To the brink in Vietnam

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

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

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

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

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

We seize the opportunity to again affirm —

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

H.B.