September 1914, U.K.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nAs we went to Press with our last issue, but too late for us to deal \nwith the events in our pages, the great capitalist States of Europe were\n flinging declarations of war at each other and rushing in frenzied \nhaste to the long-expected and carefully prepared for Armageddon.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nWhen we say that this mad conflict has been long expected and \nwell-prepared for we make a statement which is almost trite. However \nmuch the masters of Europe may have tried to hide the underlying causes \nand objects of their military preparations, they have never taken any \npains to conceal the fact that they were arming against “the day”, and \nthat “the day” was inevitable. Miles of paper and tons of printing ink \nhave been used in the various countries in order to disseminate among \nthe “common” people\u2014i.e., the working class\u2014explanations calculated to \nfix the blame on other shoulders. In each country voluminous “exposures”\n have been made of the villainous machinations of the “foreigner”, \nalways in such deep contrast to the Christian innocence of the exposers.\n But so far have any of the chief parties ever been from disguising the \ninevitability of the event they have been arming for, that they have \nused these very “exposures” to obtain the assent of public opinion to \nthe race for armaments and the preparations for wholesale slaughter.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nHowever hard our masters may try to cover their actions with the \ntattered and slimy cloak of “national honour” like slobbering and \nsentimental frauds, and however a politically and economically ignorant \nworking class may applaud and echo these sentiments as if in an effort \nto hide from themselves brutal facts of which they are conscious and \nashamed, there remains the obstinate truth, obvious to anyone who will \ngo out into the streets and listen to what is there said, that even the \nworking class realise that the motive for the war is in the last resort \nan economic one. Behind the covering screen of cant about British honour\n and German perfidy is the consciousness, frequently voiced, that it is a\n question, not of German perfidy but of German trade; not of British \nhonour, but of wider markets for the disposal of British surplus \nproducts.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nMilitary history of the past fifty years shows Britain, for example, to \nhave gained control of sea trade routes, and the best markets of the \nworld. At the same time it has been the policy of her statesmen to take \nup a repressive attitude towards the aspirations of all possible rivals.\n Hence the Crimea was fought in order to prevent Russia establishing \nherself on the trade routes to the East. Since then every endeavour has \nbeen made to prevent Russia getting an outlet to the sea through a port \nfree from the ice grip in winter, and from the oppression of commanding \nforts of rival nations. This antagonism continued until the Japanese put\n a stopper on Russian hopes in the East, and other jealous eyes were \nwatching her nearer home.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nNow took place a change of policy\u2014or rather, a change in the direction \nof the old policy. A new rival had come to ripeness. And here we come to\n the drivel about national “honour”.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nFirst, a treaty with Japan releases the larger part of the British Naval\n forces in the Far East. Then an arrangement with France transfers the \nFrench Fleet to the Mediterranean, and clears the way for the \nconcentration of the British Fleet in Home waters.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nNow these facts are matters of history, and allow of no dispute. \nTherefore it is quite plain that so far was it from being any question \nof honour which impelled the British Government to range themselves on \nthe side of France, that they had deliberately planned the present \nsituation years ago.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nTherefore when Sir Ed. Grey came before the British House of Commons and\n declared that it was simply a point of honour for the British Fleet to \ndefend the Northern coast of France he spoke with his tongue in his \ncheek. It was not honour but just cut and dried policy. A man so \ncompletely versed in these matters as is Sir Edward Grey must have known\n that there could have been no such qualified neutrality as this. In the\n face of such an attitude as this not only was the Northern coast of \nFrance protected from German attack, but her Southern shore and her \nFleet in the Mediterranean also; for the German Fleet dared not put to \nsea for fear of being cut off by the British ships and caught in a trap.\n Meanwhile German shipping was to be at the mercy of the French and the \nlatter left to transport troops from their African colonies without a \ncare in the world.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nAs far as effecting the course of the war goes England could do very \nlittle more. If Germany was to be strangled at sea by a “neutral” nation\n who could not strike very hard on land, then Germany had but little \nmore to fear from flouting that nation’s “love” for Belgium. And this is\n so very obvious that it must have been plain to those who entered into \nthe arrangement with France by which the defence of the French coasts \nwas shouldered by the British Navy. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThat arrangement was no secret to Germany, and its purpose and object \nmust have been perfectly clear to them. It meant that, under the guise \nof neutrality, perhaps, the British naval force was to be thrown into \nthe scale against Germany. How would this affect the situation of \nBelgium? The very foundation of the treaty to respect the independence \nof Belgium was the assumption that when either France or Germany should \nattempt to use Belgium as a jumping off ground against the other, it \nwould be at the cost of arraigning Britain on the opposing side\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nBut years before the war broke out the British Fleet was placed at the \ndisposal of France, under a cunning arrangement that could not possibly \ndeceive those against whom it was directed, and on whom the \nresponsibility of meeting it fell. All they had to consider, then, in \nmaking their plans, was whether the British Naval force against them, \nand the rapidity of action more than ever necessary by reason of their \nstrangulation at sea, the employment of the British Expeditionary force \nagainst them was too dear a price to pay for the advantages of a passage\n through Belgium. Whether the German military authorities blundered or \nnot, they decided to take the risk.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThere is no escaping, then, from the conclusion that British statesmen \ndeliberately planned some years ago to place the country in such a \nposition that the outbreak of the war must inevitably have involved both\n the participation of Britain and the invasion of Belgium. So much, \nthen, for the canting reference to honour and the preservation of the \nindependence of small nations\u2014such as the Boers, for instance!\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nIt is not for us to say that there is anything to be ashamed of in \nadmitting that the war has an economic basis. It is certainly more \nhonest than throwing it back upon such humbug as the “honour of the \nBritish nation”. But it has this disadvantage in the eyes of the ruling \nclass\u2014it leaves this clear issue facing the working class (who are to do\n the fighting): what economic advantage are they going to gather as the \nreward of the blood they spill, the lives they sacrifice, and the \nmiseries they endure through this most ghastly of all ghastly wars?\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nTo this question their masters have but one reply, and that is based on \nan economic fallacy. They say that as a result of humbling Germany \nBritish trade will expand and there will be plenty of work for \neverybody. Only so long as the ruling class can maintain the belief in \nthis fallacy among the working class can they hope to get working-class \nsupport for their wars. The old “bull dog breed” brand of “patriotism” \nis nearly dead\u2014as the War Office recognised when, in their great \nrecruiting campaign of a few months ago, they abandoned their time-worn \npolicy of trying to convince the worker that he has a “glorious \nheritage” to fight for, and appealed to him on the ground that civil \nlife had such poor prospects to offer him that he would be better off in\n the Army.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe contention that the crushing of Germany would lead to the extension \nof British trade and plenty of work for the British worker is plausible \nand perhaps partly true. British trade may certainly expand, but then \nthe curious thing is that expansion is its normal condition, yet \nunemployment accompanies the unceasing growth of “Britain’s prosperity”.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nExtracts from two Government publications will knock the bottom clean \nout of the argument that the expansion of British trade necessarily \nmeans less unemployment for British workers.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe 55th No. of the Statistical Abstract (Cd. 4258) published in 1908, gives the following information (p. 69):<\/p>\n\n\n\n
| \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1897<\/td> | \t\t1907<\/td><\/tr> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \nTotal exports of the United Kingdom<\/td> | \t\t\u00a3234,219,708<\/td> | \u00a3426,035,083<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \nProportion per head of population<\/td> | \t\t \u00a35 17s 2d<\/td> | \t \u00a39 13s 3d<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n(The figures refer to the produce of the United Kingdom only.)\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nIn ten years, it will be seen, the total exports of home produce almost \ndoubled, and even as regards proportion to population, jumped up from \n\u00a329 5s 10d. to \u00a348 6s 3d. per family of five people. Now what was the \nresult upon unemployment? Has this gigantic increase in the national \nexports provided “plenty of work”?\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nThe Local Government Board’s Statistical Memoranda Cd 4671 tells us that\n the average unemployment among Trade Unions making returns was in 1897,\n 3.65; in 1907, 4.3.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nSo we arrive at the result, fatal to the argument that the seizure of \nGermany’s trade must mean “plenty of work for the British worker”, that \nthis vast increase of exports which took place in a single decade, was \nactually accompanied by an increase of unemployment. The reason for this\n is very simple. It is due to that unceasing improvement in machinery \nwhich is constantly making human productive energy more fertile and \nenabling each worker to produce more wealth in a given time.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nNow what would be the effect of Great Britain capturing a large portion \nof Germany’s export trade? The capitalist economists say that it would \nresult in the absorption of the unemployed. Suppose we accept that, even\n then what is the position?\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nOne of the first effects of a decrease in unemployment is the rise of \nwages, as is indicated from the Local Government’s Board’s Cd. 4671 (p. \n44):<\/p>\n\n\n\n
|