The Passing Show

Hay while the Sun Shines
Recent events in Indo-China have provided an interesting object-lesson in the game of power politics as it is played in the middle of the 20th century. The protagonists have been the French Government on the one hand and the native rulers of Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia on the other.

The Viet-Minh forces first crossed the boundary separating Viet Nam, to which they had previously confined their operations, and Laos, on or about April 13th. One of the disturbing features, from the French point of view, was that a number of Laotians joined in the fighting on the side of the rebels. The king of Cambodia, which is the third of the Indo-Chinese States, lost no time in pointing the moral. On his way home from Paris on April 19th, he gave an interview in New York, and complained about the powers of the French over the Cambodian judiciary, armed forces and economy generally. Unless the French took immediate steps towards granting “more independence to Cambodia” there was a real danger that the Cambodians would go over to Viet-Minh, he said. The French ruling class was more hurt than aggrieved at this open threat, if we may believe M. Letoumeau, the Minister for the Associated States. On April 22nd he said that “I am bound to state, with all the responsibility which rests on me, that the independence of Cambodia has been granted fully and without reservation.” What, then, were French forces doing in Cambodia? Why, they were there merely to “watch over the independence of the Cambodian people,” said M. Letoumeau.

The Imperialists Misunderstood
On the same day decrees were issued in Paris under which the French Commissioners in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia were to be called High Commissioners in future; this move was said by the French to confirm the independence granted to these States within the French Union. On April 27th the French Commander-in-Chief in Indo-China, General Salan, issued a statement that “ the Indo-Chinese war was not always well understood.” General Salan was convinced that, “when doubts in the minds of the people of Viet Nam and of Cambodia about the nature of the independence that France had granted to these nations were cleared up, the threat of terrorism and the effect of propaganda would lose their power ” But two days later the Cambodian Prime Minister, unimpressed by the fact that he would now be able to take his orders from a High Commissioner instead of from a mere Commissioner, said that if France did not grant the Cambodian demands, the people would answer the call of the rebels and Cambodia would be lost to the French. Meanwhile, the native ruling class in Viet Nam had been making similar representations to the French, and on May 8th M. Letoumeau gave an “assurance, in the name of the French Government, that no initiative will be taken and no agreement made by France in any question concerning Viet Nam, or generally affecting the future of Indo-China, without first consulting and obtaining the formal agreement of the Viet Namese Government.”

Danger Past
But when this promise was given, events had already taken a turn which made it unnecessary. On May 7th it was reported that the Viet-Minh forces had begun to withdraw. And on May 10th the French Government, without asking anyone’s advice, announced the devaluation of the Indo-Chinese piastre from 17 French francs to 10. This drew strong protests from the Government of Laos and from the Prime Minister of Viet Nam, who said that devaluation would dislocate the economy of the country. So far, no French official spokesman has come forward to explain how this unilateral decision is consonant with the independence that is supposed to have been granted to the Indo-Chinese States; the official line is simply that the French treaties with the Associated States allow the French Government to act by itself in matters of this kind. Now that the external danger has disappeared, at least temporarily, there is no longer any need to represent the native ruling circles in Indo-China as free from French control. But if the Viet-Minh forces advance again when the rainy season has ended, we may see the whole shabby play revived for a further performance.

New Jerseys
Mr. Donnelly, the Labour M.P. for Pembroke, is concerned at the rumours in the Labour Party that “public ownership” would in future take the form of the acquisition of majority shareholdings. He said recently that “the Labour Party rank and file will say, ‘This is not Socialism, it is State Capitalism, it is the same team in New Jersey’s’.” Mr. Donnelly is right to be disturbed. Clearly the buying up of the majority of shares in any business by the State is not Socialism, nor has it anything to do with Socialism. But what essential difference is there between this form of State Capitalism and the form known as nationalisation ? In the former, as in the latter, the shareholders would be compensated with interest-bearing State-bonds, the workers would be allowed no voice in the running of the industry and would continue to be exploited, and the first concern would still be production for profit, not for use. If Mr. Donnelly wishes to convince us that, in spite of everything, he is a Socialist, he will have to follow up this statement with another one denouncing nationalisation in the same terms.

To Keep Operations on an Economic Basis
The real nature of nationalisation seems to be understood more clearly in India, where the Government recently introduced a Bill to nationalise the airlines. As reported in the British press, the Minister for Communications, in his introductory speech, made no pretence that this would be an advance for “Socialism,” nor did he allege that the workers in the industry would derive any benefit from the move. He advocated the change solely on the ground that the impending need to replace Dakotas in the services run by Indian air companies by more modern and expensive aircraft would need resources beyond the command of individual companies. To employ these new aircraft, and thus keep operations on an economic basis, “would be possible only if the present large number of operating units were substantially reduced,” he said. Thus State industry was presented in its true light as an amalgamation of independent companies made necessary by the demands of 20th-century capitalism, and carried out for precisely the same reasons that lead private capitalists to form corporations, monopolies and cartels on their own initiative.

Freedom for the Few
The granting of independence to India, Pakistan and Ceylon in the years immediately following the war was hailed by the Labour Party as a great step forward. Socialists were unable to see that the substitution of one ruling class for another would be of any advantage to the workers. It was obvious that capitalism would continue, as it must, until the great majority of workers understand and want Socialism. And Socialists believed that political and social injustices, which have their origin in and are inseparable from the private property systems of society (although they are modified from country to country by the conditions prevailing locally) would also continue. This view has, in fact, been confirmed.

Tamils and Untouchables
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has approved as being intra vires, legislation passed in Ceylon which has the effect of depriving of the vote a large part of the Indian Tamil community resident there. The particular member of the Tamil community whose case was before them had, in fact, been on the electoral register from 1935 until 1950, when the Act in question was passed. Indian official circles have expressed themselves strongly on the question of this legislation and its discrimination against one part of the community; but in India itself, on April 19th, several members of the House of the People made bitter protests against the continuing practice of untouchability, which is said to affect between seventy and eighty million Indians. One member said: “Mr. Nehru speaks frequently of the condition of Indians in South Africa. But you find South Africa in every village and every nook and comer of India.”

These examples go to show that while a system of society based on private property flourishes, it is useless to try to remove the social injustice which stems from it by reforms like the grant of Dominion status.

Bent on our Destruction
Advertisements are often distasteful. But few advertisements can be so objectionable as advertisements for armaments. The usual technique is followed. First, the consumer must be persuaded that he wants something, and wants it badly; then he must be convinced that the particular company advertising can supply the want he has begun to feel better than its rivals. A large group of aircraft companies has recently been advertising its warplanes in a series of half-page adverts., called “In Defence of Freedom.” It begins by building up the idea that arms are essential, by references to “that wilful group of men bent on our destruction,” and by insisting that “we must build up our strength to the point where no one will dare to attack us.” After five paragraphs of this, the reader is treated to a list of the excellent fighters, bombers, anti-submarine planes and the other instruments of destruction which this particular group is able to supply to cash customers.

A. W. E.