us over some of the dull patches, he weighs the motives of the great powers and slates them all impartially. (It is difficult to detect but there is an impression of a very slight bias in favour of U.S.S.R.) His remarks are uncompromising and trenchant and he obviously has no delusions regarding the objectives of the great powers in the game of power politics.

F. M. Robins

Fallacies of Federal Union. (continued) (1940)

From the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

Federal Union and War

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

Briefly stated, these are the conclusions we reached : —

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

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

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

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

Prosperity—But for Whom ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less Taxation—What Then ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of Movement

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

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

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

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

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

Who is Free?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warnings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clifford Allen

Fallacies of Federal Union. (1940)

From the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Warning to the Workers

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

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

Federal Union—A Dangerous Utopia

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

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

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

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

Why Federal Union Will Not Work

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

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

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

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

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

Wars are the result of these conflicting interests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Blind Alley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clifford Allen

Link to Part 2.

Fixing the System (2020)

Book Review from the May 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Internationalism or Extinction. By Noam Chomsky Routledge. 2020.

At the age of 91 Noam Chomsky is still writing, speaking and campaigning. This latest book, containing material both spoken and written between 2016-19, has as its theme the idea that society as currently constituted faces imminent extinction from the twin threats of nuclear war and climate change. The remedy he argues is ‘internationalism’, seen as people the world over ‘mobilising to force governments to meets this unprecedented challenge to civilization’s survival’.

His case against the profit system of capitalism is a powerful one. Capitalism is seen as ‘penetrating every part of society with the passions of self-interest and profit and breaking down community and the common good’ and as ‘an intertwined sociopathic system of money-making, militarism and environmental destruction now threatening the survival of all life itself’. To overcome this he calls in this book for a universalised movement of activism and resistance from below to force governments to take a different path and even to bring about ‘world government’ as conceived for example by Albert Einstein in 1945.

The focus therefore is upon people getting together to put pressure on their governments through campaigns of many different kinds since ‘systems of organized power… will not take appropriate action… unless they are compelled to do so by constant, dedicated popular mobilization and activism’. However, while being an advocate of single-issue campaigns, he also shows awareness that this has its limits and, sometimes at least, seems to recognise that the threats to humanity posed by the profit system cannot seriously be addressed until consciousness of the need to change society completely is widespread, with its success depending on ‘the steady hard work of developing consciousness and understanding’. He does not see that happening quickly, however, when, in the US for example, a significant proportion of the population are, in his words, ‘ either culturally traditional or pre-modern’ and, for example, either deny global warming or, even if they accept it, do not accept it is happening through human agency.

Two points are worth making here about the way Chomsky approaches his subject. First, despite the ‘internationalism’ in the book’s title, he puts overly strong emphasis on the US and its problems, almost as though this were the single important issue facing the world. Secondly, despite the book’s references to the need to develop understanding as a means of bringing about a radically changed society, the overall emphasis is on single issues with ‘grassroots’ movements such as Extinction Rebellion and Earth Strike mentioned favourably and the hope expressed that such movements can pursue ‘intersectionality and solidarity’ and can be ‘articulated and intertwined with the struggle against extinction’.

In all this, unfortunately, though there is much talk of the need for enhanced democracy, there is no mention anywhere of the democratic world society of free access without governments, without money and wages, without leaders and led, which, even if it may not be imminent, is the only way to effectively transcend capitalist society. While it is impossible not to admire Chomsky for the lifetime of support he has dedicated to ‘progressive’ causes and for his uncompromising opposition to the status quo, the fact is that capitalism provides an unending procession of immediate issues, and with each one a crop of ‘realists’ who argue that their own pressing problem must be tackled first.

It is true that Chomsky, in his lifelong activism, does at times appear to have seen beyond this. In Manufacturing Consent (1988), for example, he says: ‘Presupposing that there have to be states is like saying, what kind of feudal system should we have that would be the best one? What kind of slavery would be the best kind?’ Even more tantalising was his youthful statement that: ‘A democratic revolution would take place when it is supported by the great mass of the people, when they know what they are doing and they know why they are doing it and they know what they want to see come into existence… A revolution is something that great masses of people have to understand and be personally committed to’. Unfortunately there is none of that here and no indication that Chomsky sees that the causes he espouses, even if successful, would amount to any more than a rearrangement of the capitalist system rather than a new and fundamentally different kind of society to replace that system. In the end, attempts to adjust capitalism according to humane criteria are doomed to failure. Without a clear alternative to capitalism, opposition to the way it works and oppresses leads nowhere.

Howard Moss

World Administration: A Framework for Socialism? (1970)

From the August 1970 issue of the Socialist Standard

World government is an idea most people understand. Indeed, if science fiction books and comics are anything to go by, most people expect it to come sooner or later. Even though people expect world organisation to take the form either of a world dictatorship or of a federation of national governments they are still treating the world as one unit. This is a way of thinking we Socialists want to encourage. We do not stand for world government (we are opposed to governments everywhere) but for, to adapt a phrase, a world administration of things — the planned production and distribution of wealth on a world scale to meet human needs.

We have always understood the change-over from capitalist government to socialist administration to involve the capture ‘by a socialist-minded working class of the various national governments of the world to be followed by the dismantling of the coercive features of the old government machines but the retention, in adapted form, of some of the non-coercive technical functions now exercised by governments. In Britain, for instance, some of the functions of the Ministry of Transport or the Post Office might be retained insofar as they concern the technical side of communications.

Equally this could be done on the international scene. There is not as yet (if ever there is, which is unlikely) a world government but there is the United Nations Organisation a body which has in primitive form some of the features of this and which the advocates of world government want to see developed further. Just as on the national scale some of the institutions of the capitalist government machine could be adapted and used as part of the new socialist administration, so on the world scale could some of the institutions of the UN.

The UN was set up by the victorious powers in the second world war at a conference in San Francisco in 1945. Socialists have no illusions about the UN; we know full well that the expressive phrase that used to be used of the League of Nations — “the League of Bandits” — applies equally to the UN. It is a league of the various governments of the world at which most ruling classes are represented (the most notable exceptions being those of West Germany, Japan and state capitalist China). It is a body which serves the interests of the big powers, and especially America. It is only with their support, not to say their manoeuvring, that its meagre coercive powers, its so-called peace-keeping force, are used.

However the UN is more than the Security Council, its talking-shop General Assembly and its troops in blue helmets. It also has an Economic and Social Committee to which are responsible a number of bodies known as the “specialized agencies of the UN”. Most people are familiar with some of these without perhaps knowing they had anything to do with the UN — the FAO, WHO, ILO, IMF and World Bank, to name a few. These agencies are concerned with gathering information and giving advice in their respective fields, though some of them play a vital regulatory role as well.

Nine of these agencies could perhaps be adapted to play a part in the socialist administration of the world. They fall into two categories: those needed even in a capitalist world to regulate international communications (a further proof that we do have one world now under capitalism) and those which are essentially world advisory and statistical services in various fields.

Into the first category come:

1. The International Telecommunications Union, originally set up in 1865 to ensure an orderly telecommunications network.
2. The Universal Postal Union (1874), set up to ensure the orderly distribution throughout the world of letters and parcels.
3. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) regulates international air traffic allowing regular scheduled flights; it also promotes standardised technical equipment.
4. The Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO) plays a similar role with regard to ocean shipping.
5. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) gathers and disseminates information on the world’s weather.

These organisations could play a basically similar role in world socialist society. Their significance for Socialist propaganda today is that they show that capitalism itself is already a world system and that it has to set up certain world organisations to deal with matters that can only be dealt with on a world scale.

The other bodies, besides collecting and disseminating information, are also involved in the economic development (albeit under capitalist conditions) of the so-called backward parts of the world:

6. The International Labour Organisation (1LO) deals with working conditions and training.
7. The United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) deals mainly with education and eradicating illiteracy.
8. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
9. The World Health Organisation (WHO) deals mainly with health hazards.

In addition there is one other relevant UN body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is concerned with the peaceful uses of atomic energy, but also has a political role insofar as it aims to preserve the monopoly of nuclear weapons of the big three powers (sometimes called preventing the spread of nuclear weapons).

In the UN, then, there are ten bodies concerned with postal services, communications, air transport, ocean shipping, the weather, labour, education, agriculture and health which could form the basis of institutions for controlling these matters on a world scale in socialist society.

It is true that none of these bodies is involved in the actual production of wealth and that the more directly economic UN bodies — the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs — are more concerned with finance and commerce (which would have no place in Socialism). But some of the information which even these have gathered could be useful for planning production on a world scale to meet human needs. Planning in a socialist society, remember, will be essentially a statistical exercise, correlating estimated human needs with known world resources.

In the specialized agencies of the UN (and in the administrative networks of the growing number of trans-national corporations) the basic framework for a world administration already exists. It only remains for the workers of the world to realise this and to organise to take it over for the benefit of all mankind.

Adam Buick

Flights of Fancy (1964)

Book Review from the July 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

To The Keepers of the Slaughterhouse, by Walter Gore. Mitre Press, 14s.

This book consists of two short stories—“Novellas” the publisher calls them —which are “. . . addressed to all those who think that fundamental problems may be settled, once and for all, by the application of violence.” The theme of the first story is not new. The world has become divided into two massive armed camps, each under the domination of a military clique although ostensibly governed democratically. Eventually they go to war and the result is the obliteration of the human race by nuclear weapons. Not quite, though, because somehow about six dozen people manage to survive on one or two islands miles from anywhere, and start the painful job of reconstructing their lives and the rebuilding of humanity.

Well, it is a distinct possibility. The destructive power of nuclear bombs is massive, but in putting the proposition, the author has ignored some rather important facts. First of all, the military do not exist as a separate entity, answerable to no one but themselves. The capitalist class of this and other major powers have long ago brought the armed forces firmly under governmental control. Even the popular General Macarthur found this when he urged the use of atomic warfare against China during the Korean War and was promptly recalled by President Truman.

Then again, never has the fate of the world depended on the maniacal whims of a single man (Field Marshal Van. Rogen, Chief of Staff of one of the armed camps in the story), and there is no evidence to suggest that it ever will be, never mind the contrary propaganda with which we have been assailed from time to time when it suited our masters. Admittedly a short story cannot cover every point, but Mr. Gore has left far too many gaps in his narrative for us to take it all that seriously. The prospect of any war, big or little, nuclear or conventional, is a horrifying one, but when we have said this we have not said anything very original. Modern war is capitalist society in conflict, not just a few high-ranking, trigger-happy brasshats in the Pentagon or Kremlin. If the author could even have hinted at that, his book would have been of more value.

His second story is a bit more off the ground than the first. A sort of modern Noah’s Ark tale. A space expedition reaches a far distant planet and finds a form of conscious plant life. That is to say, the beings have similar shaped bodies and move around just like humans, but are constructed of plant matter, not animal protein. It is an entirely non violent society yet it plans to destroy the human race, which is regarded as a threat to its existence. So the space travellers hurry back to earth to warn us of the approaching disaster.

Quite honestly, we find it hard to take any part in this one seriously, despite vaguely expressed ideas earlier on about “international cooperation’’ and “world government." The write-up on the dust cover assures us of the author’s ' . . . numbing bitterness against the social forces around him, awakening to the discovery that if man is to cope with those forces he must first carefully study their nature." Fine. But what is their nature? Socialists have grasped the answer to that one. and we gladly offer Mr. Gore the benefit of what knowledge we have, for we realise the vital urgency of the task before us. First of all, however, let us keep our mental rockets firmly in orbit, and not lose control of them in far off flights of fancy.

Eddie Critchfield

Food for Thought (1948)

From the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

During his directorship of the United Nations' Food and Agriculturist Organisation Sir John Boyd Orr won the approval of many people for his work in organising the supply or food to the devastated countries of Europe. Since his retirement from that post he has been tackling the problem of food production for all the peoples of the world. His approach is the direct one; his ideals mere wishful thinking, because conflicting interests in capitalist society, national and international, permit of no direct methods for the provision of a full life for all. 

Among many other things he said (Daily Herald, 29/7/48):

A world of peace and friendship, a world with the plenty which modern science had made possible was a great ideal. But those in power had no patience with such an ideal. They said it was not practical politics.

Within the structure of capitalism it is possible that the politicians are right. Inside the nation a capitalist is guaranteed protection while accumulating wealth by exploitation, providing he observes the rules of the game. Between nations the case is different. The right to trade, to colonise, and to have access to raw materials and natural resources outside their own boundaries must be wangled, bluffed or taken by force of arms. A nation having taken possession can only hold its gains by superior strength. Consequently it is futile to suggest, as Sir John does that: 

If half the effort being spent making tanks, guns. aeroplanes or atomic bombs was diverted to producing the primary necessities of life, gross poverty would be eliminated for the world within the lifetime of our children.

For each nation to cut its fighting forces by half, to convince the governments of all nations of such a necessity, while each is suspicious of its neighbours and scheming to over-reach them, such an idea is, to say the least, laughable. Moreover, Sir John only suggests a reduction in armed strength—or equipment—by half. Even he could hardly visualise capitalism being run without armed forces to deal with dissatisfied sections of the workers from time to time. 

Next Sir John says: 

A world government may evolve from the United Nations' Food, Economic, Financial and other organisations.

But he gives no hint as to which nation will be at the head. Nor does he show how the differences between nations can be reconciled to bring about collaboration in a common policy that would be of lasting benefit to the workers. He says: "Politics was but the shadow of economics" but overlooks the fact that all the power is in political control of armed force. Those who control the political machinery of any nation make the laws designed to regulate production and exchange; and by tariffs, taxes and subsidies encourage or hinder trade in the various industries according to the interests they represent. 

In one of his broadcasts Sir John suggested that the agriculturists and food producers of the world should get together and tackle the problem of world food production by mutual agreement, on the principle that they are the actual people concerned with the production of these commodities. But the very fact that these people are concerned with commodity production makes them suspect. In the past such collaboration between the captains of industry has invariably resulted in limitation, or restriction of output in order to control prices in their own interests. Rings and combines are just as common among agriculturists as other interests. They are not philanthropists but capitalists, in business to make profits. They hold the community to ransom whenever their products fall behind demand. In the past they burned millions of tons of wheat and coffee. Even since the war vegetables have been ploughed back into the soil, fruit has been allowed to rot, and hundreds of tons of fish thrown back into the sea or sold as manure to keep up prices. 

But Sir John still has hopes, in spite of the callous indifference to the needs of the people that is so prominent a feature in the normal life of those with guaranteed incomes derived from industrial enterprise, or to be exact, exploitation. He says: 

These United Nations' organisations throw a light along the road to world peace and plenty . . .  Have we the common sense, the decency, the moral purpose to follow the light? 

Unfortunately these qualities have little or nothing to do with the question. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Sir John hasn't even mapped out a road to his Utopia; while facing him is the inexorable machinery of capitalist finance and power-politics, blind and deaf to common-sense appeals, in their lust for power. 

Then:

If the decision lay with the people, he had no doubt what the answer would be. Where they had not been too bedevilled to think for themselves, they all wanted the things the organisation stood for. 

To bedevil means to confuse, and the vast majority of the workers are in a hopeless muddle of confused thinking on political and economic questions. The class that appropriates the major portion of the wealth produced, without contributing towards its production, must be deeply interested in obscuring the method by which it is achieved. The majority of capitalists are, no doubt, quite ignorant of the scientific explanation of surplus value. Yet they all know that the system in some way guarantees them wealth and privilege without effort on their part. Consequently they welcome any theory that keeps clear of this fact, and encourage any shallow, but plausible ideas that only deal with day-to-day occurrences on the surface of capitalist events, This flood of bedevilment is a free-for-all. Politicians, economists and journalists all take a hand, many of them finding it pays extremely well; especially the politicians. The so-called Labour, Fabian and Communist parties are responsible for much of the confusion.

Next Sir John says: 

The carrying out of a world food plan alone would bring a great expansion of world industry and trade such as occurred in the 19th century. 

That possibility should certainly gain capitalist support for Sir John, because the more work there is for the workers, the greater the amount of surplus value from which capitalist incomes are derived, while the workers still only get wages that barely cover their cost of living. But Sir John overlooks one important factor. During the 19th century Britain had a flying start in the race for markets. Today every capitalist country is in the race, and the share of each will diminish with the ever-increasing fierceness of the international race for markets. 

"If food production could not be doubled in the next 25 years," warned Sir John, "we were heading for disaster." Due presumably, to the estimated enormous increase in the world's population on top of tbe present food shortage. We are not told the nature of the disaster that threatens, but unlike Malthus, who visualised the time when there would only be standing room on the earth, Sir John reveals the forces already operating to avert the disaster—whatever it is—when he says: 

Of every three families in the world today, two suffered premature death for lack of adequate food and shelter. 

Sir John may hope that a world government might set a limit to the process. But such a government, especially by agreement, is just a dream, while world government by conquest is a nightmare even to the capitalist and his political stooges. 

Next he says: 

The first right of man was food and shelter to maintain life. The masses today demanded this. And they would get it because they were in a vast majority.

Not merely because they are in a majority, nor because they demand them, will they get these things. They have first to understand why they lack them now. At present the workers, between them, possess all the scientific and technical knowledge, and actually carry out all the work of production and distribution. Their failure to satisfy the needs of all is due to the incubus of trade, commerce and finance; the capitalist machinery of appropriation, that limits production to what the market can absorb. The workers must get rid of this incubus. To do so they must organise politically as a class, in opposition to all parties which maintain the present system. Only when they control the political machinery through their delegates, pledged to carry out the wishes of the workers, will they be enabled to control production and distribution in accordance with their needs. 

One of the greatest obstacles to a clear understanding of their position by the workers, is the bedevilment, or confusion, much of it considered and deliberate, referred to by Sir John Boyd Orr. However laudable his ideals and aspirations his assumption that they can be realised by a world government of capitalists is a false and dangerous fallacy. It is the working-class that suffers under capitalism, and it is only by the conscious and organised efforts of that class that emancipation can be achieved.

F. Foan